Care to highlight where one finds this due process, in particular with respect to a general member of the public submitting to American Express?
And the article makes it clear that there is an element of expediency.
Oh, and this is a general member of the public using their own time and resources to try to notify a massive company to save that company pain and turmoil. So this due process had better be (a) relatively expedient and (b) not unreasonably burdensome.
A sadly good number of companies online today have never bothered to understand the RFCs. Today, you don't need to read and RFC to get up and on the net.
Many admins today have inherited a system set up by us long beards (or suspender wearers....or both). Though many of us have established good practices, there's no guaranteeing that they are being followed by those who are now running the front lines.
Would you like some nice untested, unsafe, and unclean medicine? How about some nice condoms guaranteed to only leak 20% of the time?
And when the proposed legislation actually can resolve these issues (where existing laws cannot) and when this new legislation cannot be easily abused to subdue "inconvenient content", I'll support it.
And music that the cops don't like (or understand), or think that their bosses don't like (or understand). And books. And community organizations. And up-and-coming technologies. And competition to established entities. And inconvenient displays of democracy....
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, email@example.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.2.19 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.19 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_fcgid/2.3.6 Phusion_Passenger/3.0.7 Server at truereform.piausa.org Port 80
So get the government out of the way and let all players have at the marketplace. The market will pick those who serve their interests best. And as many a study have shown, that often is not the "free" option (see iTunes, Netflix, cable TV, ...)
So because of 3 incidents that span 25 years, you are willing to throw many billions of dollars, waste many years of people's lives and throw away various rights, all the while not actually being any safer?
Oh, you can name a few more examples, I get that. But we are talking about thousands of planes worldwide PER DAY, millions of pedestrians.
I am not advocating letting people walk off the street and onto a plane. But I am advocating for a smarter approach in terms of $$$, time and respect/dignity for all involved.
As for Numbers B & C: the fact that we have TSA agents blindly following a "procedure" rather than assessing the individuals they are screening for an actual potential risk highlights that the system is ripe for gaming.
All that the "terrorists" need to do is send in enough individuals that get past the randomized screening (where enough == 1 or 2).
The fact is, there aren't terrorist attacks going on all the time simply because there aren't terrorist attacks going on all the time. Otherwise, TSA would be giving us daily or weekly recaps of all the attacks they have thwarted. But they don't because they aren't.