I'm sure Blackberry used to say the same about the various upstarts that tried to dethrown them... and we know how well that worked out.
You know, the really pathetic thing about what you just said is that I've never illegally downloaded music or movies, and never cheated on my partner.
Care to cite where I accused you of any such thing?
And you're seriously saying that will get flagged as a lie and make me untrustworthy?
Depends on what else they know... either based on their own info or that which is said about you by others and the credibility of those statements.
Let me tell you this right now
... the people screening based on those things are morons unless they actually have proof to the contrary.
Oh? And you've been on the receiving end of such Q's and know their mental processes? I haven't... so I can't say either way.
Because unless you have evidence, assuming everyone who answers no to those questions is lying is completely idiotic. Because, not everybody has done those things, and if you have no evidence suggesting otherwise is just being an asshole.
No where did I say answering no would get you flagged as a liar... I said that depending on the circumstances they it will raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy. Key word in that sentence *may*. Further investigation may be required. Maybe they've honestly never used Napster back in the day and instead has a rather lengthy iTunes purchase history?
A broader thing is you seem to thinks such a background check has the same level of evidence & burden of proof as a court does in a criminal trial. It does not.
I increasingly believe the people who do security screenings don't give an actual damn about the truth, just their own interpretations of reality.
Very true at the airport, when it comes to security clearances... it depends on who is doing the vetting and to what degree they are doing it (based on the degree of clearance being sought).
It's not about answering yes or no. It's about disclosure.
Exactly, but let me add... these background checks aren't so much about checking as to if you've lead a boring and uncompromised life... but more about gauging your integrity with regards to honesty and ability to be blackmailed.
Example: An old college of mine is now a feeder to a couple of government agencies which give out a few scholarships each year... which in turn require a background check. One of the questions that screws up most kids is "Have you ever illegally downloaded any music or movies from the internet?" (or something to that effect).
Most kids put "no"... not wanting to admit wrong doing... but by doing so end up raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy as it's rather unlikely given their age and background (those applying for these scholarships).
Ditto for Q's regarding fidelity. If you've been unfaithful and your spouse doesn't know, it can be used against you (ie "Give me a copy of the blueprints or... I'll tell your wife and the rest of your family that you cheated on them... with another man."
You can't deliberate engage in activities to make it more expensive or complex for law enforcement to search subpoenaed records.
That's not quite accurate.
If the intent is to make it more difficult... then you best not have any evidence that it was done deliberately then you will be in for a world of pain.
If however it is part of your normal business processes and as a side effect it makes law enforcement's job harder... that is still perfectly legal.
No they've been very clear... just like Al-Qaeda was in the 90's.
Hopefully this time around it doesn't take a few buildings getting knocked down down for us to respond properly.
True, but don't forget that Germany did declare war on the US first and that the US was more or less obligated to respond in some way... which we did with our own declaration later on the same day.
You can't climb a ladder and take pics of some girl sunbathing in her backyard legally if she is behind a privacy fence that you had to go out of your way to see over, that includes using a drone to do so.
Who said a ladder is required? From the second floor of a house you can often see much of a neighbors yard when there is only a man sized fence.
Sometimes a bigger fence is required, just ask Todd Palin: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blo...
Ever read the Dictionary Act? You know, 1 US Code 1? It disagrees: http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
You assume that security being called on me would have allowed me to board my flight as I had planned.
That being said, I am not saying both situations are the same, my point was and is that I expect that this story is not unique and that only a portion of them do we ever hear about.
Someone probably relayed the 'threat' of the tweet to someone on the flight crew who raised the 'is this a passenger a threat?' flag.
Remember that for a threat to be effective it need only be believed by the target... even if there is no actual plan to make good on it.
In a world where after going through a laughable but invasive search by TSA screeners and about to board an aircraft where you are legally required to obey all instructions of the flight crew in order to return to your home many miles away... is it any wonder that even the threat of the police being called might make someone comply?