Comments

Roenigk • March 20, 2008 2:38 PM

If you have nothing to hide, I cannot think of any reason to not put on this bracelet.

OK, I’m kidding. But haven’t I seen that argument on this board before on another topic?

Spider • March 20, 2008 2:39 PM

For heavens sake, just put everyone to sleep with anesthetic before take off and be done with it already.

alan • March 20, 2008 2:50 PM

I think that in order to prove the security of this system the board of directors of that company need to wear them to DefCon.

They would certainly make plane trips more interesting for hackers on long flights. They would resemble that Simpsons episode where they go into group therapy and start shocking each other.

Scote • March 20, 2008 2:52 PM

That’s a great idea–if you are hijacker. Just hack into the system and you won’t have to worry about passengers attacking you.

SciFi Movie Plot Security.

Scote • March 20, 2008 2:56 PM

“I think that in order to prove the security of this system the board of directors of that company need to wear them to DefCon.”

I think the stupid bracelets idea might just be worth it for that image. Absolutely Hilarious.

Of course, you’d have to make sure they didn’t cheat with modified bracelets or insulating material 🙂

Steve • March 20, 2008 2:57 PM

I don’t know about anyone else but when I went to the company’s web page, for an instant my mind read their logo as a swastika.

Mfheadcase • March 20, 2008 2:58 PM

So… the plan is to make presumably innocent civilians, none of whom are individually suspected of anything, wear a device, that if it were placed on a convict by prison guards would cause apoplexy in members of the ACLU and Amnesty International…

That makes perfect sense.

alan • March 20, 2008 3:04 PM

“Smartfilter” (the oxymoron of censorware) blocks that company’s web site.

Considering how many people are killed by tasers every year, I expect that there would be more than a few deaths if these came into wide spread use.

The sadism of the American security apparatus never ceases to amaze me.

Juergen • March 20, 2008 3:08 PM

There was a patent filed by a Korean or Japanese company back in the 1970s which would force passengers to have large steel spheres locked into the palms of their hands – chains would go around the hand, merge inside the sphere, and the only way to remove them was to unlock the sphere.

It was supposed that people would be able to hold chopsticks, but not knifes… obviously such a system wouldn’t be much use outside Asia 😉

geekyone • March 20, 2008 3:15 PM

Yep, I have to agree with Spider. Might as well just have all plans equipped like “ConAir”. They can use the “special” cells for anyone who went tanning recently (dark skinned hmmm must be a terrorist!). Puts a new spin on the Rendition flights if they suspect you are a terrorist they can just torture you in flight!

Rumpis • March 20, 2008 3:19 PM

Useless idea. Any conductive foil will short the contacts and actually disable this bracelet.

Michael Kohne • March 20, 2008 3:44 PM

You know, I think I have a better idea than this one – give every passenger a big bowie knife as they get on the plane. Collect them when they get off.

Anyone attempting anything hostile in the air will be a pincushion in short order.

At least this crazy idea has the advantage of not treating every passenger like a criminal…Instead, we make them all part of the airplane defenses.

And yea, a few drunk/idiotic passengers will get stabbed, but you know, I think it’s worth it.

(Oh, yea, you’ll wanna reinforce those cockpit doors, too.)

TS • March 20, 2008 3:47 PM

So you slip your rubber Cancer/AIDS/Heart Disease/MS/whatever wristband under this bracelet. Or just bring along a section of rubber tubing.

I wonder what would happen if you took it off and wrapped it around a leg of the seat you’re in? If you exposed some wire in your headphones and attached it to the wristband, piping the voltage into that system? Or if you dropped it into the toilet?

Roy • March 20, 2008 3:58 PM

Why not an explosive necklace instead? Then if anybody gives the air crew, or the air marshals, any disrespect, they can by remote control decapitate the offender.

Of course, to be safe, the air crew and the air marshals will have to wear them as well.

It’s time we show these terrists we mean bizness.

Thom • March 20, 2008 3:59 PM

Dang, I was looking for an interesting idea to fired off to Homeland Security in search of a huge research grant. These guys beat me to it.

alan • March 20, 2008 4:04 PM

I think airline passengers should be given lots of blotter acid, painted blue and given rusty sporks and kazoos before the flight. The planes should play polka music and have red flashing lights whenever someone utters a personal pronoun. Stewardesses should read all their instructions backwards and be no taller than 3′ 4″. Anyone who complains will be put on to the terrorist watchlist.

Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it.

Mark • March 20, 2008 4:06 PM

@alan
I think that in order to prove the security of this system the board of directors of that company need to wear them to DefCon.

You’d probably first need to see if the standard batteries in the bracelets can be replaced with higher capacity ones. Failing that maybe a “power belt” with the help of a fashion designer to ensure that this and the cables go well together would be needed.

After all DefCon does last longer than most flights and you really can’t have the batteries running down mid way through.

Mark • March 20, 2008 4:16 PM

@Rumpis
Useless idea. Any conductive foil will short the contacts and actually disable this bracelet.

Like Easter, April Fools day appears to be early this year 🙂

It’s more a case of anything conductive against the contacts or anything insulating between the contacts and skin.
So presumably you won’t be able to wear anything with long sleeves, can’t have any carry on luggage and best not ask the flight attendant for a blanket. The airline also has the little problem of what to do about the safety instructions, sick bag and magazine they previously put in the pocket of every passenger.

Thomas • March 20, 2008 4:17 PM

@Scote
“””Of course, you’d have to make sure they didn’t cheat with modified bracelets or insulating material :-)”””

Who’s side are you on?!?!

Now the terrorists will know how to defeat this!

Guantanamo is too good for traitors like you!!

Anonymous • March 20, 2008 4:21 PM

@alan
“The sadism of the American security apparatus never ceases to amaze me.”

Unfortunately, this is a CANADIAN company, not American…

G • March 20, 2008 4:24 PM

I would support this if the manufacturer were to wear one for the next six months and make activation of the bracelet accessable via a public website.

James • March 20, 2008 4:26 PM

I’d recommend that people look at the youtube video explaining how it works. It’s probably one of the worst security videos I’ve seen (playing up unfounded fears all over the place.)

David Scrimshaw • March 20, 2008 4:26 PM

Remember that episode of Cheers where Cliff was wearing a thing like this bracelet?

Gosh that was funny.

A whole planeload of people twitching would be even funnier.

Mark • March 20, 2008 4:26 PM

@Michael Kohne
You know, I think I have a better idea than this one – give every passenger a big bowie knife as they get on the plane. Collect them when they get off.

Do the flight attendants get bigger knives?

The interesting thing is that someone can probably do more damage to the aircraft with a knife compared with a gun. A neat circular hole in the fuselage will simply leak. Whereas a cut from a knife is likely to tear as air exits.

Roxanne • March 20, 2008 4:38 PM

PS Do we get to use them on the groping drunk in the next seat? How about the crying baby three rows back?

Will • March 20, 2008 4:57 PM

@Roxanne
You can absolutely use them on the crying baby but not on the groping drunk – that might be me. I will offer an alternative though, let the airlines use them on all the hot girls in minskirts. If the girls misbehave then we all win – the attendents get to zap the girls unconscious, I get to grope the unconscious girls, and you get to fly in grope free comfort because I’m busy elsewhere.

andyinsdca • March 20, 2008 5:04 PM

What? Are the companies that make TENS gear (for uh…alternative lifestyles) not getting enough sales?

Roger • March 20, 2008 5:20 PM

Gastel: Robert Sheckley also used this idea in a story, whose name I cannot recall just now. However the explosive necklaces were locked onto public officials and were triggered if his or her disapproval rating became too high, as measured by votes in conveniently located polling booths. Maybe that would be a more promising application of this technology.

Infosponge • March 20, 2008 5:56 PM

Would one of the goons behind this idea happen to go by the name of Sebastian and have an obsession with who people are?

These kinds of ideas belong in the pages/scripts of dystopian SF/scifi and definitely not in the real world.

Roy • March 20, 2008 6:10 PM

Wouldn’t the gadget be defeated by surreptitiously putting a short across the terminals, and slipping an electrical and thermal insulator between the short and the skin?

The moment the thing activates, the circuit fries.

And wouldn’t it be fun to (1) know how to defeat your bracelet, and (2) while midflight activate all the other bracelets while you pretend to have a seizure?

Anon • March 20, 2008 6:34 PM

What I’m curious about is how they selectively activate only the bracelet on the one individual’s wrist. What if there are five individuals? Or does everyone get zapped? But as Rumpis observed, easy to defeat with a little aluminum foil or other metal (which I guess TSA would have to ban on all flights, so then only cold food during flights).

TSA • March 20, 2008 6:41 PM

The video mentions something about secured cockpit doors to be installed by the end of 2003. Makes me think this idea is at least as old.

anonymous • March 20, 2008 6:42 PM

Bring a piece of aluminum foil with you on the plane and place it under the bracelet, thusly shorting it out. No shock. Problem solved.

GB • March 20, 2008 7:03 PM

Perfect tool for terrorists; upon boarding an aircraft, everyone is given a high-voltage power supply sufficient for detonating a binary explosive.

Bart Willems • March 20, 2008 7:10 PM

So the system is easy to short out and therefore useless against terrorists. Airlines will applaud it though, since it will give the flight attendents a great way to keep those pesky pax in check.
“Miss, I asked for a kosher meal, this is pork” “Bzzzzzzt” “Anything else sir?” “No thank you”.

Skippern • March 20, 2008 8:34 PM

This is yet another thing to punish us that travel alot in connection with our work. I would realy be angry when arriving at work after 48 hour travel if I’d been zapped a few times.

Andrew • March 20, 2008 9:26 PM

Do folks not know that prisoners are often transported and forced to appear in court wearing stun belts? That these belts are routinely activated by corrections officers and judges? That they are sold in major catalogs and are commonly available?

The only difference is form factor. Really.

Why not combine it with the seat belt?

As for Tasers, I’d MUCH rather be threatened with a Taser than forced to wear a stun belt or stun bracelet. For one thing, “stun” is a misnomer. These are pain compliance devices, not neuromuscular immobilization. For another, Taser darts, tags, etc. are evidence. Stun guns etc. leave much less in the way of marks.

Who? • March 20, 2008 9:51 PM

This is just payback from the Canadians for us invading their country and drilling their oil…oh wait, that’s the part of my evil plan not yet hatched! Darn it!

Alamankarazieff • March 21, 2008 2:08 AM

I’m just waiting for two things to happen :
that a guy hijacks a plane using the nylon sleeves of his shirt, then we will all have to travel naked.
Next step is when another (now naked) guy hijacks a plane with his sheer kung-fu skills, and then we will all have to travel chained to our seats.
It would make the entire business so much more interesting, and definitely ease up the check-in process.

An alternative to the final step is when air plane companies decide that the real danger to security is passengers, and therefore decide to stop carrying any.

gopi • March 21, 2008 2:24 AM

What sort of user interface will the system have? How will the flight crew select which bracelet to activate? The video showed some sort of vague directional remote control that you could point at somebody.

I suppose it’s better to mis-aim the targeting system on this than to mis-aim a gun. Robust directional targeting is a very difficult problem – radio waves bounce a lot, as does light. I don’t think they’ll be able to do it reliably.

pwnell • March 21, 2008 4:32 AM

Hmmm sounds to me like a stupid idea. It gives the attacker so much more opportunity. Now he only has to find the remote control, and give all the passengers except himself a shock – hence removing 99% of any potential heros…

Stephen Kellett • March 21, 2008 6:16 AM

This looks like it is a precursor to the “pain-giver” neck bracelet first shown on the sci-fi series Babylon 5.

A pain giver had multiple levels of pain it could inflict, from minor irritation to enough to cause death. The scenario shown was used for torture with an automatic setting set so that if the victim got too close to the torturer the victim would die, thus the victim could never attack their tormentor, even if not shackled.

The fact that people are considering this bracelet outside the airline industry gives me the creeps. It seems like a perfect instrument for torture.

Kind of ironic that the tagline for that company is “less lethal”.

Vespucci • March 21, 2008 6:38 AM

@anonymous, @R U Sure

I’m sure it’s entirely beside the point, but surely Canada is located in America? As is Bolivia. Oh.. the ambiguity…

Arancaytar • March 21, 2008 7:04 AM

Obligatory: “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear from the ability of jumpy, trigger-happy security guys electrocuting you by remote control!”

Arancaytar • March 21, 2008 7:06 AM

Addendum: You also don’t need to worry about getting a bracelet with an ID one digit removed from the terrorist.

“Damn, fried the wrong guy. Try again.”

chocolate bunny • March 21, 2008 7:16 AM

the airplane’s people section should be built like a wasp nest, every passenger is locked into their own sealed chamber, which is monitored by camera from a booth somewhere on the plane outside of this chamber of individual containers. each sealed chamber opens to connect to the same path to the bathroom, but guests are only allowed after the path is clear of people and each person is locked within their chamber. The individual may press a button to request to be placed in a queue, their chamber door opening only when it is their turn.

another path is used for the people serving food/drinks and other items, the server carries a view screen and communication device where they see everyone in the chambers with a touch of a button and can communicate with them.

smoking is now possible again on most planes with this method, as each chamber has a filtration device to remove the smoke.

passengers themselves would have no video/audio communication with others on the plane, aside from the security booth staff. all queries to the servers go through the security booth staff first for screening.

additional security methods and means could be applied.

problems solved? comments welcome.

Ed T. • March 21, 2008 7:25 AM

Of course, the TSA’s implementation will require that everyone on board wear one – including the flight crew. Just like the “screenings”.

~EdT.

DLL • March 21, 2008 8:28 AM

@chocolate bunny

Sounds like a (questionable) solution to a problem we do not have. Air travel is safe enough and expensive enough already.

Harry • March 21, 2008 9:48 AM

I wonder what their plans are for passengers that have pacemakers (which includes a lot of lawmakers), or who are pregnant, or who are frail, or who are small children.

If I were a business, I’d want to know about the company’s liability insurance before buying.

George • March 21, 2008 10:35 AM

@Harry: includes a lot of lawmakers), or who are pregnant, or who are frail, or who are small children.

If I were a business, I’d want to know about the company’s liability insurance before buying.

Very simple. Airlines add a provision to their “contract of carriage” that the passenger absolves the airline, the TSA, and the bracelet manufacturer of any liability for injury or death resulting from activation of the Security Device and expressly waives any right to lawsuit. This is a legal document, to which the passenger agrees to be bound upon the purchase of a ticket. It doesn’t matter that passengers have no idea of all the legally-binding provisions to which they “agree” when they buy a ticket. A contract is a contract.

xd0s • March 21, 2008 11:08 AM

@George

“It doesn’t matter that passengers have no idea of all the legally-binding provisions to which they “agree” when they buy a ticket. A contract is a contract. ”

I believe that the Reasonable Person ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person ) concept would be applied and this agreement would be tossed out about 30 sec into any case like this.

No reasonable person would agree, especially sight unseen, to a contract that absolves the airlines etc from responsibilty for death or injury, stemming from negligence or error of using a system like this.

spongeworthy • March 21, 2008 11:25 AM

I still prefer the idea someone had which was to require everyone to fly in the nude: check everything including the clothes on your body, shoes, etc. before boarding and get them back upon landing. I would much sooner fly while nude than while wearing a bracelet that “…gives the person a debilitating shock.” No way.

mfheadcase • March 21, 2008 11:28 AM

Chocolate Bunny, what you suggest is an extreme solution to a rare problem… and would be hideously expensive to implement, likely reduce passenger capacity as well, further damaging the airline’s bottom line…

And when it comes to claustrophobes? Forget about it.

If you make your chambers large and comfortable enough they could be sold to the public on a privacy and luxury angle… but the communications restrictions and locked doors would never fly.

Padded wall coffin racks, if large enough to sit up in, long enough to lie down, could work as far as passenger capacity, especially if there is a flip down communications/entertainment console.

Being comfy enough to sleep in for long flights would be the big selling point. And on larger planes they might even be able to squeeze in the same passenger capacity as having actual seats.

There is of course still the problem of Claustrophobic passengers… not to mention how to handle people traveling with infants or small children. But designed properly this could be safer than normal seats in case of a crash. Also a rare occasion… but more common than terrorist action.

As a bonus… this would make joining the mile high club almost a trivial exercise… Though it may also take some of the thrill out of it.

Dennis • March 21, 2008 12:38 PM

The terrorists are our own government. has anyone figured that out yet? Look at this paranoia… US Patent: A method of providing air travel security for passengers traveling via an aircraft comprises situating a remotely activatable electric shock device on each of the passengers in position to deliver a disabling electrical shock when activated; and arming the electric shock devices for subsequent selective activation by a selectively operable remote control disposed within the aircraft. The remotely activatable electric shock devices each have activation circuitry responsive to the activating signal transmitted from the selectively operable remote control means. The activated electric shock device is operable to deliver the disabling electrical shock to that passenger.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,933,851.PN.&OS=PN/6,933,851&RS=PN/6,933,851

Rich Hudson • March 21, 2008 1:20 PM

Of course this idea hasn’t a chance of getting off the ground … until the next big terrorist attack, that is. At which time it will be slipped into PATRIOT Act III, which Congress will pass unanimously and without debate.

Rumpis • March 21, 2008 1:28 PM

How about jamming? If these bracelets are remote controlled by radio waves it means somebody else can jam this remote control signal.

George • March 21, 2008 3:28 PM

@xd0s
“I believe that the Reasonable Person concept would be applied and this agreement would be tossed out about 30 sec into any case like this.”

Does this concept have any meaning today, when it’s standard practice for consumers to “agree” to adhesion contracts foisted on them (often sight unseen until after “agreeing”) by large corporations? Those “agreements” routinely waive the consumer’s right to sue, and leave dispute resolution to an inherently biased binding arbitration process. So perhaps the “condition of carriage” could include a binding arbitration clause to satisfy any modern Republican judge.

What is taught in law school is bears little if any resemblance to real life.

Peter E Retep • March 21, 2008 8:10 PM

Bus Driver or Parent:
You kids all quiet down there or I’m going to stop this [bus or car]!

AirLine Pilot:
Stop this disturbance or I’ll taze you all out until I land!

Peter E Retep • March 21, 2008 8:10 PM

Bus Driver or Parent:
You kids all quiet down there or I’m going to stop this [bus or car]!

AirLine Pilot:
Stop this disturbance or I’ll taze you all out until I land!

Peter R Retep • March 21, 2008 8:13 PM

(Sorry about the double post. Only clicked on it one time.)

“But, hey, I found this nifty hack. I push this button and everyone on a 747 falls asleep. Saves the airlines lots of money.”

nerdboy • March 22, 2008 4:03 AM

Another method for defeating this device would be to place it inside a faraday cage, thus stopping it receiving the radio frequency signal. If metal was banned on the flight, you may be able to do this by submerging your hand (and the bracelet) in a cup of water with a suitable electrolyte added, such as some table salt…

Rick Damiani • March 22, 2008 9:45 PM

What would keep the ‘terrorists’ from removing the bracelet? Sure, that might trigger an alarm of some sort, but so would the terrorists subsequent actions.

Jens • March 23, 2008 3:56 PM

Imagine the fun a script kiddie can have .. sitting next to the airport and randomly brrrzzing passengers in flight using the home-build pringlezzz antenna.

@Rick The bracelets would be removable-safe. The additional advantage of that is evident in the “crashed on paradise island” scenario. Lots of fresh meat for the crew while they hoard the passengers. yuck

IANAL • March 23, 2008 8:55 PM

@ George “Very simple. Airlines add a provision to their “contract of carriage” that the passenger absolves the airline, the TSA, and the bracelet manufacturer of any liability for injury or death resulting from activation of the Security Device and expressly waives any right to lawsuit. ”
They need not to add anything, it’s already there, and it IS enforceable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalaya_clause

It would mean that airline own employees may not operate the things, but that’s not a big issue…

bob • March 24, 2008 8:29 AM

I think this is an OUTSTANDING idea. I have been wanting to start a charter-aircraft company for years and this would drive passengers away from airlines in such number that I could actually charge enough money to make chartering pay for itself.

And the airlines would still be profitable on the remaining 3 passengers per aircraft because THEY always get bailed out by the government when they shoot themselves in the foot.

Kevin • March 24, 2008 11:48 AM

Is there any salvagable idea here – perhaps each passenger seat is equipped with a non-lethal tazer, and flight attendants / pilots can activate (but not deactivate) the system if a threat is perceived.

The implemenation would probably be relatively cheap – more expensive than reinforced cockpit doors, but probably a fraction of the cost of many existing TSA security measures.

The security value of a true-positive result seems quite high: when the system is activated, each passenger is suddenly armed with a taser, and a terrorist / highjacker suddenly has a lot more to worry about than a locked cockpit door. Plus, the attack is flexible enough to accomodate many forms of beligerence (9-11-style terrorism, straight highjacking, suicide bomber, psychotic passenger w/ a weapon, etc)

After the cost of implementation, the cost of false-positive (tasers activated, but no terrorist) would probably be the biggest hindrance; however, this could be greatly reduced with simple steps: a setup that would NOT activate tasers on seats of passengers under 18 years of age, safeguards to avoid inadvertant triggering of the system, strict penalties for misuse of the system, etc.

The cost of false-negative (terrorist present, but system not activated) is no more expensive than not having the system in the first place.

Thoughts?

LuvYourBlog • March 24, 2008 6:56 PM

It seems to me that we are talking about several ideas at this point:

Wristbands: have the risk of false activation, the risk that the wrist band goes to the wrong person if an RFID type mechanism is used, risk that a directed RF signal takes out a whole swath of passengers around the target, and it can be shielded as a Faraday cage, circumvented with insulation or conductor between the skin and the electrodes, or cut off using fingernail clippers (no longer banned!). Presumably they emit an annoying noise if cut off or shorted.

In-seat devices: probably only work while the target is sitting down. Once the perpetrator is up and about, pretty useless. Choice of clothing (along with tin foil) can mitigate this also.

Tasers, especially Kevin’s idea of Tasers For The Masses. Just like the yellow oxygen masks that drop from the ceiling, I love the image of a load of tasers dropping from the ceiling. Of course, with all of the stuff hanging down, getting a clear shot off is more like playing a game of Quake. On the other hand, everyone would have to be fully informed that this system exists, or it would have no value; this means that an attack can leverage the Taser deployment response with appropriate clothing and being the first one to take several of the nearby Tasers and using them outright and then taking a sympathetic hostage to get everyone else to back off. It ought to work at least until passengers get organized.

In all cases, when these systems are deployed in real planes, maintenance crews will learn all about them, so their weaknesses can be discovered and exploited by enemy agents.

/Irony
So, the only intelligent thing to do is to deploy all of these systems simultaneously since a potenial group of hijackers can’t ever be expected to defeat all of them simultaneously.
/Irony Off

Golfballs in the snow • March 25, 2008 11:32 AM

My dog has already got one, not a bracelet admittedly – more of a necklace:
http://www.britishdog.net/gbu0-prodshow/Pro_Dog_400.html

There are even ones that spray an unpleasant liquid at said misbehaving canine (http://www.britishdog.net/gbu0-prodshow/Masterplus_Pro_300.html). This could be adapted to automatically mace the (human) wearer.

Mass (re)usage issues of dog training collar:
1. cabin staff trying to work out which of the 200 or more remotes to activate

  1. the more hirsute would have to be shaved first to enable good contact

  2. remembering to charge all the units – something my wife can’t manage as the dog still legs it

Lou Conein • March 26, 2008 10:14 AM

Can’t wait till they do a mashup with retail loyalty cards.

“No, thanks, I don’t need any asparagus tod….OW!! Ok, gimme two.”

America. It’s what’s for dinner.

Rich Kulawiec • March 27, 2008 6:21 AM

After thinking about this further, I’m going to try to be the first to say:

Shocks on a Plane

If you’ll excuse me now, I’m be ducking and running away from your collective wrath.

nabalzbbfr • March 29, 2008 10:27 AM

The drawback of someone being able to remove it could be obviated by having the device surgically implanted in an appropriate body cavity. This could be used as a substitute for the current visa waiver program.

apotheon • March 29, 2008 1:21 PM

Actually, the best answer would probably be to simply allow people to carry firearms on airplanes, same as they’d be allowed to carry them in their own homes — but restrict them to frangible bullets so they won’t go blowing holes through the skin of the aircraft if they miss a terrorist.

No worries about leveraging a taser system as a means of facilitating a hijacking, no worries about accidental activation of a “stun” bracelet, no worries specific to pacemakers or small children, et cetera.

Banana Vortex • July 14, 2008 5:11 PM

Flight security against terrorists is a twisted, criminal fraud perpetrated against Americans and enabled by the 911 atrocity.

Since the mass murder on 911 was facilitated by the US government, a military psyop designed to spread fear and further divide the country, “security” elements such as these are in violation of Constitutional law.

Only when Americans can come together as a united people and say enough is enough and defy totalitarian illegal mandates (through force if necessary) will the terrorists who have commandeered their country be routed.

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.