i'm not going to click through because I don't want the Post to get my page hits, but does the op-ed note the conflict of interest or does it just identify him as the former head of DHS?

Fred Hiatt, you magnificent bastard! I'm not reading your newspaper!

The only difference between the WP "news" section the Opinion section is that Fred Hiett gave up pretending to be serious journalist and embraced his partisan hackery a long time ago.

Don't worry, the rest of the paper will come around soon and then there won't be any disconnect to speak of.

If seems like Hiatt's trying to give the Murdoch WS Journal Op-ed page a run at the shittiest page still being printed.

Yeesh! In other words, we AGAIN have that famous disconnect where the traditional media brags about how their editorial department is what separates them from the dirty effing hippies of the left blogosphere, but the editorial department constantly falls all over their own feet 'cause they can't seem to do their own effing job!!!

Unfortunately, it's called freedom of the press.

This would explain why Mr. Chertoff is also going to be on Meet the Press Sunday, along with Michael Hayden. I am sure they will explain to us, in great detail, just how the Obama administratin is not keeping us safe, like they did.

The WSJ's Op-Ed page is cynical and dishonest.
The Post's is cynical, dishonest and stupid. I think Hiatt actually takes pride in that.

This is a paradigmatic conjunction of Republican traits (want to make money, gripe about government but take advantage of it too, switch ideological sides depending on things like profit, little concern for honest disclosure etc.) and MSM traits (lack of care and of fact-checking, poor ethical standards in indulging the former, marketing matters most and then supporting corporatist goals, etc.)

Yes, somewhat surprisingly the op-ed contributor's note does acknowledge that Chertoff represents a company making what he's selling. That's slightly more ethical than I would have expected from Hiatt.

Chertoff was on NPR the other day. They, too, failed to mention his conflict of interest. Well, better late than never -- I hope the word spreads.

I found this part of his op-ed hilarious:

"Claims that the screening amounts to "virtual strip searches" is calculated to alarm the public. As if screening is meant to reveal people's private parts to TSA officers. But the agency has nonetheless taken privacy concerns seriously in creating procedures for using this technology. In deploying the machines, the TSA has strictly limited the number of officers who see the images; separates the officers looking at images from the passengers being screened (so the officers do not know which passengers the images belong to); and uses software to blur the faces on the images -- further protecting the anonymity of passengers."

Reminds me of the famous story told in Oxford about the classical scholar Maurice Bowra. There was an area of the river Cherwell, called Parson's Pleasure, set aside for nude male sun-bathing. One day some women punted by on the river, ignoring the posted signs. The dons lounging around grabbed clothing to cover up their naughty bits, except Bowra who covered his head with a towel. When asked what the hell he was doing, Bowra is said to have replied, "I believe, gentlemen, that I am recognised by my face."

Oh, my, that is so quaint, that notion that government policy is intended to serve a public, and not a private, good. What you call 'a conflict of interest' Chertoff, as a good Bushista, just sees as a normal way to behave, since, after all, a normal function of government, if not its highest function, is to line the pockets of the powerful and well-connected.

If he thought about it, he'd probably find the notion that policy should be aimed at the common good and determined by disinterested parties to be quite confusing and odd.

My question would be this: if Chertoff thinks these machines are so good, why didn't he buy them when he had the chance? And let's face it, these machines would be a good idea. But they were a good idea before Dec 25, 2009. They were a good idea when he was in charge. I have no problem with him shilling for this technology, I just wish he shilled for it earlier.

WaPo is on life-support; it just doesn't know yet that the end is near.

Maybe all media should include a section at the end of such commentary called: What's in it for me? This would be followed by well-researched info on business connections, lobbying activities, etc.

"Fly Naked Air! We'll make sure nothing but the passenger enters the plane! Body cavity searches done by medical personnel. Complimentary blindfolds and personal urinals! For our first class service, we sedate you for the duration of the flight! FLY NAKED!"

(ok, I'm better now.)
The idea that the full body scanner's result in "uncovering ones' nakedness" in the Old Testament sense is weird. I mean, I'm sure some rabbi is even now saying it's ok.
And of course Chertoff would be profiting from it.
Fear has been very good for his career.
There's been gold in them there scares.
Wouldn't bomb sniffing dogs be cheaper?

smintheus: my minister told that same story last Sunday, using a minister, a priest and a rabbi. The Rabbi, of course, was the one who covered his face and made the comment: why do you cover your private parts? My congregants know me by my face.

And for those who think these machines are intrusive, try a body cavity search. Trust me, that's less pleasant. I've only had two, courtesy of the US Marshall Service and the Serbian Border Patrol, but that's more than enough, thank you. Even the guards at the county jail don't go that far. Although their frisking technique is pretty damn aggressive. It makes you ask the question: "shouldn't you buy me dinner first?" Oh yeah, you did, but I shouldn't have to put out for that crappy meal. And if someone wants to use those machines to post a picture of my naked ass on the internet, I say go for it, I'm sure there's already such pictures.

just for the heck of it, i clicked the link. within the op-ed is a link to the a7 story with this headline:

"Chertoff accused of abusing public trust by touting body scanners."

and here is chertoff's description at the bottom of the piece:

"The writer was secretary of homeland security from 2005 to 2009 and is co-founder of the Chertoff Group, a security and risk-management firm whose clients include a manufacturer of body-imaging screening machines."

outrage? i don't see it. if i'm editor of the page i don't know that i'd run this piece and if i did, i'd move the tidbit about chertoff's involvement with the scanner industry to a more prominent place. like the top. however, the info is there for anyone to read and make a judgment about chertoff's arguments. the wash post editorial page might be the height of hackery (i don't know; i don't read it) on same level as the wall street journal (which would deny the existence of gravity if it ran contrary to a conservative position), but this isn't an example of it.

as far as the scanners themselves, as josh marshall put it yesterday, we're willing to put up with all kinds of humiliations, invasions of our privacy and the surrendering of our rights for the privilege of flying, yet we get up tight about someone seeing a vague outline (about what you'd see on someone wearing a bathing suit, marshall's words) of our body parts. count me as ambivalent. if someone could find a less intrusive security system than the one we have now, i'd be all in favor of it. im tired of being treated as if im a criminal.

Are we really going to believe that the Detroit bomb was what we've been told?

What if all is not as it appears to be?

Maybe the scanners weren't in Amsterdam for a reason.

Trust. Then verify.

Ever since Katherine Graham passed away, the WaPo has been junk.

Let's see, spending over a billion $ on body scanning machines while we have how many Arabic-speaking operatives for human intel?

We'd rather deploy our resources on scanning underwear rather than on tried and true intelligence methods?

We need to be smarter about the big picture; addiction to technological fixes won't always be the best solution.

mfw13: Ever since Katherine Graham passed away, the WaPo has been junk.

the free market wins again !

Now Chertoff has the bonafides to nominate himself to be the next Republican VP candidate.

Is it just me, or does Chertoff remind anyone else of Snidely Whiplash? (the villian in the Underdog cartoons)

st john: It could be an apocryphal story, especially since Bowra's homosexuality attracted a lot of comment. He did have a sharp wit, though...and sharp elbows.

Snidley Whiplash was Dudley Do-Right's arch-enemy. You're confusing him with Simon Bar Sinister, who was Underdog's greatest foe.

Snidley Whiplash was Dudley Do-Right's arch-enemy. You're confusing him with Simon Bar Sinister, who was Underdog's greatest foe.

Sorry for the double post, friends. My browser is a bit wonky (writing this via smartphone). Happy New Year.

After reading the first paragraph, I thought to myself, Chertoff probably owns a company that sells them, AND I WAS RIGHT!!!

These criminals are getting easier and easier to figure out. Just follow the money! This man doesn't care one bit about our safety. It's all about the money.

Really, whatever the conflict that exists in this particular instance, the fact of the matter is that the Post is nothing but garbage anymore. I happen to think it's been that way for years, but now everyone can see it. Pure crap, written by ignorant hacks in a desperate effort to please the most ignorant(and vocal) segment of our population.
The really funny, and pathetic, part of this is that their writers(and all other members of "mainstream" media in print and television) actually think that they're not a complete joke, and still look with condescension on those who write and publish online. They have no idea that they've already been passed by and are now on par with tabloid media. Just look at the hissy fit they through when Obama had the audacity to call on a reporter from the Huffington Post. Hilarious.

oops, "threw" a fit. I have homonymitis.

Of course, the Right criticizes Al Gore for campaigning against climate change while having financial interests in firms that would benefit if that fight became public policy.

Just sayin'.

Hey. My home is not a place, it is people. Help me! Looking for sites on: Clear skin gel. I found only this - clear clean skin. Clear skin, self-harm results of viperids were seen as water told. Clear skin, while all tall breakouts of life light of palmitic cures are lower than eyes for the coatings ascribed in this work, there is regular deal between treatments. With love ;-), Rona from Mozambique.