Security Theater Critics | Unfilter 2

Posted on: May 26, 2012

Posted in: Featured, Unfilter, Video

Comment on This Video

Share This Video

Embed This Video

Security Theater Critics | Unfilter 2

The TSA is one of the stars in the US Government’s security theater that keeps the public always fearing attack. In this week’s episode we’ll demonstrate how the media is used to manipulate public support for sweeping security changes.

Plus – We’ll unfilter some headlines, and cover your feedback from our first episode.

Direct Download:

HD Video | Mobile Video | MP3 Audio | OGG Audio | YouTube

RSS Feeds:

HD Video Feed | Mobile Video Feed | MP3 Audio Feed | OGG Audio Feed | iTunes Feeds

ACT ONE: NEWS

ACT TWO: TSA Security Theater

ACT THREE: Feedback

  • Ubiquity Writes…

    Was hoping for a video show, LAS and SNAP are great because of that.

  • Jim Writes…

    If you are going to be doing shows on political issues, you at least have to make some kind of attempt at balance. You are going to have to present arguments from all sides of the issue and you need guests on the show to argue the opposing sides.

  • Ubiquity Writes.. (again)

    I think it’s about time more people did discuss issues that do really matter. While not everyone may agree with topics that are political or religious, its discussion that needs to happen. I would suggest sticking to the facts as much as possible, and unfortunately there are many facts that challenge popular beliefs. One advantage of the IT industry is that most “wise” decisions are based on facts and statistics. I think of this content as educational, better for the greater good of people.

Unfilter on Reddit

Link List:

Song pick of the week: SONG: Mr. TSA: a Response to Having My Pants Pulled Down by the TSA Which was released under a Creative Commons License

  • Louis Prince

    Awesome! Great show.

  • Matthew Page

    Sweet show, Chris…

  • Rigel

    You know there aren’t two sides to any political debate just because there appears to be two sides. There are NEVER two sides to any rational argument. There may be two opinions, but the truth is the truth regardless of opinion. If you want to contest any of their facts, than do so, but to appeal to “the other side” needing to be represented is the core of the political ideological gridlock that America currently finds itself in. There shouldn’t be “sides” there should only be rational arguments and their counter rational arguments. According to the law of non-contradiction they can’t both be right, if you think about it enough you can come to a conclusion that all should agree too. If only the vast hordes of people din’t consider politics a sports game played between two sides. There are rational reasons and solutions to all problems if people would just put aside their ideological differences and actually think about these things like rational people. If you disagree post your disagreement. Use an argument. Politics doesn’t have to just be about who can yell louder and use most talking points. 

  • Ubiquity

    Thanks for the feedback of my feedback. I was thinking that maybe the reason for the lack of video might be related to privacy. Which I can totally understand, you never know when you might strike a nerve and someone remembers your face. Especially a disgruntled TSA agent. This show was better than the first, for the reasons stated on the show, the first show you talked about your own personal experience first, and that biased the everything that followed. Its amazing to hear clips of these “officials” that never give any specific information. Like Jacque Fresco says, ask a politician a technical question, they never have an answer. The game of politics reminds me of WWF, everything is scripted, but sometimes they forget their lines and sound incredibly stupid. Few people realize both parties play on the same team and compete for attention. The public at large watch the drama and get caught up in the blame game without actually solving any problems. Look at almost any quality of life improvement we have, these were all brought to you by scientists, engineers, doctors and technicians not politicians.

  • David Miller

    Outstanding post Rigel.  You have summarized almost perfectly what I have written many long essays about and saved me the trouble of making this point here.

    The whole idea of “Fair and Balanced media” is just to keep advertisers happy.  It is not, as you point out, that the truth is balanced.  Real events with real consequences actually happen.  Where there is uncertainty over the factual points, then debate can be a useful tool, but just as a means to get to the underlying truth and correct points of fact, not just for the sake of debate.  Why do we need “fair and balanced” instead of just “fair”, or to use a better word, “accurate?”

    The sports analogy is dead on, especially in the US and UK.  People have come to look at politics, political parties, or to be honest, pretty much any subject of debate, as something for which a side must be chosen and defended as if it had no more meaning or factual content than a ball game.  Lots of people that I know have the hardest time understanding that I am not a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian.  Actually, that is beginning to change a little, now that congress has made such a spectacle of itself and approval ratings have dropped to 10%.  But for most people, the solution they want is for their team, err…. party, to win a strong majority and break the gridlock.

    You have probably heard this quote, but if not you might enjoy it:
           ”When I was in high school… I asked myself at one point: “Why do I care if my high school’s team wins the football game? I don’t know anybody on the team, they have nothing to do with me… why am I here and applaud? It does not make any sense.” But the point is, it does make sense: It’s a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority and group cohesion behind leadership elements. In fact it’s training in irrational jingoism. That’s also a feature of competitive sports.”  – Noam Chomsky  

    Once you have been shaped into choosing your team by your parents, friends, education, and so on, it becomes very difficult for most people to break out of that narrow point of view.  Glad to see that there are others that have.

    Thanks for the intelligent post.

  • Guest1

    Surly, the future of cyber security
    will rely on physical separations of the parts on a system that are
    important. Like physically not being able to edit the operating
    system, unless from a physics input. And separate disk scanners that
    can help verify the files on your computer. A more physical
    separation between the network and the internal information on the
    pc. If governments are so concerned about security they would infest
    in making everyone’s computer more physical safe in the way the
    circuits work. Software will always be vulnerable, some1 somewhere is
    going to make a mistake and No bill and legislation is gona stop
    that. Also, a lot of attacks accrue because people are not aware of
    how to make there systems safe. Even quite technical people can have
    large gaps in there knowledge. Any government that really cared about
    cyber security they would also focus on helping everyone to be more
    informed about how to use the internet safely. If cyber attacks where
    harder because people knew how to prevent it, it would be less
    profitable few people would do it and the only people the governments
    would really have to worry about would be, other governments, which
    they cant legislate against anyway. Finally, y is critical
    infrastructure on a network anyway? There just simple shouldn’t be
    cyber crime against infrastructure cos you have to chose to connect
    to a network. If a water supplier’s main system (not there public
    website or something) gets hacked remotely then its the water
    suppliers fault for not having a system that is closed physical.My
    oval point is the current approach most governments are taking toward
    how to deal with cyber security is focused on the wrong solutions and isn’t going to
    lead to a secure world.

  • Lysander

    Give me a break, Jim. We don’t need another opinion on the show because all you need to do is turn on any mainstream news outlet and listen to the propaganda promoted there. Do you think congress people or the executive branch really seeks out for the alternative opinion or fact? NO!
    There should be no one defending the TSA especially when they have to pat down little boys and girls and your mother!

  • Camdy

    the tourist ad’s for the US;

    America the only place where molesting is legal.

    America the new police state.

    lol
    good show guys :)

  • Leprech

    Maybe you should mention this in one of the shows ….. proof that outsourcing to the cheapest bidder might not always be sane. http://boingboing.net/2012/05/28/security-researcher-i-found-s.html

  • Heartlandzen

    If it’s going to be a radio show please let us know so we don’t waste our time.
    Thanks.

  • Sean Newboy

    I loved the show, you guys are definitely getting into the swing of things. As for balance, most media news productions do not have balance, these days its pretty much just a business thing. Keep doing what you do and im sure the show will continue to improve organically.

  • Concerned Citizen

    Chris and gang,

    I’m from Houston. Please, let me explain in simple terms. Shiela Jackson Lee is an absolute fool. She is single handed the dumbest Congressman in office – EVER. The only reason we keep that democrat in office is because we arrange the congressional districts in such a way to make all the retarded democrats vote for a single representative just so that we can make fun of her. Every single one of your supposed facts came from the most liberal news station in town. They have no common sense and refuse to use any in any public policy.

    THE 4TH AMENDMENT MEANS SOMETHING! REMOVE THE TSA AND THE RETARDED POLICIES THEY ENFORCE AND USE RACIAL PROFILING AND COMMON SENSE!

  • Rights for Everyone

     I agree. For instance, how many 4 year old little white girls are going to be carrying bombs to blow up a plane or render a weapon to take hostages? Every one of them MUST be groped down to their little panties in public just so we can know for sure that they’re not a threat. (Sarcasm)

  • http://twitter.com/EllesSacrifice Rob Alden

    -withdrawal- I haven’t listened to you guys since like beer is tasty and what not, but I extremely miss your television and movie discussion shows! /flails 

  • Rigel

    Yes because clearly racial profiling is common sense!! It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if there really is any hope for America. No, common sense ran far, far, away from the direction of whatever air it is your breathing.

  • oj shakewell

    Why don’t they do something about the existing crack heads hanging around bus stops before they worry about a hypothetical terrorist attack.
    Hopefully most transit agencies would be smart enough not to let TSA goons harass their customers. This will make people get back in their cars. 

  • Chris

    Great show. Keep up the good work!

    To listeners/watchers: support the shows and buy a subscription!

  • Concerned Citizen

     Israel has a well established policy of racial profiling and have actually trained officers who know what they’re doing and what to look for when they ask questions of the passers-by. They are constantly under attack from terrorists and people who actually want to do them harm. They don’t have planes flying into their buildings in high populated commercial districts in the middle of their cities, now do they? No, they don’t. I guess Rigel would rather have all 4 year old little white girls who are flying to their distant families or on vacations strip searched and groped. I guess Rigel would rather have frail old grandma’s striped past their soiled diapers on their way to fly back home to die because of terminal illness. Yeah, THAT’s a GREAT way to spend our country’s resources in time and money. (sarcasm) What happened to the Bill of Rights actually meaning something? What happened to this country? The second you let the libtards scaring you into a false sense of security in the release of your constitutional rights is the very second you have let the past 236 years of this country go for naught.

  • abro

    This seems a little too simplistic, the issues discussed are rarely about disputing facts.  More, they are about disputing the interpretation of those facts, and/or the relevance of the facts for the future, and/or how to re-act to those facts.  All of these things can be influenced by your opinions on other issues very easily. So no, it’s not about choosing sides per se, but debate is still necessary, and a conclusion that all should agree to is often not possible.