| January 2005 Archives | « December 2004 | Main | February 2005 » |
January 30, 2005 | Reviewing the Review - A Closer Look at a Hatchet Job
Heather Mac Donald, the City Journal's resident apologist for racial profiling and abusive interrogation techniques, published a review of Robert O'Harrow Jr.'s book, No Place To Hide, in the January 25 edition of the Wall Street Journal.
Mac Donald is perhaps best known for her full-throated defense of the Patriot Act from any and all criticism, including this essay, which was reprinted in full (scroll down) on the Justice Department's website defending the legislation.
Here Mac Donald offers a snarky review of O'Harrow's book, a broadside written in bad faith that dismisses the book simply based on the premise that no one should even question the implications of surveillance, government use of massive corporate collections of data, or law enforcement powers.
Here's two examples of her inability to engage the book fairly:
One:
Mr. O'Harrow presents every horror story he can find about a data system gone awry. Florida authorities bar an eligible voter from voting in the 2000 presidential election in Florida after computers falsely identify him as a felon. [...]
Such misfirings are regrettable, and every measure should be taken to avoid them. [...] The cost to democratic legitimacy of election fraud outweighs the minimal risk that antifraud technology will disenfranchise eligible voters. Virtually every modern discovery that improves life -- from vaccines to automobiles -- carries risks; balancing those risks against the technology's benefits is a skill that privacy advocates seem to lack.
Mac Donald's dismisses the DBT/Florida debacle as the case of one eligible voter being disenfranchised, calling it the price of modern anti-fraud technology.
But it wasn't just one voter. The list included three percent of all African American voters in Florida. And while we will never know for certain whether inaccurate purges changed the 2000 election results, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights estimates 8,000 voters were inaccurately flagged by the faulty list. President Bush's margin of victory was 447 votes.
FindingsThe state of Florida’s statutorily mandated purge list, compiled by a private firm, was provided to county supervisors of elections with names that were inexact matches. The data provided demonstrated that this list had at least a 14.1 percent error rate.
African Americans had a significantly greater chance of being listed on Florida’s mandated purge list. The probability of names of African Americans appearing on the list in error was significantly greater than the likelihood of the names of whites being erroneously included on the purge list.The state of Florida’s use of this purge list, combined with the state law that places the burden on voters to remove themselves from the list, resulted in denying countless African Americans the right to vote.
Two:
In fact, people give away personal information even when they don't have to. In 1998, hundreds of thousands of magazine readers filled out an eight-page, 700-item questionnaire about themselves just because Condé Nast was curious about its subscribers' most intimate medical problems and life-style choices. Americans clearly have a far more relaxed view of privacy than the activists who claim to speak on their behalf.
What Mac Donald conveniently leaves out of this account is that the survey pretended it was anonymous, while in fact, the survey's designer surreptitiously placed a tracking code on the envelope that identified the reader the survey had been mailed. While Americans may like to fill out surveys, we don't like being misled or lied to by omission.
Of course, that portion of the story doesn't fit with Mac Donald's thesis, so she conveniently neglects to mention it.
And finally, Mac Donald tries to defend the Total Information Awareness project by arguing that O'Harrow neglects to look into all the effort being put into "anonymization technologies," which, though she declines to cite a single example, Mac Donald insists are being pursued as thoroughly as the technologies to surveill Americans. (Of course, in her view, this would have happened regardless of people concerned about privacy and surveillance).
Let's take for example the Total Information Awareness system that DARPA was working on. Once developed and deployed (by some agency other than DARPA, which is purely a research group), the system would search through almost any database imaginable, including law enforcement, medical, associational, financial, phone, media and Internet records to search for patterns of activities that look like terrorist plans. The goal was to find plots before the deed was done.
Regardless of the immensity of the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate activities and terrorist plots, as well as the enormous potential for false positives, even if the system could work, there's a not-so-minor question of the Fourth Amendment. The system would have placed almost the entirety of Americans' lives under constant surveillance.
The program's directors directed a minuscule amount of their funding to a "privacy appliance." That system would sit between the databases and the central supercomputer algorithms, and would try to add-on privacy by anonymizing citizen's identities. So the appliance sitting on a credit card database would send on "234fgxc45f bought a Casio watch" and the one sitting on AT&T's server would send on "234fgxc45f called 457.763.3452" and the Joint Terrorism Task Force database would send on the info that "457.763.3452 that is the workplace of a suspected terrorist." Then an analyst would take that info to a judge or simply to their supervisor and get permission to change 234fgxc45f to a real name.
That's nice, so far as it goes, and does do something to prevent the creation of a thoroughly indexed central database on Americans, but it ignores one crucial thing: the system is still surveilling every move of American citizens, a blatant violation of the spirit, if not the instrument, of the Fourth Amendment.
Here's a analogy.
Suppose law enforcement agents had the keys to all Americans' houses and every day, opened the door and let a dog go in. The officer has no idea what your name is. The dog goes in and sniffs all through the house. If the dog smells drugs or something it thinks might be drugs, it barks. Once the dog barks, the officer calls down to the central station and gets permission to find out who you are and do further searches.
From where I stand, that's an un-American America, just as I think, a society in which a computerized version of a drug-detecting dog is sniffing my every purchase, email and phone call is un-American and would have a chilling effect on citizens' participation in politics.
Mac Donald may think that's a fine world to live in, where a law enforcement agents unleash a computerized sniffer on your every move.
Of course, in Mac Donald's world, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
But try telling that to the 3,000 or so Denver activists who were spied upon by the Denver police and Joint Terrorism Task Force. O'Harrow chronicles the experience of Quakers who were labeled "criminal extremists," but somehow that story fails to make it into Mac Donald's hit piece.
At one point in her review, Mac Donald also castigates O'Harrow for not doing any reporting on the effects of surveillance. It's the kind of line that will make anyone who has read the book spit out their coffee in comic disbelief. If anything, O'Harrow spends too much time reporting, as the level of detail supporting his narrative is almost overwhelming (and amazingly, though I cover much of the same territory, O'Harrow does, I found not a single error in fact in the book).
Moreover, despite Mac Donald's castigation of O'Harrow's book as a "Jeremiad", O'Harrow is eminently fair and far from pretending to have all the answers. In fact, its clear he wants a fuller debate over the use of personal information, the legitimate uses of surveillance and whether new laws are needed to keep up with the power of new technology.
It would be nice to have that debate, but with writers like Heather Mac Donald being tolerated by the Wall Street Journal, it seems increasingly unlikely that any real, informed debate will happen anytime soon.
That's a shame, and both Mac Donald and the editors who let her purported review go into print owe the country better.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 10:40 PM | TrackBack
January 27, 2005 | Book Fight ClubDennis Bailey over at his Open Society Paradox blog points out that C-SPAN is featuring his book (also called Open Society Paradox) (tracking url here), touting openness and surveillance over privacy, at 10 am on Sunday morning. Bailey also points out that at 11 pm, CSPAN is doing a thing on O'Harrow's book, No Place to Hide, (perhaps this is the last time I'll mention it -- at least in January).
Bailey writes: "Two diametrically opposed viewpoints, back to back on C-SPAN. Sorry Fox but that's a better idea of fair and balanced."
True that and it sounds like a way more interesting debate than anything that will be Meet My Ego or Inside Snarking.
Hopefully, I'll get to Bailey's book before Sunday. That way, he and I can get to some high tech updating of old-style wrassling (remember back when pro-wrestlers didn't use chairs? That kind of wrassling).
Posted by Ryan Singel at 04:00 PM | TrackBack
January 27, 2005 | Ready or notLast night, while attempting to make breakfast for dinner (eggs, hash browns and toast taste good anytime), I found that the gas had been turned off in my apartment.
It turned out to be no big deal, just something overlooked by some guys working for my landlord.
But it got me to thinking about disaster kits, partly since I was considering going to the basement to get out my camping stove to make myself some coffee.
Given I live in San Francisco, I really should have a disaster kit, with water, food and provisions for when the big one hits. My main stumbling block comes in knowing where to store it. Do I keep it in the basement or in the second floor apartment or at my one-story office a few blocks away?
I also got to thinking about the new Homeland Security preparedness guide put out by DHS this week. They are asking real estate agents around the country to distribute the guide when selling houses.
It's a good enough guide (.pdf) so far as it goes, with the appropriate instructions on preparing water, food and a communications plan.
I'm not technically qualified to comment on the mask recommendations in the report and while its hard not to snicker at the duct tape and plastic sheeting section, for all I know, that might actually help in the case of a chemical attack.
But the document is lacking one very key element, whose absence is present here in the booklet's opening paragraphs.
Potential Threats: Terrorists are working to obtain biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons, and the threat of an attack is very real. Here at the Department of Homeland Security, throughout the federal government, and at organizations across America, we are working hard to strengthen our Nation’s security and to reduce our vulnerability to emergencies of all kinds.Whenever possible, we want to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. All Americans should begin a process of learning about potential threats so we are better prepared to react during an attack, natural disaster or other emergency. While there is no way to predict what will happen, or what your personal circumstances will be, there are simple things you can do now to prepare yourself and your loved ones. Some of the things you can do to prepare for a terrorist attack, such as assembling a supply kit and developing a family communications plan, are the same for both a natural or man-made emergency. However, as you will read in this brochure, there are important differences among potential terrorist threats that will impact the decisions you make and the actions you take. With a little planning and common sense, you can be better prepared for the unexpected.
What's missing here is risk assessment.
Americans -- or maybe humans generally -- are particularly bad at deciding what is risky and what is not. For instance, most people are more afraid of dying in a plane crash than in car crash, though the latter are way more common. Some 40,000 people die in automobile crashes every year. That risk is higher both on a per-trip basis and a per-mile basis.
It's also true that most Americans have little to fear from a terrorist strike, whether that be a dirty bomb, a car bomb or an attack on a chemical plant.
Those living in urban areas are certainly at the highest risk, and people who live near chemical and nuclear plants should take precautions, not just because of the possibility of a terrorist attack, but also because Bhopal or Three Mile Island could happen again.
But for most people, including suburbanites who don't live or work in a city, the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is virtually nil.
But the pamphlet makes no mention of such thinking anywhere.
Not advising people to make a logical assessment of their risk level is simply irresponsible and alarmist.
Imagine if this were a health advisory. Should everyone go get checked for sickle cell anemia, HIV, prostate cancer or breast cancer? Of course not.
Should it be the policy of the government to encourage doctors to hand out pamphlets on what to do in the case of an Ebola virus outbreak to every patient? What about syphilis?
Sure, we should all know about the possibility of Ebola virus outbreak or the risks of contracting HIV through unprotected sex, but the former is extremely rare and the latter is most likely to strike certain populations.
I assume that one reason that DHS did not include any discussion of risk-assessment is to make sure they are covering their ass. But that CYA contributes to a climate of unnecessary fear that is disproportionate to the real risks our country faces from radical fundamentalist terrorists and homegrown right-wing separatists.
While I am not suggesting that DHS is intentionally trying to scare people, widespread fear does serve the department's institutional goals (all organizations strive to keep themselves relevant and well-funded).
Suggesting, if only by omission, that the good folks in Miles City, Montana need to worry as much about fallout from a dirty bomb as those who live in the nation's capital is irresponsible, scare-mongering, even if it is unintentional.
The ongoing national conversation about terrorism deserves better from the folks who brought you ready.gov.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 10:33 AM | TrackBack
January 25, 2005 | The Times Discovers O'HarrowMichiko Kakutani reviewed O'Harrow's No Place To Hide in today's New York Times.
This surveillance state is not a futuristic place conjured in a Philip K. Dick novel or "Matrix"-esque sci-fi thriller. It is post-9/11 America, as described in Robert O'Harrow Jr.'s unnerving new book, "No Place to Hide" - an America where citizens' "right to be let alone," as Justice Louis Brandeis of the Supreme Court once put it, is increasingly imperiled, where more and more components of our daily lives are routinely monitored, recorded and analyzed.These concerns, of course, are hardly new. Way back in 1964, in "The Naked Society," Vance Packard warned about encroachments on civil liberties and the growing threat to privacy posed by new electronic devices, and in 1971, in "The Assault on Privacy," Arthur R. Miller warned that advances in information technologies had given birth to "a new social virus - 'data-mania.' " The digital revolution of the 1990's, however, exponentially amplified these trends by enabling retailers, marketers and financial institutions to gather and store vast amounts of information about current and potential customers. And as Mr. O'Harrow notes, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "reignited and reshaped a smoldering debate over the proper use of government power to peer into the lives of ordinary people."
My review of the book for the January 5 edition of Wired News is here.
Update: I changed the Kakutani link to what should be a permanent link using Aaron Swartz's link generator, since the original link will soon disappear into the black hole of the paper's archive, only retrievable by those with LexisNexis accounts or enough desperation to pay $4.95 for old news .
Of course, Swartz's tool has other uses, especially for those frustrated by searching on the NYTimes's website for older articles. But perhaps someday soon, the Times will realize their strategy to make a buck or two from the desperate or stupid (maybe high schoolers writing research papers?) means it is no longer the newspaper of record, at least in the online world.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 10:29 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 25, 2005 | Some Inside BaseballAsa Hutchinson, the undersecretary of border and transportation security at Homeland Security, resigned yesterday, effective March 1.
It's part of a wave of change at the top levels of DHS, which has lost its head, Tom Ridge, its second-in-command Admiral James Loy and its Inspector General Clark Kent Irvin.
Ridge will be replaced by Federalist Society-approved appeals court judge Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, a former assistant AG, is known for his belief in data mining and his aggressive use of questionable detentions of immigrants post-9/11.
Also incoming is a man named Michael Jackson, who will serve as Chertoff's deputy.
Jackson is a well-respected bureaucrat known for infusing his charges with a sense of mission.
Jackson, a former political science professor at Georgetown University, worked for President George H.W. Bush, first as Cabinet liaison at the White House and later as chief of staff at the Transportation Department when now-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. was transportation secretary. During the Clinton administration, Jackson ran a division of Lockheed Martin Corp. that worked on transportation issues.In the current president's first term, Jackson was the Transportation Department's deputy secretary. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he helped create the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is now part of Homeland Security. In 2003, he became a Washington-area representative of AECOM Technology Corp., a firm with 19,000 employees that handles engineering and construction management for large projects by companies and government agencies.
Full Washington Post story here.
Jackson was also one of the main brains behind the original CAPPS II proposal, which would have used risk-assessment algorithms to assess all airline passenger's terrorist quotient. The system would have relied extensively on data in the control of commercial data aggregators, such as Acxiom and Seisint (which developed the Matrix program). Jackson, however, lost control of the project when the TSA moved over to DHS, and fought behind-the-scenes to keep CAPPS II from also checking passengers for violent criminals, according to Washington Post journalist Robert O'Harrow's book No Place To Hide.
"After September 11, he embraced the idea of using computers and massive amounts of data to screen people for threats. He also knew the resulting system had to be used narrowly, otherwise the country could explode in a fury of resentment and mistrust. Jackson wanted to be the man remembered for protecting Americans' privacy even while fulfilling his mission to make the country safer. "We're not looking for deadbeat dads and people with parking tickets. We're looking for terrorists who want to get on airplanes."p .217
O'Harrow covers CAPPS II's history in chapter 8, pp 214-246.
One thing O'Harrow doesn't mention in the book, however, is that sometime in 2002, when Jackson and Ben Bell where developing CAPPS II, the TSA secretly gave four early contractors millions of airline passenger records, in possible violation of the Privacy Act. I say possible since the two investigations of the matter are yet unpublished, though at least one of them should be out very soon.
And finally, CAPPS III, marketed as Secure Flight, is still being tested using airline records the TSA demanded from airlines in November. The TSA wants to also "look into" using data aggregators to augment Secure Flight's reliance on a unified terrorist watch list that no one really trusts. Congress has blocked that testing until the GAO certifies the TSA has some privacy safeguards. That report is due sometime in March.
TSA must be expecting the test to give them the green light, since the agency issued a solicitation for proposals on how to use outside data for Secure Flight last week.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 08:57 AM | TrackBack
January 23, 2005 | Sunday GearsA posse of my San Francisco friends and I braved the chill today for a bike ride in Berkeley Hills, mis-appropriating the BART system (designed to bring commuters from the suburbs to downtown SF's array of cubicle farms) to take us to Rockridge, where all the folks have wonder-tots and fleece jackets.
We stopped for a moment of double espressos and macchiatos and saw a guy pull up a on a beautifully simple blue, fixed gear bike, with a sweet little wooden and metal rack over the front wheel. Dave and I, longtime aficionados of bike pr0n, recognized it immediately as a Momovelo original. Then we (maybe it was Anne) realized it was Kai Matsuda, Mr. Momovelo himself, stopping in for a coffee.
I think he was riding a Gilman Gentleman.
Momovelo sells the city bikes every one should be riding -- simple steel frames with beautiful powder coat finishes unmarred by stickers, mustache or English roadster-style handlebars, gorgeous metal fenders, and lines that make you wonder what-the-hell ever inspired anyone to buy a mountain bike.
If I ever start to make more money or find a $2000 bill on the ground, I'm buying a Milktea (scroll down for pics and note the gold chain).
Momovelo reminds me of my friend Eirik Steinhoff, a brilliant man I befriended back in the days of grad school and who now edits the Chicago Review. One of the first issues he sent me was an amazing compilation of New Polish Writing. I'm not proud to admit it was the first time I'd even read a poem by Wislawa Szymborska, a writer who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1996.
Now Matsuda made me think of Eirik for lots of reasons, but perhaps mostly because Eirik once, I think while telling me why there was real justification to my belief that the bicycle is the height of human innovation, described a bicycle as an "x-ray of a machine." Kai builds bikes to those specifications. Eirik thinks thoughts that smart some twenty times a day. Also I think I'd like to watch the two of them have a talk someday, which I'll try to set up if Eirik ever comes to visit.
So after that, we all went riding up Old Tunnel Road, the site of the great Oakland Hills Fire of October 1991. Many residents got reimbursed by both their insurers and the city of Oakland, and some replaced their lovely old Arts and Craft style homes with houses meant to resemble a battleship or serve tribute to John Coltrane (oh, how I lament not having taken a picture of the Saxophone House to include here.) A great telling of the story is in this Harper's story by David Kirp.
We rode round, climbed back up Wildcat Canyon and dropped down to Cactus Taqueria for well-deserved, deep-fried crispy chicken tacos and papaya aguas frescas. They didn't remind me of anything except themselves.
Oh yeah, and the other great thing about a bicycle?
You don't need a license from the state and nobody asks you questions before you get on it.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 10:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 21, 2005 | Cory Doctorow and Secondary 'Secondary Screening' ClassesAs Slashdot and Boing Boing readers likely know, Cory Doctorow was recently questioned by an American Airlines security agent in London and asked to write down the names and addresses of the people he planned to stay with in the States. According to Doctorow's account, the agent said this was due to a TSA regulation.
In a short post here, I noted that was likely untrue, but that we'd also never know because TSA abuses the SSI designation to hide its security procedures.
Yesterday, I gave American Airlines a call to ask them about the incident and spokesman Tim Wagner promised to get back to me after he looked into the matter.
To his credit, Wagner did just that today, sending me the following email:
After reviewing our documentation on Mr. Doctorow's experience in London, it is evident that both our contracted security screener and Mr. Doctorow contributed to what is not a representative example of our security screening process.Mr. Doctorow exhibited specific behaviors and cues before and during our initial security screening that caused our screener to initiate a secondary screening process. We will not publicize those behaviors because to do so might hamper the effectiveness of the screening process in the future.
That said, our contracted screener veered from standard procedure when she asked for Mr. Doctorow to write the addresses of his destinations in the United States. She did clearly state that once the interview was completed, the address list would be destroyed in front of Mr. Doctorow or that he could have the list to keep. American Airlines absolutely does not register or record that type of personal data.
Although the agent concerned is very promising, this incident clearly showed a lack of experience in the questioning process. The agent will go through additional training and supervision. Through daily briefings, the remainder of the station will benefit from the experience gained from this incident.
American Airlines is entirely serious about the security procedures we undertake to help ensure the safety of our passengers and crews. We expect that our passengers apply the same serious consideration when they encounter our procedures. The vast majority of airline travelers appreciate the increased security and have adapted to a new reality in air travel. That is not, however, an excuse for security measures to be applied unevenly, and to reiterate, we do not keep personal information gathered during screening processes.
We appreciate that Mr. Doctorow called our attention to the mistakes that were made because it helps us rectify the situation going forward. He will also receive a personal response to the letter he sent to our Customer Relations department.
Tim Wagner
American Airlines Spokesman
Now, the email isn't particularly detailed and doesn't address whether the screener invoked, correctly or incorrectly, the specter of unwritten TSA rules.
But the fact the company is dealing with the incident publicly says something about the power of Boing Boing and Slashdot, and/or American Airlines's corporate culture (depending on your degree of cynicism/jadedness).
It'd be nice to know more about exactly how this went down, or whether there is some TSA regulation out there instructing security agents to interrogate passengers -- mini El Al-style -- about who they are staying with and whether you have the right to refuse to answer such questions without being kept off the plane.
But it's late on a Friday, the screener already got sent to re-education, I'm unlikely to find that out from Mr. Wagner and I'm just happy the email included one of my favorite phrases, "secondary screening."
Update: Over at Boing Boing, Cory responds to the letter's version of events, writing:
Two things are wrong about this:1. The supposed TSA policy requiring me to write out my friends' addresses wasn't just talked about by the screener, but also by her supervisor, who came by to lecture me about how this was for my own safety -- if this was one rogue screener overstepping her authority, then why didn't her supervisor overrule her instead of sticking to the story that "the TSA requires this of us"
2. At no time did the screener or her supervisor ever state that the list would be destroyed in front of me, nor that I could keep the list. In fact, all three AA security people I dealt with -- the screener, her supervisor and the terminal manager -- told me that they didn't know what would be done with the list after the interview, that they had no idea what AA's document-retention and data-privacy policies were
He also questions the contention that he engaged in "specific behaviors" that cued secondary screening, asking:
I went where I was directed and told the screener when I got to the podium that I had packed all my own luggage and kept it in my control since packing it. Is anticipating a security question a suspicious behavior?
In fact, that may well be true. It could also be true that he was singled out for other reasons -- such as the well-known ones that include buying a one-way ticket (which can be true due to varying airline booking policies, even when you think you have booked a round-trip ticket) or buying the ticket on short notice.
It is also possible, and nigh-on unverifiable, that the TSA has ordered airlines to question folks flying from one country to another, while holding the passport of a third (in Cory's case, UK to the States using a Canadian passport).
Also unverifiable, except through repeated observation, is whether the TSA has ordered the airlines to institute some sort of El Al-style behavioral profiling, such as the one being tested in Boston's Logan airport.
Want to know why it is unverifiable? Check this post about Stephen Aftergood's essay on how Homeland Security has "deployed its new secrecy authority with gusto."
Posted by Ryan Singel at 03:09 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
January 20, 2005 | Eavesdropping Over the Ridge of a BeerLeah Garchik, an around-town columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, had this little item in today's paper:
In a sports bar near Piccadilly while on a business trip to London, Bob Cullinan of San Rafael was watching Saturday's Jets-Steelers game when "all of a sudden, a phalanx of burly bodies came rushing in'' with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on a "farewell'' tour through Europe. Ridge and Cullinan chatted and watched the game. Did Ridge say anything surprising? He complained that CBS reported only "bad news,'' said his department had thwarted dozens of terrorists but he couldn't talk about that publicly and -- just before a pal of Cullinan's took a snapshot -- asked, "It's OK to drink beer in a photo, isn't it?''
Now Ridge is in a bar in England watching the Steelers beat the Jets in overtime and he says that DHS has thwarted dozens of terrorists, but can not say so publicly!?!?
Admittedly, this is hearsay filtered through a columnist for the Chron.
But if this is true, what rationale is there for Ridge to say such a thing?
Now if DHS has stopped plots by apprehending terrorists and turning them United States-evidence or informer, then one could understand why the government wouldn't say anything. Remember the last time that happened, when sources in the States revealed that Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was cooperating?
Now if that's the case, congrats to the DHS or FBI for busting into the Al Qaida world using good old investigative-style tactics, but what is Ridge doing talking about it in a bar?
But if on the other hand, DHS has stopped attacks along the lines of how the Millennium bombing was stopped (an alert Customs official stopping a car getting off a ferry), what's preventing the agency from touting its success? Surely, those higher-up than the captured, killed or thwarted terrorists know this happened. That removes any pretext for secrecy.
Am I missing something here? Is the situation not quite as cut-and-dried as I'm making of this little bit of gossip?
The anecdote smells legitimate, and my gut feeling is that Ridge and Co. won't talk about their accomplishments simply because they operate in a culture of intense secrecy.
That's unfortunate, because in a post-Watergate world, this lack of transparency leads many to assume the worst of their government.
Just think about how many people in this country think FBI special agents are monitoring their emails and phone calls (when in actuality, its more likely that Mossad is intercepting and scanning your email (hi guys!)).
But that's what the government deserves when it clings, irrationally, to secrecy: a populace deeply, if incorrectly, distrustful of its own government.
There should be an award for this kind of stupidity and arrogance.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 08:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 20, 2005 | Cursory Screenings
- In today's Wired News, Michelle Delio reviews an easy-to-use email authentication and encryption add-on, called Ciphire, that works with most platforms and most email applications. I'd been meaning to take a closer look at this, as I'd like to encrypt my email on principle, but haven't had the time to play around with PGP or GnuPGP.
After reading her review, I'm pretty sure I'll be installing this free, soon-to be open source utility very soon. One note of caution, make sure you check how it works with any anti-virus program you might be using. The documentation page for Windows says I need to install Ciphire before I install the program I'm currently using (one I get for free from my ISP). As soon as I get a few minutes to uninstall the one I have, I'll give it a go and post my thoughts here.
- O'Harrow update: His new book, "No Place to Hide," which I mentioned almost a few too many times already, has a webpage, with some cool links to a radio show developed in conjunction with the book, and some transcripts of interviews with folks like Total Information Awareness founder John Poindexter, Patriot Act author Viet Dinh and former Senate Judiciary chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy. (Via Privacy Spot)
Also, O'Harrow takes a close look at data aggregator Choicepoint in today's Washington Post, but the chapter in the book is more thorough and critical.
- And finally, Cory Doctorow of BoingBoing and the Electronic Frontier Foundation got grilled in London about the addresses of his friends in the United States by agents of American Airlines, who blamed the TSA for the invasive questions. Given the TSA abuses the SSI designation to hide its regulations from the public, this could be; but I doubt it. I think AA was likely doing this on their own. Maybe I'll make some calls about it today...
Update:I managed to get Ciphire working on my work box, which runs Win2K and OL2000, though there were some moments of turbulence, mainly due, I think, to having SpamAssassin running on my server (not as a proxy on my computer). It bounced the final necessary email, and then Ciphire decided to search all 10,000 or so of my emails looking for something. The old reboot, reboot, reboot method fixed everything.
And finally, since this system works by trusting your public key to Ciphire and trusting the company not to record who you get and send email to/from and trusting software that is yet to be open-source, install this at your own peril. That's what I did. So far its fun to send out digitally signed email and decrypt messages from Ciphire support people (the only folks I know at this point using the software).
Posted by Ryan Singel at 09:03 AM | TrackBack
January 19, 2005 | What's the Frequency, Peter?Having just noted that Peter Jennings is my favorite newscaster from the major networks, I was reminded of a night of Baghdad bombing coverage on ABC News in the spring of 2003, when the seams cracked and Jennings nearly broke down on the airwaves when he took, not one, but two live calls from well-spoken Iraqis in Baghdad who were none too happy with the coming invasion.
One a dissident Iraqi professor (albeit a tolerated dissident) and the other a Baathist parliament leader. Neither men fit in the script, which consists mainly of phone calls to tank division embed Ted Koppel, a Barbara Walters-narrated piece on Saddam's contempt for human rights and an awkward interview with Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org.
Here's a snippet:
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMIWell, the voice of the bombardment is really frightening. I mean, what I know that the areas which were targeted were far away from my house and where I live with my family, but the voice on certain moments seemed as if it was very, very near. So, you cannot talk about whether my house was destroyed or other houses and other buildings. After all, if somebody bombarded the White House, I don't think the Americans would say this is the house of Bush. It is the house of the American people.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) That's a, that's a very good point, sir. I, I raise it because I've just been handed a note which says that you're a former member of the Baath party, but more than 40 years ago, and that you are interested in more democracy and an end to the repression by the regime of the Shiites and the Kurds. And so I wondered whether or not you think that the targets which have been hit represent the regime or represent Iraqis as a whole?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Well, I will ask you a question. If, if somebody bombarded the Pentagon, would you say it is a targeted for the American regime or just a target against all Americans?
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) I think most Americans, the overwhelming number of Americans, sir, would say for all Americans. And is that your answer, vis-...- vis, what has been attacked in Baghdad tonight?
I remember the night clearly (a Friday around 9 p.m. California time) and wish I had the tape of the shows. Cracks in television media facade are so rare. Absurdities, on the other hand, can be found aplenty -- but the machinery is usually very finely tuned and rarely breaks down like this.
The relevant sections, which do not do justice to Jennings's palpable discomfort and his disbelief that his producers would actually put him on the phone with Iraqis who did not support the American invasion, are after the jump.
I'm convinced that after this segment was over, at least one producer or intern lost their job or got an immediate demotion to booking show poodles on Good Morning America.
SHOW: SPECIAL REPORT: WAR WITH IRAQ (11:00 PM ET) - ABC
March 21, 2003 Friday
[...]
PETER JENNINGS
(Off Camera) Okay, many thanks, Tony. Najaf, of course, is center for scientific, for literary and for theological study by the Shiites. Everybody in the military command will know about that. On the phone from Baghdad, how interesting, on the phone with us from Baghdad, a man I do not know, a professor of political science at the University of Baghdad. Dr. Wamiz Omar Nazmi. Doctor Nazmi, can you hear me?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI, UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD
Yes.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) How nice to hear your voice. I'll ask you the dumbest question in the world. How are things?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Well, they are, you know, the bombardment of Baghdad has been taking place over the night, and, you know, people are angry at the destruction of the, their house, this very ancient or long history city. They see no point in all this destruction and American bombardment of this old city.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Can you refer more specifically to that which you believe has been destroyed that has angered people so?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Well, the voice of the bombardment is really frightening. I mean, what I know that the areas which were targeted were far away from my house and where I live with my family, but the voice on certain moments seemed as if it was very, very near. So, you cannot talk about whether my house was destroyed or other houses and other buildings. After all, if somebody bombarded the White House, I don't think the Americans would say this is the house of Bush. It is the house of the American people.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) That's a, that's a very good point, sir. I, I raise it because I've just been handed a note which says that you're a former member of the Baath party, but more than 40 years ago, and that you are interested in more democracy and an end to the repression by the regime of the Shiites and the Kurds. And so I wondered whether or not you think that the targets which have been hit represent the regime or represent Iraqis as a whole?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Well, I will ask you a question. If, if somebody bombarded the Pentagon, would you say it is a targeted for the American regime or just a target against all Americans?
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) I think most Americans, the overwhelming number of Americans, sir, would say for all Americans. And is that your answer, vis-...- vis, what has been attacked in Baghdad tonight?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Yes, and what you have referred about me is quite the truth. But I don't think that war and destruction will bring democracy to the Iraqi people and the necessary civilized for the Kurds and for the Shiites and for all the population of Iraq. In fact, what the Americans are doing are destroying the whole country and I don't think at all that democracy and political reforms will appeal for this war.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) You're also described to me as someone who has openly criticized the Baath party, and the regime. Do you believe that the United States is arriving in your country to liberate you from the Baath regime?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Well, when the United States choose someone who has drawn us to be an international thief for the job of being a prime minister in Iraq, you call this liberation or subjugation of the Iraqi and Arab people for the will of Mr. Bush and his clique?
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) I did not know, sir, that the United States had chosen anybody to be the prime minister of Iraq. In fact, the Bush Administration says almost on an hourly, if not a daily, basis that it's up to the Iraqi people to choose their own leaders.
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
How, by, by killing the Iraqis and destroying their cities and ruining their lines of communication? Is this is the way you bring democracy to other countries?
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Can I ask you, who, sir, you had in mind of as the international thief who you think is going to be prime minister?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
I'm talking about Mr. Ahmed Al-Chalabi.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Oh, I see.
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
And you can ask your, your Jordanian friends about his financial scandal concerning the Petra Bank in Jordan and then the MEBCO Bank in Lebanon and then the Sukovi(PH) company for investment in Switzerland.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Mister, Doctor Nazmi, I recognize Doctor Chalabi's name and, indeed, there are people in the United States who, he's the head of the Iraqi National Congress and he is supported by factions in the United States. But do you not believe that the United States will facilitate Iraqis choosing their own government for the future? After all, you didn't have the chance to choose Saddam Hussein.
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
No, we didn't have a chance, but let us put it this way. Will the Americans agree on free election which might, as a possibility, bring the Baath party to power again? Would they accept a leadership of some person in Iraq, even if he was elected like Fidel Castro? Would they accept anyone like President Nassau(PH) ? So, the choices for democracy are completely limited to a certain regime which most probably will be a puppet for the American administration.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Dr. Nazmi, I find myself in a slightly awkward position. You know, many Americans, I would say most Americans, are worried tonight that innocent civilians in your city where you live may have been harmed by an American bombing campaign today and hope that is not the case. Most Americans, I think you probably know, support the military campaign to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And you and I are having a conversation as if you are not in a city which has been badly bombed. What is life like for you at the moment?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Well, it is very risky. It is very dangerous. Each bombardment I have to phone my relatives and ask about their children. But up to now, nothing catastrophic has happened, to me or to my family . . .
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) And could I just ask, my apologies, well, our heart goes out to your family. I'm sure, sir, I hope you have no doubt about that whatsoever. Can I just ask you one final question. How did you and I get together on the telephone? Have you any idea?
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
No, no, not really.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) No, I don't either, but it is, an opportunity to talk to you, and I very much appreciate it, and, on behalf of all my colleagues here, and I'm sure most Americans, an overwhelming number of Americans who wish you and your family well in the days ahead and hope you come to no harm.
DOCTOR WAMIZ OMAR NAZMI
Thank you very much, that's very kind of you.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Thank you, thank you Dr. Nazmi. I don't know how that happened to be perfectly honest. Dr. Wamiz Omar Nazmi, who's a former member of the Baath party, according to this piece of paper. He left in 1961, a professor of political science at the University of Baghdad. And a pro-democracy advocate who has been tolerated by the regime, which says something. After the Gulf War the regime approached him to create an opposition party. He declined. He's openly but mildly criticized the, I have no idea how we ended up on the telephone together, but it was, indeed, an opportunity. Richard Engel, for ABC News, I think you're in your hotel, am I right?
[...]
PETER JENNINGS
(Off Camera) Okay. Thank you very much. On the phone, Brian Ross, our investigative reporter We have on phone now from Baghdad, Dr. Mohammed Motaffer Adhami, who is the dean of political science department at the University of Baghdad and member of the parliament. Dr. Adhami, can you hear me?
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI,
MEMBER OF IRAQI PARLIAMENT
Yes, Peter.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Have you have been out on the streets today? And can you tell us something about the destruction which you have seen?
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
Well, actually, the whole night, there was bombings the whole night. Now, in Baghdad it's morning, it's 8:00 in the morning and the bombing started at 8:00 in the last evening, actually the bombs, actually many, many, many houses, many civilian places were hit. You know, every minute I saw, I went to the street. I tried to find some shelter and watch and every minute there was a rocket about from 8:00 to half past 9:00 to 9:50 in the evening, every minute there was a rocket on the city. I'm in the western side of the city. And I saw many rockets and also the policemen, actually, I didn't see but the policemen came and told me after the first wave stopped, told me that many houses were damaged, many family. You know, the next door, you know why I am wake now? Because the next door an old woman died because she was frightened. Because of bombing, because the walls were, you know, shaking, glass, people and specially the children, children were frightened.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Dr. Adhami, forgive me for interrupting you. Under these circumstances, we would have thought that the ministry of information, which has taken reporters and camera teams out to see damage tonight, did not take them to see any civilian areas that were damaged. In fact, they took them to presidential compounds. Have you yourself seen civilians casualties?
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
I have seen that woman when I was in the street, actually in my area, in my area, this is very small area on western Baghdad. I saw myself, a lot of rockets hitting the areas. I phoned my cousin and she told me that many houses fall down in her area because of these rockets. You know, what do they expect? The rockets are going on the city. Every place was hit. Many places was hit around the city and in the city.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Doctor Adhami, . . .
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
I haven't seen, I can't tell you, I can't tell you the places because I am just about to go out and you phone me.
PETER JENNINGS
(Off Camera) I'm glad to know that we phoned you, Doctor Adhami, because I was wondering how we got together. It is true, whatever the Bush Administration says, that there were no electrical facilities hit because the city seems to be bright with light but I'm very grateful to hear your voice on the telephone.
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
Yes, yes, yes. Actually, the electricity is there, the telephone is there.
PETER JENNINGS
(Off Camera) Doctor Adhami, just stay with us for one second, just wait for one second. I apologize, I'll be right back with you. This is ABC News continuing live coverage of the "War With Iraq."
graphics: War With Iraq
PETER JENNINGS
(Off Camera) Doctor Adhami, I apologize for interrupting you there, I just wanted to tell our stations around America what was going on. You were saying about the electricity, it does not appear to have gone out in any part of the city that we're aware of.
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
Yeah, you know why? Because they are many generators which could, you know, substitute. And, generators in the city, you got used to that. But, I tried to phone, you know, my relatives outside Baghdad. I couldn't.
PETER JENNINGS
(Off Camera) Do you, you're a member of parliament. Does this mean you're a member of the Ba'ath party?
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
Yes.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) And do you believe that the United States has come to your country to save the country or to harm the country?
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
Well, is this saving the country, bombing every city in Iraq? Killing the people? For no reason? Only to occupy the country?
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Do you believe, . . .
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
This is, you know, this is actually, I believe now, this is a crime. And they are behaving, the American Administration is behaving according to the law of jungle.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Doctor Adhami, you, . . .
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
So the people are dying.
PETER JENNINGS
(Voice Over) Doctor Adhami, again, I apologize for interrupting. I think Americans believe that there are millions of Iraqis who would be free, who would be happy to live free from the leadership of President Saddam Hussein. Do you believe that to be the case?
DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI
Well, let me tell you something, that the only period that Iraq shows development was in these 30 years we live. Before that, during the British occupation, Iraqis were suffering. And the British were stealing our oil. It seem that now, the Americans want to do the same. So I think, you know, that's why, that's why now if you go to the street, you won't find any disturbance. All the people stick together and all the people saying, Allah Akbar, when they saw the rockets hitting their city.
PETER JENNINGS
(Off Camera) Thank you, Doctor Adhami, I really appreciate hearing from you this evening. A member of the Ba'ath party, member of the Iraqi parliament. Allah Akbar, God is greatest, in Arabic as you know. And to be honest, sitting in this newsroom for the last many hours, I'm not quite sure how we get people on the phone. But we've had two phone calls like that tonight and the very least they are an admonition that if Americans end up in Baghdad, perhaps not everybody is going to welcome them. We'll continue with "Nightline" in just a minute.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 04:14 PM | TrackBack
January 19, 2005 | Book in TV FormatRobert O'Harrow's investigative work for his book "No Place To Hide" (review here) has spurred Mr. Peter Jennings of ABC News (generally my favorite anchor of the big three) to follow up with a short TV version of the book. That will air Thursday on PrimeTime Live.
Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005 -- Peter Jennings Reporting: No Place to Hide Peter Jennings examines the government's effort to harness technology in the name of security, and the price we might pay if we fail to balance security and freedom in the digital age.
It should be on at 10 EST/PST and 9 central, but check your local listings. (I tried that but found that one has to register with one service or the other to find aggregate TV listing times in my neck of the woods. YMMV, but seems pretty stupid.)
Note to San Franciscan's KGO TV's overly script driven programming schedule shows the program slotted for Thursday, from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.
If you haven't already bought and devoured O'Harrow's book, then maybe you need to start with the television version, before you go buy the book through this affiliate link.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 12:37 PM | TrackBack
January 19, 2005 | (Open) Society PagesDennis Bailey, author of the new book Open Society Paradox, kindly noted my almost-rant on the FBI and DOJ's unwillingness to speak to the public about its methods of investigating terrorism.
Bailey writes: "For the few of us out there who think that most people in the law enforcement and intelligence business are doing their best to protect America while guarding civil liberties, the FBI and the Justice Department are making it extremely difficult on us. [...] Time after time the Justice Department uses legal exceptions to withhold information from FOIA requests.Perhaps if the Bush administration hadn't created such a culture of secrecy, they wouldn't be targeted by their critics as much."
I didn't know that Bailey had a blog (which seems to have been up for some months now) and it will be added to the blog roll pronto.
Bailey, influenced by David Brin's vision of nearly ubiquitous surveillance leveling the playing field between citizen, corporation and government, is an advocate for more surveillance, but only if it comes with more transparency.
I have a review copy, but have yet to find the time to sit down and fully engage with it.
That's not laziness, mind you. It's that I know I'm in for a good grapple.
From what little I've read, I know I will have much to argue with in Bailey's book -- in particular, I'm already mentally preparing to throw a half-nelson on his positive take on the usefulness and appropriateness of Total Information Awareness-like systems (given enough safeguards and protections).
But I look forward to the engagement, as it will force me to articulate thoughts that feel clear now, but that I know will turn out to be only half-finished and in need of reinforcement, once I have to write them down.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 09:02 AM | TrackBack
January 19, 2005 | Robot Wine and Casinos in the SkyI had the pleasure this week of working on two stories outside my normal beat: one about a technology-driven self-serve wine bar in San Francisco called Vino Venue (caution their website seems to require Active X controls and IE) and another about the promises of in-air roulette and shopping attending the introduction of Airbus's new huge plane the A380.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 08:48 AM | TrackBack
January 15, 2005 | No Reservations About Your ReservationsThe FBI has retained more than 250 million passenger records in its criminal database, as part of its investigation into the 9/11 attacks, according to this report by the AP's Leslie Miller.
The revelation came in documents acquired by the Electronic Privacy Information Center using the Freedom of Information Act.
Privacy advocates said they're troubled by the possibility the FBI could be analyzing personal information about people without their knowledge or permission."The FBI collected a vast amount of information about millions of people with no indication that they had done anything unlawful," said Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The center learned about the data through a Freedom of Information Act request.
"The fact that they're hanging on to the information is inexcusable," she said.
FBI spokesman Bill Carter said the bureau was required to retain its records.
"There are rules that have been set by the National Archives with regard to the retention of records by government agencies," Carter said.
As part of its investigation into the terrorist attacks, the FBI got records from airlines shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.
The airlines turned over the records mostly upon request, though, in one case, investigators used a grand jury subpoena.
The documents (which include a geeky, but fascinating explanation of the FBI's electronic case file system) are here and here (both .pdf).
A couple of things to note.
It's been known for some time that the FBI got airline records. In fact, a Washington Post story some time last year revealed that investigators had printouts of some of this data on the walls of the small room they were using as investigation central.
It's also not surprising that the FBI got the records. In fact, if the agency did not they would be derelict in their duty.
What's at issue here is the current use of that data. Is the FBI using it for "future crime" Total Information Awareness-style data-mining? Are agents who are chasing down mobsters involved in prostitution rings querying the PENTTBOMB database to ferret out the travels of their suspects? If so, are either appropriate uses of the data?
If you look closely at the 12 released pages and the explanation of the release, you will see that this is partly what EPIC was after AND precisely what the FBI refused to disclose.
This part of a pattern by the Justice Department.
In the fall of 2004, I called the DOJ to find out about these records, as well as the records given to the DOJ by Hank Asher's data mining effort, known as the Matrix. For those who don't remember and who haven't yet read Robert O'Harrow's recent book "No Place to Hide" (review here, affiliate url here, spy-free url here), shortly after September 11, Hank Asher, a shadowy figure possibly involved in Iran-Contra shenanigans, gave a number of government agencies a list of 120,000 names of people, ranked by their "terrorist quotient." Little, if nothing, is known about what, if anything, was done with that data.
I called the DOJ repeatedly, and finally, was given a non-answer answer. A spokeswoman, who acted offended by my questions, told me that it was part of the ongoing investigation and they had nothing to say.
That answer is part of the ongoing arrogance of the Justice Department, which routinely treats such questions from journalists and Congress as if they were the pesky intrusions from children who should not speak until given a press release. The department then has the gall to say that it routinely and thoroughly discloses information, when everyone knows the opposite is true. Nothing is revealed unless it has to be, and all and any critics are dismissed as uninformed sympathizers of terrorists.
To wit, here's part of what EPIC asked for, "any records discussing the legal requirements governing Bureau access and use of air passenger data."
They got nothing like that. They only got a description of the data fields in the PNRs (passenger name records) put in the FBI's Oracle database.
In a telling, but artfully hidden section, detailing why certain records and documents were being withheld (exemption b(7) Records or Information Withheld for Law Enforcement Purposes), FBI FOIA officer David M. Hardy wrote this:
"These Airline Data Sets were acquired from the airlines by the FBI for use in its mission of identifying those individuals responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and preventing future acts of terrorism against the United States." (emphasis added)
What's striking here is that the FBI seems to be admitting two astounding things: 1) It is using records given to it by private companies after September 11 for the purpose of unraveling the murderous conspiracy of the hijackings in order to search out future attacks and 2) that it considers that effort as part of the investigation into the September 11 attacks and thus BEYOND and ABOVE public scrutiny.
By that logic, the FBI can get ANY records and use ANY technique to detect the hints of future attacks (as opposed to running down leads about future attacks) and never have to reveal any details to the public. That means the FBI thinks it has the authority to build a Total Information Awareness system without having to tell the public what it is doing since it is part of an investigation. In other words, the PENTTBOMB investigation is the law enforcement version of the never-ending "War on Terror."
And if I'm wrong here and the FBI is revealing everything it has about the use of these records, then the FBI is incredibly negligent about data storage, auditing and protection, since there are no documents here indicating any discussion of, let alone the existence of, policies about the use of this sensitive data about American citizens.
Which means there are two options here: the FBI is either hiding information from the public or it is incompetent.
I'm not sure which option I prefer.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 04:13 PM | TrackBack
January 11, 2005 | Privacy Enhancing TerrainThe Sierras have received some eight thousand feet of snow in the last 10 days.
Okay, in reality, it's a few feet less than that. But for the next few days, I am planning to crash my way into some deep white drifts, hiding myself under a thick blanket of snow to hide from the prying eyes of the usual acronyms. Some may call it vacation. I call it research.
When I come back, I'll unleash a flurry of FOIAs to see if I successfully avoided Carnivore, the Matrix and Echelon. I think my graphite poles and parabola shaped skis will be key to avoiding be caught by non-obvious relationship awareness detection arrays.
Come back Friday for an update, or if you really need to get a hold of me, try me on the bat phone.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 03:49 PM | TrackBack
January 11, 2005 | Something Got Lost in Museum ReformFDR is missing. Has been since 2001.
Anthony Farmer of the Poughkeepsie Journal has the lowdown.
A portrait of President Franklin D. Roosevelt by artist Ellen Emmet Rand has joined the FBI's National Stolen Art File, as well as a list of stolen works maintained by Interpol, the international police organizationThe painting of Roosevelt turned up missing in May at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park when the artist's grandson asked to see it during a visit. It was last seen three years earlier.
No one is sure if the painting was stolen or simply lost during construction at the site.
Either way, the chances of it being recovered are not good, one former FBI investigator specializing in art theft said.
''Eighty percent of what is stolen is never found again,'' said Robert E. Spiel, a private security consultant to the fine arts community based near Chicago. ''We never know where it really is.''
The Roosevelt image was discovered missing when the artist's grandson, Peter Rand of Belmont, Mass., asked to see it during a visit to the library.
Cynthia Koch, director of the FDR Library, informed Rand it was last seen in the library's art storage area in 2001. Items stored there were moved to a temporary storage area a year later during renovations, but the painting apparently was not among them, Koch wrote to Rand in an October letter.
No one was aware it was missing until Rand requested to see it.
Rand finds it difficult to believe a work so large -- more than 5 feet high and 4 feet wide -- and stored in a crate, could be accidentally tossed in a trash container.
Moral of the Story: Major reform causes loss of massive FDR work of art and 80% of what is lost is never found again.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 09:51 AM | TrackBack
January 11, 2005 | New Homeland Security NomineePresident Bush has announced that federal appeals court justice, Michael Chertoff, will be his new nominee for the top spot at the Department of Homeland Security.
Chertoff, now a judge on the Third Circuit, previously served in Ashcroft's Justice Department.
Judge Chertoff, 51, is a native of Elizabeth, N.J. He was United States attorney for New Jersey from 1990 to 1994. Early in his career, he was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, who had served on the New Jersey Supreme Court.In recent years, he has been best known for helping to craft the Bush administration's anti-terrorism campaign following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Chertoff, who was head of the Justice Department's criminal division, was a proponent of military tribunals to try prisoners held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba after the American-led campaign in Afghanistan.
Mr. Chertoff insisted, in the face of criticism, that the administration's tactics were constitutional as well as prudent. Early in 2002, he said he was adhering to the orders of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had told him, "I want you to think outside the box, but I don't want you to think outside the Constitution."
Chertoff also served as the head counsel to the Republican investigation into Whitewater.
As I noted when contemplating the possibility of Asa Hutchinson, the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security, taking over the post, the Whitewater and Lewinsky blow-job investigation came in the 1990s as Al Qaida cells were planning attacks on this country.
I've yet to hear any prominent Republicans express the slightest bit of hindsight-driven remorse that they spent so much of their time in the years prior to barbarity of 9/11, focusing on whether Clinton fully answered their questions about his sex life.
I'm sure in the coming days, we will hear much more about Chertoff's role in drafting the Patriot Act and his involvement in the prosecution of alleged 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
Despite Chertoff's legal qualifications, I tend to think, along with Slate's Fred Kaplan, that heading up DHS is different from heading up the Justice Department, and that the best choice would have been a person with experience in leading huge organizations. I don't think I would suggest Jack Welch, however, since the country couldn't afford him.
Finally, lest the memory hole swallow us, the last nominee, former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik withdrew his nomination citing an undisclosed problem with having hired an undocumented nanny.
No one in the press or in Congress had said anything about this before he pulled his name, though they were starting to raise questions about his post 9/11 enrichment at Taser, his half-baked efforts to train security personnel in Iraq and the slush fund he controlled while in charge of jails in New York City.
No one has ever stepped forward to confirm the existence of the nanny.
TalkLeft has more on Chertoff and the confirmation process here.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 08:26 AM | TrackBack
January 10, 2005 | SSSS = Secondary Screening Shown Silly?Here's a funny moment from the forums over at Flyer Talk from a frequent flyer who knows what the SSSS means on his ticket and who brazenly (and pretty humorously) demonstrates how that code undermines the security it is meant to trigger.
I was flying EWR-IAH (actually ZFV-EWR-IAH, but ZFV-EWR was on Amtrak, so that doesn't count) with the future mrs. themicah on CO. We were booked on the same PNR well in advance, but at online check in I split the reservation to get the upgrade and it gave me a new confirmation number. It let me print her BP, but mine gave me a "this is not a boarding pass" sheet to print instead of my BP, so I figured I'd been SSSSed.At the airport I printed my BP from a kiosk, and got the S's as expected. The two of us went to the elite line, and they sent me over to Lane 8 and my fiancee through the regular lanes. I went through the wanding and patdown, then walked out of the SSSS penalty box expecting to find my wonderful patient fiancee--and she was still walking through the metal detector down at her lane. I had beaten her through security.
On the return, the same process repeated (no OLCI BP for me, but yes for her, etc.). And again I made it through security about 30 seconds before her. Surprise! SSSS = super speedy secondary selection. Who knew?
So for all you whiners, I say SSSS ain't so bad! I got a nice backrub and a chance to stretch a little (arms and legs out for the wand). And I still got through faster than anybody got through the regular lines. What's not to like?
(I'm kidding, of course)
But here's the absurd part. My fiancee and I often mix our things in two bags when we travel. Because I had advance warning of SSSS, I gave her the bag with our underwear and whatnot, and I took the bag with my laptop and our lunches. No problems. On the way back, I was feeling a little mischievous. We waited until AFTER the ID checker had noticed my SSSS (and her lack thereof) and started to direct me to the special lane, at which point I said (right in front of him) "Honey, why don't you take this bag through the regular line, and I'll take the smaller one." The guy didn't bat an eyelash.
Ah, "security."
Now, astute passengers know when they are going to be flagged for secondary screening (with the SSSS on their boarding pass) simply by trying to check in online. If they cannot, or get an odd looking document, they know that they will face extra scrutiny. The same for anyone who attempts to check in at an airport kiosk, but is told to go to the ticket counter instead.
Now, that pre-emptive knowledge is great for anyone wanting to make sure they don't miss a flight. It's also good if you are traveling with a friend and want to avoid having the TSA searching through your bag.
The problem here reminds me more than just a little of the test-your-shoes boxes the TSA pulled from airports.
Posted by Ryan Singel at 11:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 10, 2005 | Grim Assessment for the New YearKroll, a risk consulting company, publishes the Middle East Risk Monitor every Thursday. It is usually an honest and balanced assessment, since Kroll's customers rely on it to keep their employees safe.
Here's a snippet from their take (.pdf) on the New Year in Iraq and the war's effect on Al Qaida. Worth clicking through to the pdf.
Iraq: Violence to continueThe political and security situation can be expected to continue to deteriorate through 2005 and beyond, in spite of the successful dismantling of the former Baath regime and the January 30 elections.
This year is a crucial one for the transition to democracy in Iraq. Since last June a semi-sovereign government has held office, [...]
To date, however, the transition process has proved a security nightmare for the coalition forces and the Iraqi interim government, and the situation remains far from stable. A particular cause of tension is concern that this month’s elections, by giving new power to the Shiite majority, could ignite conflict with the Sunni minority. Shiite areas have seen some outbursts of violence in the past year but most of the unrest has been among Sunnis. Despite several American-led offensives against insurgents in the so-called Sunni triangle, these have not been pacified and there are grave doubts that valid elections can be held there.
Al Qaida, meanwhile, has steadily built up its operations in Iraq, opening up a new front for Muslim radicals seeking to fight the American presence in the region. A group headed by the Al Qaida leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has waged a relentless war against the American presence, successfully targeting foreigners in a spate of kidnappings and killings. Coalition troops continue to face daily attacks or