Japanese Court Misunderstands Autocomplete, Orders Google To Turn It Off To Protect 'Privacy'

TSA Freaks Out, Gets Longtime Critic Bruce Schneier Kicked Off Of Oversight Hearing

from the congressional-security-theater dept

Mon, Mar 26th 2012 4:33pm — Mike Masnick

If you read this site, you probably already know who Bruce Schneier is. We've certainly mentioned the longtime security expert plenty of times. He's been one of the leading vocal critics of "security theater" from the TSA, and therefore a perfectly reasonable counterpoint to the TSA in a hearing by the House Oversight Committee looking into TSA reform. I don't think anyone has thought quite as much about how the TSA could do things better than Bruce Schneier. But, as you can see from the website of the hearing, Schneier was removed from today's hearing:

He didn't get sick or have something better to do. Hell, he didn't even miss a flight. Instead, according to Schneier, the TSA itself had him removed from the panel:

On Friday, at the request of the TSA, I was removed from the witness list. The excuse was that I am involved in a lawsuit against the TSA, trying to get them to suspend their full-body scanner program. But it's pretty clear that the TSA is afraid of public testimony on the topic, and especially of being challenged in front of Congress. They want to control the story, and it's easier for them to do that if I'm not sitting next to them pointing out all the holes in their position. Unfortunately, the committee went along with them.

As Tim Lee notes in reporting on this story, the TSA has done similar things in the past, and even been rebuked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz -- and yet it had no problem doing it again. The fact that Schneier is a part of that lawsuit is meaningless and shouldn't stop him from testifying at all. Schneier is a clear thorn in the side of the TSA, and if it's so afraid of having him speak to Congress, that really says a lot about the (lack of) confidence it has in its own arguments. If you can't stand to let a critic speak, it suggests that perhaps your own argument isn't very strong.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bruce schneier, congress, darrell issa, house oversight committee, security theater, tsa

57 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Alchemist (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 4:44pm

This is a classic example of "House Oversight Theater" or if you are of the British persuasion "House Oversight Theatre".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TechnoMage (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:10pm

What kind of Congress would do that?...
The same kind of congress that wouldn't let a female on a board discussing female health issues.

*le sigh*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:18pm

TSA agents...
...are thieves, pedophiles, and rapists. It's hardly surprising that they don't want to face criticism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:20pm

Actually, it's a pretty reasonable concept. If he wants to fight it out in court, he can wait for his day in court and make his case there.

If he didn't have a pending lawsuit, I am sure there would be no issue.

Sounds more like this guy wants the best of both worlds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:28pm

Re:
Because no one suing an organization could possibly have anything to contribute to a Congressional discussion about that organization's effectiveness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:35pm

Re:
If being party to said lawsuit was reason for removal then shouldn't the TSA reps also have been removed?

The standard should cut both ways, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:36pm

Re: Re:
I think that the risk is that he tries to put something on the record that isn't particularly true, but that he can call into the lawsuit later. Perhaps he will try to evoke comments from the congress critters that can be used out of context, example, to cloud the case.

He decided to sue. He can wait for the courts to get to him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Smarta** (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:38pm

Seriously?
How the hell can TSA stand up against terrorists and murderers slipping through explosives, when they can't even stand up to a critic??? Are they freaking kidding me? Talk about cowards! And these people are "protecting" me?

Why not just hold up a sign to the world reading "Hi! We're TSA. And we're morons. We're such cowards that we can't even stand up to scrutiny or critics."

I don't know what's worse: TSA cowards or stupid politicians who actually allowed this to happen. No wonder the United States is seen by other countries as hypocritical, bullying, and led by morons. What an embarrassment!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
And now we risk him not putting something on the record that is particularly true, which is a much greater risk considering that this is about national policy while his lawsuit is, well, a lawsuit. Worst-case scenario there is that he gets some money that maybe he shouldn't have, where the worst case here is that the TSA continues business-as-usual when it definitely shouldn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:03pm

Re: Re:
I would say not. The TSA is the "receiving" the lawsuit, not pushing it. Further, the TSA is an organization with many employees and staffers. It would seem a little silly to have someone be able to silence all of them by just filing what may in fact be a frivolous lawsuit.

Mr Schneier chose the venue, now he gets to wait his turn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:25pm

Apparently airport security isn't the only thing TSA isn't up to date on. They're apparently also unaware of the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:30pm

Re: Re: Re:
If one witness is excluded because of a legal action both should be as the testimony of either party has the potential of affecting the legal action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:34pm

TSA gets BS banned at Hearing
Unfortunately, TSA was unable to recognize they were full of type other type of BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:37pm

You'd think that the people suing TSA, actually have the best criticisms against TSA, that Congress might want to hear, wouldn't you?

Also, why did TSA have any say in this, anyway? They get to pick and choose who criticizes them? How very convenient.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul Hobbs (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:46pm

Re: Seriously?
Don't feel bad. America did give us Jerry Springer, the Kardashians, Richard Nixon, Dubya, and Sarah Palin. That's a pretty impressive run rate right there!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:52pm

Re: Re: Re:
So your grand argument is that he may say things that may cause problems for the TSA. Oh no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DOlz, 26 Mar 2012 @ 6:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
"I think that the risk is that he tries to put something on the record that isn't particularly true, but that he can call into the lawsuit later."

And the defendant's lawyer can still prove it isn't true. Just because something is in print doesn't make it gospel. The Congressional "Record" is particular egregious in this regard since members can have stuff added, removed, or changed before it goes to press.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 7:51pm

Re: Re: Seriously?
Run rate standing for 'Oh gods, start running now'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 8:14pm

Re:
This is silly. It's like saying MLK wouldn't have been allowed to speak in front of Congress because he was involved in the legal case over the Montgomery Bus Boycott. They are completely different things. Speaking in front of Congress is petitioning to have a bad law changed. Speaking in front of Judge asks for a ruling on the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 8:45pm

Re: Re: Seriously?
True, we do at least provide the world with some entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 8:48pm

If only...
If only the TSA were providing security for the hearing itself. Then Mr. Schneier could walk in and testify anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 8:59pm

I am still trying to find out there the "freak out" part occurred.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 9:14pm

But the kids.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 26 Mar 2012 @ 9:17pm

Re:
That's because you think it's reasonable for an organization to have Congress deny its detractors the opportunity to detract during a hearing dedicated to determining if their detraction has merit. Those of us capable of processing more than "but he was already suing them" have been telling you what's wrong there, but you're not paying attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 9:39pm

I was really looking forward to having him talk in the hearing, very few know security better than he does, but it looks like they can't have anyone intelligent attend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 9:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant, the hearings are not about judicial cases and should not take them into account unless used to exemplify something not to bar someone from attendance.

This is a cheap shot from a cheap congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 9:41pm

Re: Re: Re:
If the problem outlined by you is that Mr. Schneider would influence something the same is true to the TSA, if justice is to be fair and balanced both parties should be excluded, that is common sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 10:16pm

Bruce is to the security world as Michael Jackson was to the pop-music world.

Not having him on a panel devoted entirely to SECURITY is damning enough evidence against the TSA. Anyone who has any idea or the faintest clue about what security is or how it applies to the TSA has probably already written their guilty verdict on the matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 10:36pm

Re:
Don't you think you should try and find another job beyond shilling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:12am

The Guy Has A Known Pro-Terrorist Record
Have you READ Mr Scheiner's blog? The guy has a history THIS LONG of belittling the Government's every effort to try to improve the security of its citizens. If the TSA were really wrong, they would have found out about it by now--after all, that's what they're paid to work on.

I don't know why he doesn't just have "OBAMA BIN LADEN" tattooed on his forehead and be done with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:53am

Re:
If he didn't have a pending lawsuit, I am sure another issue would be found.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:05am

Re: The Guy Has A Known Pro-Terrorist Record
Not sure if truly trolling, fake trolling, or just inexcusably stupid... Hope, for your sake, it's #2.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:23am

seems to be common practice in the US. similar happened with discussions over SOPA, if i'm not mistaken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:28am

Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
I think you need to work on your definition of 'entertainment'...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:29am

Re: Re: The Guy Has A Known Pro-Terrorist Record
Going by the handle he's used several times every now and then, it's #2.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:32am

Re: Re:
But he's obviously taken the TSA's shilling!

(For the non-Brits, this is a reference to prospective soldiers taking "the King's shilling" - now 5p/8 cents - as a token of having signed up for the Army.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:43am

Re: The Guy Has A Known Pro-Terrorist Record
Because Bush set it up to be so utterly useless it's done nothing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Fisher, 27 Mar 2012 @ 3:14am

TSA Fears the Truth
TSA is terrified of being exposed for the fraud that they are.

They are so accustomed to boldly lying to Congress that they no longer show any discomfort doing this. Incredibly, no lawmaker has had the courage to hold them in contempt of Congress or withhold funding for the agency. Until Congress and the public demand that TSA adopt sensible and civilized security procedures it will continue to be a morass of corruption and criminal behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Horror is a form of entertainment. Just not my kind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:50am

Corruption protects itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:57am

Re:
"If he didn't have a pending lawsuit, I am sure there would be no issue."

I realize that multitasking is no longer cool and has received scathing reviews, but tunnel vision is not a viable alternative.

Denying someone their right to an opinion simply because they have an opinion, is ridiculous. Doing it because they are defending their opinion displays obvious contempt. Due to their lack of decorum, the TSA should be removed from the proceedings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:23am

Re: Re:
I think they may have raised objections, but "freaking out" seems a very broad overstatement from Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:31am

"TSA Freaks Out"
Keystone Nazi squad. Oversight? What oversight? Anyone see any oversight? They're taking queues from the entertainment industry. Fudging the numbers, FUD rhetoric. Sounds like everyone on the oversight board is a TSA golfing buddy (wink, wink, say no more). };P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:32am

Re: Re: Re:
""freaking out" seems a very broad overstatement "

Perhaps "delusions of grandeur" would be more appropriate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:40am

Re:
Apple has several pending lawsuits with Samsung. Didn't stop Apple from contracting out the manufacture of the retina display in the new iPad to Samsung.

What is the TSA afraid off? The truth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:55am

Re: Re: Re:
Raising objections to the possibility of negative testimony is "freaking out". Freaking out doesn't just mean running around screaming and pulling your hair out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:41am

Re: Re: Re:
No, it's The Anti-Mike shilling, probably posted by .... TAM!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:41am

This reeks of censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 8:39am

Re: If only...
Just show up in the audience and hand out your testimony to anyone who requests it including the press and congressional aides.

"Hi, I'm Dr. Bruce Schneier. I'm the person TSA had stricken from testifying. Here's what I would have said."

Pretty simple solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They raised objections, they didn't freak out.

Freak out suggests exactly that, running around pulling their hair out screaming. It's exactly the misleading image Mike wants to paint here.

It's more proof that Mike is full of shit at times. The rest of the time, Marcus takes care of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 10:41am

Re:
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Not until they seize his blog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shannon E. Wells, 27 Mar 2012 @ 11:04am

Re: Anonymous Coward
"If he didn't have a pending lawsuit, I am sure there would be no issue."

I am sure this is wishful thinking.

Having someone on the panel who is a critical voice is important. Regardless, a roomful of sycophants doesn't lend credibility to the idea of an "oversight" committee, does it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 11:56am

Re: TSA agents...
Given the current economic environment I have a hard time condemning the individual agents a priori. Sometimes you have to take unsavory work to put food on the table.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S, 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: TSA agents...
I suppose you'd work at a concentration camp to feed your kids?

Some things just aren't worth doing -- no matter HOW "tough" things get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S, 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
This isn't even horror, any more -- this is farce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 6:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 9 Apr 2012 @ 4:13am

Re: Re: Re:
dear AC

You seem to be astroturfing for the TSA.
Do they pay you for that ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]