- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Blackhat Training instructor denied entry into US
|
|
|
Comments (44)
want a job ?
20 earlier comments in the full thread.
> Would you take that same position if we were talking about, say, health inspections for a city's restaurants?
Yep.
> Should a new mayor be forced to let rats and roaches crawl kitchens with inoperative refrigerators because her predecessor staffed the health department with nephews and the slacker children of political contributors.
That's a case of the rules changing from above, which I've already noted is a valid reason for employees to change their behavior. There's no indication that was the case here.
Regarding selective enforcement, however: There was a case in Virginia where a court threw out a law which had not been enforced in something like 30 years when some local authorities tried to start enforcing it. The judge stated that he was doing so on the basis of selective enforcement, so my interpretation is based on an actual reported court decision. This was over 20 years ago, and not being a lawyer and only having the remembered newspaper reports to rely on, I may be misunderstanding or misremembering things.
> Methinks it's not a lawyer thing so much as a stubborn blind spot thing.
Possibly, but if so it's a true blind spot, which by definition I can't see.
Yep.
> Should a new mayor be forced to let rats and roaches crawl kitchens with inoperative refrigerators because her predecessor staffed the health department with nephews and the slacker children of political contributors.
That's a case of the rules changing from above, which I've already noted is a valid reason for employees to change their behavior. There's no indication that was the case here.
Regarding selective enforcement, however: There was a case in Virginia where a court threw out a law which had not been enforced in something like 30 years when some local authorities tried to start enforcing it. The judge stated that he was doing so on the basis of selective enforcement, so my interpretation is based on an actual reported court decision. This was over 20 years ago, and not being a lawyer and only having the remembered newspaper reports to rely on, I may be misunderstanding or misremembering things.
> Methinks it's not a lawyer thing so much as a stubborn blind spot thing.
Possibly, but if so it's a true blind spot, which by definition I can't see.
>That's a case of the rules changing from above,
It is no such thing. Rules identical, determination to enforce them different.
> so my interpretation is based on an actual reported court decision.
Big deal. One decision in one state. That is why we have appeals courts and a Supreme Court -- including at state levels. Judges screw up all the time.
It is no such thing. Rules identical, determination to enforce them different.
> so my interpretation is based on an actual reported court decision.
Big deal. One decision in one state. That is why we have appeals courts and a Supreme Court -- including at state levels. Judges screw up all the time.
> It is no such thing.
Technically correct, as it's the official interpretation that's changing, not the rule. However, it's a difference which makes no difference.
> Rules identical, determination to enforce them different.
Which is by definition selective enforcement. One time they're not enforced, the next time they are, at the selection of the enforcer.
However, we're not going to agree, so I'll drop the matter.
Technically correct, as it's the official interpretation that's changing, not the rule. However, it's a difference which makes no difference.
> Rules identical, determination to enforce them different.
Which is by definition selective enforcement. One time they're not enforced, the next time they are, at the selection of the enforcer.
However, we're not going to agree, so I'll drop the matter.
>However, we're not going to agree, so I'll drop the matter.
So... does not going to agree mean what most people would take it to mean, or do you have some special definition?
So... does not going to agree mean what most people would take it to mean, or do you have some special definition?
Regarding "selective enforcement":
We don't know how many other people were denied entry that day. We also don't know on what basis the Customs officer pulled Flake aside. Flake may have actually done something to raise their suspicions.
The one time I was pulled aside for extra screening, the reason behind it was very simple: my ticket had been purchased the day before. I was heading for an on-site tech support visit, the customer had encountered a nasty problem, and I was dispatched immediately to help.
A spoiled college brat in front of me decided he was going to "fight the power" by making sure everyone within earshot knew what he thought of the security screeners. Yup, he got pulled aside too, and he was standing right next to me for the extra pat-down.
All the while he played "victim," trying to show how aware he was of his "rights." When our screeners were away at some machinery, checking out swab samples from our carry-on luggage, I told him in a low voice, "If I miss my flight because of you, it'll take five security guards to pull me off of you. Got it?"
He got it.
I made a point of thanking the screeners for doing their patience putting up with cranky people. But they sure didn't have to put up with any more crap from Mr. Frat Brat.
So now you understand why I'm a bit defensive of the Customs officials. We in the net-o-sphere weren't there, and we don't know why Flake got pulled aside in the first place. It may have been for a more valid reason than we know. It's their job to do their job, not answer their critics.
We don't know how many other people were denied entry that day. We also don't know on what basis the Customs officer pulled Flake aside. Flake may have actually done something to raise their suspicions.
The one time I was pulled aside for extra screening, the reason behind it was very simple: my ticket had been purchased the day before. I was heading for an on-site tech support visit, the customer had encountered a nasty problem, and I was dispatched immediately to help.
A spoiled college brat in front of me decided he was going to "fight the power" by making sure everyone within earshot knew what he thought of the security screeners. Yup, he got pulled aside too, and he was standing right next to me for the extra pat-down.
All the while he played "victim," trying to show how aware he was of his "rights." When our screeners were away at some machinery, checking out swab samples from our carry-on luggage, I told him in a low voice, "If I miss my flight because of you, it'll take five security guards to pull me off of you. Got it?"
He got it.
I made a point of thanking the screeners for doing their patience putting up with cranky people. But they sure didn't have to put up with any more crap from Mr. Frat Brat.
So now you understand why I'm a bit defensive of the Customs officials. We in the net-o-sphere weren't there, and we don't know why Flake got pulled aside in the first place. It may have been for a more valid reason than we know. It's their job to do their job, not answer their critics.
> ... does not going to agree mean what most people would take it to mean,
I'm not most people, so I have no way of knowing. I think you will agree that I am usually a "reasonable" person though.
I'm not most people, so I have no way of knowing. I think you will agree that I am usually a "reasonable" person though.
>I think you will agree that I am usually a "reasonable" person though.
More often than not. This, I think, is the occasional "not".
More often than not. This, I think, is the occasional "not".
> ...and we don't know why Flake got pulled aside in the first place. It may have been for a more valid reason than we know.
Possibly. As you said, we don't know.
> It's their job to do their job, not answer their critics.
Which it can be reasonably argued they did not do in this case. It can also be argued that based on current interpretation of the rules they did. Without knowing the rules in detail and knowing their current interpretation, we can't know. The outcome, however, is not a desirable one for anyone involved. Flake is denied entry and Customs gets bad publicity.
Possibly. As you said, we don't know.
> It's their job to do their job, not answer their critics.
Which it can be reasonably argued they did not do in this case. It can also be argued that based on current interpretation of the rules they did. Without knowing the rules in detail and knowing their current interpretation, we can't know. The outcome, however, is not a desirable one for anyone involved. Flake is denied entry and Customs gets bad publicity.
> This, I think, is the occasional "not".
My patience with bureaucracy is probably much lower than yours, Dino. That probably explains most of the difference in our opinion.
My patience with bureaucracy is probably much lower than yours, Dino. That probably explains most of the difference in our opinion.
> Without knowing the rules in detail and knowing their current interpretation, we can't know.
I'm sorry, those rules are classified. You may not see them. Asking for them is grounds for detaining and questioning. Demanding them will get you arrested on the spot.
> My patience with bureaucracy is probably much lower than yours, Dino.
More obvious words were never said.
My reason for not laughing in the TSA agent's faces as they go through their pointless make-work: If you annoy a small man, he will make you miserable.
Frighten a small man, he will _kill_ you.
There are lots of frightened, small men in government. That's why crossing government officials will get you punished quickly and in a degree far out of proportion with the supposed "crime".
Wouldn't it be nice to live with the rule of law? http://www.jpfo.org/smith-wouldntitbenicept1.htm
I'm sorry, those rules are classified. You may not see them. Asking for them is grounds for detaining and questioning. Demanding them will get you arrested on the spot.
> My patience with bureaucracy is probably much lower than yours, Dino.
More obvious words were never said.
My reason for not laughing in the TSA agent's faces as they go through their pointless make-work: If you annoy a small man, he will make you miserable.
Frighten a small man, he will _kill_ you.
There are lots of frightened, small men in government. That's why crossing government officials will get you punished quickly and in a degree far out of proportion with the supposed "crime".
Wouldn't it be nice to live with the rule of law? http://www.jpfo.org/smith-wouldntitbenicept1.htm
>More obvious words were never said.
You know nothing about my patience with bureaucracy. What does your willingness to make such a confident assertion from a position of complete ignorance say?
You know nothing about my patience with bureaucracy. What does your willingness to make such a confident assertion from a position of complete ignorance say?
> What does your willingness to make such a confident assertion from a position of complete ignorance say?
That you have been consistant in your statements over time.
That you have been consistant in your statements over time.
>That you have been consistant in your statements over time.
Hmmm. I guess the same rationale would lead you to conclude that I prefer white wine to red or like jammies with little pictures of Winnie the Pooh.
However consistent may statements may be, they certainly can't indicate any patience with bureaucracy.
Methinks you have let your opinion of me fill in all the facts you don't have. Good way to be wrong.
Hmmm. I guess the same rationale would lead you to conclude that I prefer white wine to red or like jammies with little pictures of Winnie the Pooh.
However consistent may statements may be, they certainly can't indicate any patience with bureaucracy.
Methinks you have let your opinion of me fill in all the facts you don't have. Good way to be wrong.
> Methinks you have let your opinion of me fill in all the facts you don't have. Good way to be wrong.
Yes, but patience in one aspect of life usually translates into patience in others. You've definitely shown more patience than I have in your time on LXer, so it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Incorrect possibly; but reasonable. I at least, intended that as a compliment, not a detraction.
> ...that I prefer white wine to red or like jammies with little pictures of Winnie the Pooh.
Nah, you probably prefer bourbon and you're definitely a Tigger person. :)
Yes, but patience in one aspect of life usually translates into patience in others. You've definitely shown more patience than I have in your time on LXer, so it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Incorrect possibly; but reasonable. I at least, intended that as a compliment, not a detraction.
> ...that I prefer white wine to red or like jammies with little pictures of Winnie the Pooh.
Nah, you probably prefer bourbon and you're definitely a Tigger person. :)
>Yes, but patience in one aspect of life usually translates into patience in others.
I'm not so sure about that.
I'm somewhat patient with my children, but cannot stand to wait in line and will get up and leave a restaurant when the service is slow.
It is a common mistake to confuse resignedness for patience. Sometimes things are as they are. You can fret or you can get on with your life.
It is also a common mistake to confuse "I want it now" for impatience. It can be, but, often as not, it's little more than a temper tantrum.
I'm not so sure about that.
I'm somewhat patient with my children, but cannot stand to wait in line and will get up and leave a restaurant when the service is slow.
It is a common mistake to confuse resignedness for patience. Sometimes things are as they are. You can fret or you can get on with your life.
It is also a common mistake to confuse "I want it now" for impatience. It can be, but, often as not, it's little more than a temper tantrum.
> However consistent may statements may be, they certainly can't indicate any patience with bureaucracy.
Each time an element of central planning comes up, you defend; apologize; explain it away.
For example, when systemic abuses of voting is discussed, you defend it. And not just something like, "it's the best we've got". No, it's "this has evolved over hundreds (thousands?) of years to make being ruled as acceptable as possible" and "she was doing the job she was hired to do" (paraphrased from memory, and funny thing I don't disagree with either of these statements if they had been made alone.)
In this thread, systemic abuse of people who have done no harm, the corruption and arbitrary nature of bureaucratic enforcement, prompt you to defend that arbitrary nature as "getting off your butt and doing your job." (direct quote, see above)
I did not mean to suggest that you have patience for _yourself_ being inconvenience by bureaucracy. Your written "tone" would suggest the opposite in fact. No, what you have is a very high tolerance for the abuses of bureaucracy on other people, because you consistently defend bureaucracy and bureaucratic inefficiency.
This is not "confus[ing] resignedness for patience", because you do not write merely resigning yourself to it. You defend it. Actively. Consistently.
The specific reason that the TSA fails in the one task it's been given is because the cost of its actions are not reflected upon those who do the acting.
With the TSA, if something goes wrong their budget will be raised and more incompetent fools hired to do even more incompetent fooling. This is what happened _last_ time they failed at their job, and the time before that, etc etc etc. By doing a bad job, they are _rewarded_. This is the incentive problem that makes government bureaucracies always the worst way to accomplish any task.
If airline security were an issue between the airlines, airports and their passengers, a balance of cost verses benefit will be reached that is unique to each airline. As you say, you will get up and walk out if service is bad, but none of us can do so with the TSA because the TSA has no competition to reward for having better service. Isn't this why enforced "monopolies" are decried in every other field of human endeavor, even software?
Why is government immune to the same monopolistic abuse we see in everything else? It isn't, and that is why I will always argue the need to abolish government monopoly control where ever it is found.
Each time an element of central planning comes up, you defend; apologize; explain it away.
For example, when systemic abuses of voting is discussed, you defend it. And not just something like, "it's the best we've got". No, it's "this has evolved over hundreds (thousands?) of years to make being ruled as acceptable as possible" and "she was doing the job she was hired to do" (paraphrased from memory, and funny thing I don't disagree with either of these statements if they had been made alone.)
In this thread, systemic abuse of people who have done no harm, the corruption and arbitrary nature of bureaucratic enforcement, prompt you to defend that arbitrary nature as "getting off your butt and doing your job." (direct quote, see above)
I did not mean to suggest that you have patience for _yourself_ being inconvenience by bureaucracy. Your written "tone" would suggest the opposite in fact. No, what you have is a very high tolerance for the abuses of bureaucracy on other people, because you consistently defend bureaucracy and bureaucratic inefficiency.
This is not "confus[ing] resignedness for patience", because you do not write merely resigning yourself to it. You defend it. Actively. Consistently.
The specific reason that the TSA fails in the one task it's been given is because the cost of its actions are not reflected upon those who do the acting.
With the TSA, if something goes wrong their budget will be raised and more incompetent fools hired to do even more incompetent fooling. This is what happened _last_ time they failed at their job, and the time before that, etc etc etc. By doing a bad job, they are _rewarded_. This is the incentive problem that makes government bureaucracies always the worst way to accomplish any task.
If airline security were an issue between the airlines, airports and their passengers, a balance of cost verses benefit will be reached that is unique to each airline. As you say, you will get up and walk out if service is bad, but none of us can do so with the TSA because the TSA has no competition to reward for having better service. Isn't this why enforced "monopolies" are decried in every other field of human endeavor, even software?
Why is government immune to the same monopolistic abuse we see in everything else? It isn't, and that is why I will always argue the need to abolish government monopoly control where ever it is found.
I must say, this is one of the most well-mannered "flamewars" I've ever seen on the 'net. (Yes, I'm using the term loosely.) Are you two Brits or something?
> "she was doing the job she was hired to do"
Actually, that one was me. :)
> and bureaucratic inefficiency.
Even I, with my very limited tolerance for bureaucracy, recognize that bureaucratic inefficiency can be a good thing. It limits the amount of damage they can do. Now, if only we had a Busab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage), things might be workable.
Actually, that one was me. :)
> and bureaucratic inefficiency.
Even I, with my very limited tolerance for bureaucracy, recognize that bureaucratic inefficiency can be a good thing. It limits the amount of damage they can do. Now, if only we had a Busab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage), things might be workable.
>For example, when systemic abuses of voting is discussed, you defend it.
I have never defended systematic abuses of voting. On the other hand I do not call an individual corrupt because she does her job. If you're going to make a statement, you need to get your facts straight.
> you to defend that arbitrary nature as "getting off your butt and doing your job.
Come on, now, Bob. This is a matter of simple of understanding what arbitrary means. Read what I wrote, not what your prejudices tell you I must mean. Sounds like you like you government -- including services even a libertarian would concede are required -- to keep off its butt and stay lazy. Personally, I would agree up to a point, but I do like the fire trucks to leave post haste and I do want the police dispatchers doing their jobs, etc.
>because you consistently defend bureaucracy and bureaucratic inefficiency.
If I consistently do that, you should be able to come up with a real example, not "getting off your butt and doing your job".
I have never defended systematic abuses of voting. On the other hand I do not call an individual corrupt because she does her job. If you're going to make a statement, you need to get your facts straight.
> you to defend that arbitrary nature as "getting off your butt and doing your job.
Come on, now, Bob. This is a matter of simple of understanding what arbitrary means. Read what I wrote, not what your prejudices tell you I must mean. Sounds like you like you government -- including services even a libertarian would concede are required -- to keep off its butt and stay lazy. Personally, I would agree up to a point, but I do like the fire trucks to leave post haste and I do want the police dispatchers doing their jobs, etc.
>because you consistently defend bureaucracy and bureaucratic inefficiency.
If I consistently do that, you should be able to come up with a real example, not "getting off your butt and doing your job".
Welcome to America.
Papers, bitta. I mean, please.
Ja, du hast?
du. du hast. du hast mich...
Augh! The puns! they make my brain hurt!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Oh please.
Would you take that same position if we were talking about, say, health inspections for a city's restaurants?
Should a new mayor be forced to let rats and roaches crawl kitchens with inoperative refrigerators because her predecessor staffed the health department with nephews and the slacker children of political contributors.
Methinks it's not a lawyer thing so much as a stubborn blind spot thing.