From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 1 13:34:50 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:34:50 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google Sues The US Government For Only Considering Microsoft Solutions Message-ID: <1646AE47-DC4F-4ACB-9AC5-746FD90BF486@infowarrior.org> Google Sues The US Government For Only Considering Microsoft Solutions from the hubris dept Eric Goldman alerts us to the interesting bit of news that Google has sued the US government -- specifically the Department of the Interior, for not seriously considering Google Apps when it put out a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to handle its messaging needs. Specifically, the DOI stated upfront in the RFQ that the solution had to be part of the Microsoft Business Productivity Online Suite. Google is making the argument that this is "unduly restrictive of competition," and it seems like they've got a decent argument there. Most of the lawsuit details the history of meetings and conversations between Google and the DOI, where Google sought to convince the DOI that its solution was acceptable. The DOI justified limiting its offerings to Microsoft, by saying that Microsoft had two things that other solution providers did not: unified/consolidated email and "enhanced security." Google disputes this (not surprisingly) and notes various problems with Microsoft solutions -- including well reported downtime issues. Google protested the RFQ when it was released, but the GAO dismissed Google's protest saying that since Google does not have a GSA schedule contract (i.e., what you need to sell to the gov't), it was "not an interested party." Anyway, should make for an interesting lawsuit if it goes anywhere... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101030/23442911657/google-sues-the-us-government-for-only-considering-microsoft-solutions.shtml From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 1 16:39:29 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:39:29 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Experts expect tech policy gridlock in contest for control of key House chair Message-ID: <2A96B9FD-DC08-4504-BE76-A06A8290586A@infowarrior.org> Experts expect tech policy gridlock in contest for control of key House chair http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/11/vying_for_control_of_key_house_1.html?hpid=moreheadlines One day before Election Day, and with the House expected to turn over to Republicans, at least three lawmakers are jockeying to take over the powerful seat of Energy and Commerce committee chair. What does it mean if Joe Barton (R-Tex), Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) or Fred Upton (R-Mich.) lead the committee? Gridlock on telecom and tech policy, analysts say. ?I don?t anticipate significant change in telecom legislation in the next two years,? said Earl Comstock, head of Comstock Consulting and former legislative director for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Observers say there is little to distinguish the three on their approach to tech and telecom policy. All three will strongly oppose legislation on net neutrality and may even threaten to take away funding from the Federal Communications Commission if FCC Chairman Julius Geanchowski pushes through on his proposed regulation. Upton has called Genachowski?s push to reassert authority over broadband services a ?blind power grab.? Barton dismissed legislation for net neutrality by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) last month. And Stearns said that a net neutrality bill needs more consideration, and that if the FCC tries to redefine broadband as a telecom service, he?d pull funding for the agency. This, observers say, is in line with the position of broadband service providers, who don?t really want new legislation, as the FCC deliberates its regulatory course. ?We believe Republican mid-term election gains would generally strengthen the hand of the Bells, cable, and broadcasters over their telecom, media and tech rivals? such as Dish Network and Google, wrote Rebecca Arbogast, analyst at Stifel Nicolaus, in a report Monday. She said the FCC could try to carry out Genachowski?s net neutrality proposal without redefining broadband services. But public interest groups worry that the FCC could face legal opposition to its authority every time it tries to enforce its new rules. Universal service reforms ? that would put money from a phone fund into broadband expansion ? will be harder. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has advocated for that reform in the House, but he could lose his seat. Eyes would then turn to the Senate, where Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who supports reforms, could retain his seat over the Commerce Committee. Bells would fight against the FCC?s moves toward reforming special-access fee rules that allow telecom firms to set prices for wireless companies to lease their land-based networks to connect calls. Broadcasters would be emboldened by Republican gains, helping them ward off legislation expected to be introduced by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to allow the FCC to take a more aggressive role in television retransmission disputes. And while the idea of getting more airwaves out for mobile broadband is embraced by Republican and Democrats, Arbogast wrote that broadcasters will have a stronger voice against any legislation that makes them give up airwaves. What will get done? Privacy and tax reforms (check out my previous post that includes these issues). And as telecom and cable firms start digging ground for broadband stimulus projects, Republicans are expected to scrutinize the projects in hearings over how well the ?shovel-ready? grants have helped stimulate the economy. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 1 18:08:26 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:08:26 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Brazilian Librarians: Copyright Is A Fear-Based Reaction To Open Access To Knowledge Message-ID: <9B1DA3F9-BADA-4CBD-977A-A84B1161BEEE@infowarrior.org> Brazilian Librarians: Copyright Is A Fear-Based Reaction To Open Access To Knowledge from the say-that-one-again dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/02243511520/brazilian-librarians-copyright-is-a-fear-based-reaction-to-open-access-to-knowledge.shtml David Weinberger recently had an interesting blog post about his attendance at a conference of Brazilian university librarians, where he was very encouraged to learn of the many ways in which the librarians are embracing the internet to improve access to knowledge, and are hoping this leads to much greater things. Not surprisingly, questions on copyright came up, and Weinberger notes that many he spoke to are quite worried about how copyright is holding back access to knowledge: The question of copyright seems to weigh heavily on just about everyone's mind. (Keep in mind, of course, the self-selection of those with whom I have talked.) Copyright is only perceived as an obstacle if you are intent on maximizing access to the works of human intellect and creativity. If you are afraid of what open access means, then copyright looks like a bulwark. But, if you are confident that we together -- with the invaluable aid of librarians, among others -- can overall steer ourselves right, then the current copyright regime looks like a fear-based reaction. I think that encapsulates a number of important points. Historically, if you look at copyright, it has almost always been exactly that: a fear-based reaction to something new -- some new technology or innovation that helped spread knowledge in a way that potentially removed barriers from a gate-keeper. And, the deeper you look, you quickly realize that almost every single one of those "fear-based reactions" was massively overhyped and had little basis in evidence, fact or reality. And yet... the laws that were passed based on fear stick around. No one ever goes back and says "hey, we passed this law because we believed the fearful claims of industry X, but it appears those fears were unfounded." It's good to see that folks in Brazil are taking this seriously, however. We recently noted that Brazil is considering new copyright laws now, with some surprising characteristics, such as penalties for those who inhibit fair use or the public domain. It's nice to see at least one country looking to move away from fear-based reactions when creating copyright laws. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 1 18:09:35 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:09:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DHS conducting 'political review' of FOIA requests Message-ID: <1FC5DE8A-0A2F-4944-B829-FA72CEADB1E3@infowarrior.org> Homeland Security Giving Extra Political Scrutiny To 'Activist' Groups FOIA Requests, Singles Out EFF from the freedom-deserves-extra-scrutiny dept When President Obama first came into office, one of the things he pledged was greater transparency, including in responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As we've seen with things like ACTA, where the USTR refused FOIA requests with a totally bogus claim of "national security," the administration has regularly failed to live up to that promise and at times appears to be even worse than previous administrations. Over the last year, reports have come out that FOIA requests from certain groups and reporters are being singled out for political review. That's not the way the FOIA process is supposed to work, but apparently Homeland Security has alerted various FOIA officials that requests from certain groups need to first be sent up the chain for political review, both potentially delaying the release of the information, and subjecting it to reviews and possible redactions that go beyond what the law establishes. As the EFF notes, it seems to be among the groups singled out for special scrutiny, and the letter outlining this policy highlights three specific EFF FOIA requests. So, apparently the plan is "transparency, except when it might hurt us politically." http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101101/12020611672/homeland-security-giving-extra-political-scrutiny-to-activist-groups-foia-requests-singles-out-eff.shtml From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 06:18:20 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 07:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Debunked: Cord Cutters Young, Educated And Employed Message-ID: <18434355-EC01-404F-B1D0-CFE6466EE914@infowarrior.org> Cord Cutters Young, Educated And Employed And nary a Puppy Chow afficionado among them... by Karl Bode Friday 29-Oct-2010 tags: Video ? business ? bandwidth ? consumers Tipped by Gbcue As we noted at great length yesterday, the cable industry (and Wall Street analysts pushing cable stocks) first insisted that TV cord cutters weren't real. Then as data emerged showing TV cord cutters were very real and leaving due to high cable TV prices, the cable industry (and Wall Street analysts pushing cable stocks) began arguing these users were poor and unimportant. Yesterday telecom sector quote machine Craig Moffett took this to a new level, declaring cord cutters to be little more than middle-aged poor nobodies eating dog food. However, as Strategy Analytics notes, that's not supported by the facts. "Cord cutting is real...we?ve been saying it for years...and now, the numbers bear it out." says Strategy Analytics' Ben Piper. "In our latest report, we analyze results of our recently-fielded survey of 2,000 Americans, which shows that 13% of Americans intend to cut the cord in the next 12 months -- and it's not "poor" forty-somethings settling for a "dog?s breakfast." So if these users aren't fat slobs living in their mom's basement eating puppy chow to save a buck, who are they? According to Piper: ?54% of likely cord cutters are under 40 (as if being 40 is the worst thing in the world anyway). ?97% have graduated high school and 69% have or are pursuing higher degrees. ?91% are employed, full time students, or retired ?57% make more than $50,000 a year That's a far cry from the picture being painted by the cable sector and Craig Moffett -- to help cable stocks remain stable in the face of unsustainable business models and the inevitable rise of Internet video. In fact as we looked around at some of the inbound links to our story yesterday (see Techdirt and NewTeeVee), it was particularly interesting to look at story comments and the flood of very real cord cutters tired of overpriced TV and poor service...... < -- > http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cord-Cutters-Young-Educated-And-Employed-111157 From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 06:19:59 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 07:19:59 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Twitter putting ads in your stream of tweets Message-ID: Twitter putting ads in your stream of tweets ? By: Laura Khalil ? ? November 1, 2010 ? 0diggsdigg ? Share http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/twitter-putting-ads-in-your-stream-of-tweets/ Your Twitter stream is going to be changing shortly, as Twitter begins rolling out its plan to place Promoted Tweets inside its users' stream. This is going to be a work in progress and Twitter is rolling out in-stream advertising slowly. The company will begin testing Promoted Tweets within one of its partners, HootSuite. Twitter will be experimenting with how and when to place the ads, hopefully to be as unobtrusive to the microblogging companies loyal users. Promoted Tweets aren?t going to be entirely random. The key here is relevance and Twitter wants to make sure that the ads you see in your stream are directed at you. As Twitter mentions in its post announcing the roll out, ?During this testing period with HootSuite, we will experiment with where and when Promoted Tweets are shown in the timeline. Not all HootSuite users will see Promoted Tweets and those who do may see different Promoted Tweets in different places in their timeline. As with Promoted Tweets in search, we will display Promoted Tweets in the timeline when they are relevant. Similar to our Promoted Account recommendations, we use several signals to determine a Promoted Tweet?s relevance to a user, including the public list of whom they follow. We will expand the rollout only when we feel we?re delivering a high-quality user experience.? Reactions to in-stream ads are expected to be mixed. The Twitterati is expected to be rather displeased with seeing their stream ?polluted? with ads, but there is also agreement that Twitter can?t continue forever without generating more revenue. According to Ad Age, Twitter?s partners for in-stream advertising include Virgin, Starbucks and Red Bull. Those companies were also part of previous Promoted Tweet campaigns running on Twitter. As we mentioned last month, Twitter was selling Promoted Tweets for upwards of $100,000. It?s unclear what advertisers may be paying for in-stream ads. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 14:10:14 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Anti-Piracy Tool For Cinemas Will Recognize Emotions Message-ID: Anti-Piracy Tool For Cinemas Will Recognize Emotions Written by Ernesto on November 02, 2010 http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-tool-for-cinemas-will-recognize-emotions-101102/ For most people going to a cinema is a good night out. Only a few realize that they are often subjecting themselves to extreme and privacy invading security measures that most airports could only dream of. Filmgoers are already being carefully watched for suspicious behavior by Big Brother?s cameras, but soon this technology will be upgraded with sophisticated emotion recognition software. Hindering piracy is priority number one for movie theaters nowadays. In dealing with a tiny minority, theater owners are slowly alienating their customers by employing measures such as metal detectors, night-vision goggles, bag and body searches and audio watermarks. Everyone is treated as a potential pirate. Despite the invasive ramifications for the movie going public, the efforts are paying off nicely for the theater owners. Night vision goggles helped to spot Batman and Bond ?camcording? pirates among others, but not surprisingly the movie industry continues to look for new ways to protect their movies from piracy. One of the available anti-camcorder solutions is offered by Aralia Systems, an Orwellian company that specializes in monitoring services and technologies. Besides traditional CCTV cameras, Aralia Systems offers elaborate piracy tracking devices. One of their products is an anti-camcorder system that projects infrared light beams onto a cinema audience. These beams are reflected back off camcorders and will trigger several alarm bells. In order for their technologies to further benefit the movie industry, Aralia Systems has been awarded a Knowledge Transfer Partnership with Machine Vision Lab of the University of the West of England (UWE). The grant is good for more than ?215,000, and will be used to build new capabilities into existing piracy tracking instruments. TorrentFreak spoke with project leader Dr. Abdul Farooq from Machine Vision Lab, who told us that their main goal is to extend the functionalities of the current anti-piracy systems. Basically, it comes down to extracting as much information from movie goers as possible, by adding analytics software that can read people?s physical reactions as well as their emotions. ?We want to devise instruments that will be capable of collecting data that can be used by cinemas to monitor audience reactions to films and adverts and also to gather data about attention and audience movement,? Dr. Farooq said. ?Using 2D and 3D imaging technology we aim to do this in two ways. Obviously cinema audiences are spread out in large theatre settings so we need to build instruments that can capture data for different purposes. We will use 2D cameras to detect emotion but will also collect movement data through a 3D data measurement that will capture the audience as a whole as a texture,? Dr. Farooq further explained. According to Dr. Farooq the project should make it possible to record and analyze the public?s emotions. These emotions will not be used to track down camcording pirates, but will serve as a market research tool for the movie industry and advertisers. ?Within the cinema industry this tool will feed powerful marketing data that will inform film directors, cinema advertisers and cinemas with useful data about what audiences enjoy and what adverts capture the most attention. By measuring emotion and movement film companies and cinema advertising agencies can learn so much from their audiences that will help to inform creativity and strategy,? Dr. Farooq noted. Although the new project doesn?t focus specifically on anti-piracy efforts, it will be built into the existing anti-piracy tracking systems that are used in several theaters. The main question that comes to mind is how far these systems can go without specifically asking for consent from theater visitors. What was once a relaxing evening out might be turning into an interactive consumer research lab, with cameras carefully analyzing, recording and storing your every move ? while you?re being charged for the privilege. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 16:03:35 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:03:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Air Force Wants Neuroweapons to Overwhelm Enemy Minds Message-ID: <33EADDAA-843B-47A4-AF42-49B3B5E420F1@infowarrior.org> Air Force Wants Neuroweapons to Overwhelm Enemy Minds ? By Noah Shachtman ? November 2, 2010 | ? 10:56 am | ? Categories: Bizarro http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/air-force-looks-to-artificially-overwhelm-enemy-cognitive-capabilities/ It sounds like something a wild-eyed basement-dweller would come up with, after he complained about the fit of his tinfoil hat. But military bureaucrats really are asking scientists to help them ?degrade enemy performance? by attacking the brain?s ?chemical pathway[s].? Let the conspiracy theories begin. Late last month, the Air Force Research Laboratory?s 711th Human Performance Wing revamped a call for research proposals examining ?Advances in Bioscience for Airmen Performance.? It?s a six-year, $49 million effort to deploy extreme neuroscience and biotechnology in the service of warfare. One suggested research thrust is to use ?external stimulant technology to enable the airman to maintain focus on aerospace tasks and to receive and process greater amounts of operationally relevant information.? (Something other than modafinil, I guess.) Another asks scientists to look into ?fus[ing] multiple human sensing modalities? to develop the ?capability for Special Operations Forces to rapidly identify human-borne threats.? No, this is not a page from The Men Who Stare at Goats. But perhaps the oddest, and most disturbing, of the program?s many suggested directions is the one that notes: ?Conversely, the chemical pathway area could include methods to degrade enemy performance and artificially overwhelm enemy cognitive capabilities.? That?s right: the Air Force wants a way to fry foes? minds ? or at least make ?em a little dumber. It?s the kind of official statement that?s seized on by anyone who is sure that the CIA planted a microchip in his head, or thinks that the Air Force is controlling minds with an antenna array in Alaska. The same could be said about the 711th?s call to ?develo[p] technologies to anticipate, find, fix, track, identify, characterize human intent and physiological status anywhere and at anytime.? The ideas may sound wild. They are wild. But the notions aren?t completely out of the military-industrial mainstream. For years, armed forces and intelligence community researchers have toyed with ways of manipulating minds. During the Cold War, the CIA and the military allegedly plied the unwitting with dozens of psychoactive drugs, in a series of zany (and sometimes dangerous) mind-control experiments. More recently, the Pentagon?s most revered scientific advisory board warned in 2008 that adversaries could develop enhancements to their ?cognitive capabilities ? and thus create a threat to national security.? The National Research Council and Defense Intelligence Agency followed suit, pushing for pharma-based tactics to weaken enemy forces. In recent months, the Pentagon has funded projects to optimize troop?s minds, prevent injuries, preemptively assess vulnerability to traumatic stress, and even conduct ?remote control of brain activity using ultrasound.? The Air Force is warning potential researchers that this project ?may require top secret clearance.? They?ll also need a high tolerance for seemingly loony theories ? sparked by the military itself. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 16:05:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:05:34 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DMCA: Restricting college radio without benefit Message-ID: <8DB8F587-7EDE-4258-AFAF-55D9184576D9@infowarrior.org> Editorial | DMCA: Restricting college radio without benefit Published: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Updated: Sunday, October 31, 2010 17:10 http://www.tuftsdaily.com/op-ed/editorial-dmca-restricting-college-radio-without-benefit-1.2383916 Due to 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) Performance Complement provisions, WMFO Tufts Freeform Radio this semester must begin paying $500 annually to a non?profit that distributes royalties to owners of sound recording copyrights. WMFO's DJs are now prohibited from forwardly announcing song titles, broadcasting more than three songs from the same album or four songs from the same artist in a three?hour period, making archived webcasts of their shows available online for longer than two weeks and making those webcasts available for download. While these legal measures were designed to ensure that artists get royalties and to prevent piracy, they are a net detriment. Placing these restrictions on college radio stations will hardly prevent music fans from illegally downloading music, yet they make it more difficult for small?budget, understaffed university stations to operate. University stationsoffer an eclectic variety of music and play an important role in helping new artists and bands gain publicity, while exposing students and listeners in the surrounding community to new types of music. Thus, it is vital that the kinds of restrictions stipulated by the DMCA do not discourage students from getting involved in college radio or cause university stations to shut down. Webcasts have provided an amazing opportunity to college radio stations, giving them the opportunity to reach Internet users worldwide. However, now that college radio stations are no longer permitted to make webcasts available to download and must take them down after two weeks, the reach and impact of small university radio stations will likely be diminished. Belinda Rawlins, executive director of the Transmission Project, ? which aided WMFO's compliance with the new rules ? stated that WMFO is not facing severe difficulties because it already had access to the playlist logging software that the legislation requires. Despite this, it is still harder for students who work for the radio to share their work with peers and restricts what DJs can choose to broadcast. Logistically speaking, it is very unlikely that DMCA regulation of college radio stations will actually make a substantive difference in the amount of royalties that artists receive. Downloading music from services like Limewire is very common ? though perhaps less so for students connected to the Tufts network who risk reprimand from University Information Technology. Though the Daily does not endorse music theft, it must be said that there are far easier and more commonly used ways to pirate music than utilizing low?quality?audio online radio streams, which is the sort of piracy these regulations affecting WMFO hope to put a stop to. It should also be noted that thanks to websites like YouTube, Pandora.com and Grooveshark.com, students have more options than ever for legally listening to free music online. Frivolous regulations on the number of songs from an artist that can be played or preventing the preemptive naming of a song do not act as a viable deterrent to pirating music. Instead, they place irksome and detrimental restrictions on college radio stations and have the potential to cut off an important source of access to new and eclectic music not only for college students, but for music lovers worldwide. -- Correction: An earlier version of this incorrectly stated that a University of Michigan Duke Ellington radio show was not possible under the regulations. In fact, college radio stations have the ability to negotiate directly with copyright holders for different terms (such as the ability to play for than four songs from a single artist in a three-hour period) than those stipulated by the DMCA Performance Compliment. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 16:06:55 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hackers tap SCADA vuln search engine Message-ID: <175C5772-6250-4D2D-9F6F-18FBD98037DD@infowarrior.org> Hackers tap SCADA vuln search engine 'Shodan' pinpoints shoddy industrial controls By Dan Goodin in San Francisco ? Get more from this author Posted in Security, 2nd November 2010 20:44 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/02/scada_search_engine_warning/ A search engine that indexes servers and other internet devices is helping hackers to find industrial control systems that are vulnerable to tampering, the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team has warned. The year-old site known as Shodan makes it easy to locate internet-facing SCADA, or supervisory control and data acquisition, systems used to control equipment at gasoline refineries, power plants and other industrial facilities. As white-hat hacker and Errata Security CEO Robert Graham explains, the search engine can also be used to identify systems with known vulnerabilities. According to the Industrial Control Systems division of US CERT, that's exactly what some people are doing to discover poorly configured SCADA gear. ?The identified systems range from stand-alone workstation applications to larger wide area network (WAN) configurations connecting remote facilities to central monitoring systems,? the group wrote in an advisory (PDF) published on Thursday. ?These systems have been found to be readily accessible from the internet and with tools, such as Shodan, the resources required to identify them has been greatly reduced.? Besides opening up industrial systems to attacks that target unpatched vulnerabilities, the information provided by Shodan makes networks more vulnerable to brute-force attacks on passwords, many of which may still use factory defaults, CERT warned. The organization advised admins to tighten security by: ? Placing all control systems assets behind firewalls, separated from the business network ? Deploying secure remote access methods such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for remote access ? Removing, disabling, or renaming any default system accounts (where possible) ? Implementing account lockout policies to reduce the risk from brute forcing attempts ? Implementing policies requiring the use of strong passwords ? Monitoring the creation of administrator level accounts by third-party vendors Short for Sentient Hyper-Optimized Data Access Network, Shodan contains a wealth of information about routers, servers, load balancers and other hardware attached to the internet. Its database was built by indexing metadata contained in the headers the hardware broadcasts to other devices. Searches can be filtered by port, hostname and country. In other words, not only can it identify a Solaris server, it can in many cases identify a Solaris server located in Pakistan that remains vulnerable to a known exploit. CERT's warning comes a few month after reports that a worm called Stuxnet burrowed into SCADA systems controlling nuclear power plants. The attack, which many researchers speculate was intended to disrupt Iran's nuclear aspirations, demonstrated the success in which determined hackers have in penetrating control systems. ? From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 16:11:00 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:11:00 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Memos Detail TSA Officer's Cocaine Pranks Message-ID: Memos Detail TSA Officer's Cocaine Pranks Worker falsely claimed to have found drugs in passenger luggage http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/memos-detail-tsa-officers-cocaine-pranks NOVEMBER 2--The Transportation Security Administration worker who earlier this year was canned for falsely claiming to have discovered cocaine in the luggage of travelers was a bomb appraisal officer who was supposed to be evaluating new screening equipment at the time he was pranking his unsuspecting targets, records show. TSA documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request provide further details about the January incidents at the Philadelphia International Airport. The name of the bomb appraisal officer has been redacted from the material, though one memo indicates that when the worker was confronted, ?He did say humbly that he was completely wrong and he made a mistake.? The TSA officer was working near a passenger screening checkpoint ?collecting data for several new pieces of equipment that are currently being evaluated by Northrop Grumman,? according to a TSA memo. Since individual data collection phases could each take up to ten minutes, the worker apparently decided to fill up the time by pranking travelers: ?While the data was being collected,? the bomb appraisal officer ?began to engage passengers.? As one passenger gathered their belongings (which had just emerged from an X-ray machine), the TSA worker displayed a ?small vial of white powder? and asked, ?Did this come out of your bag?? When the passenger replied, ?No,? the officer asked, ?Are you sure?? The traveler, according to a TSA memo, said, ?Yea, I?m pretty sure,? and began to laugh. ?Okay, just wanted to make sure. Have a nice flight,? the officer replied. The white powder that appeared to be cocaine was actually creatine, a nutritional supplement that was ?being utilized for the data collection? being performed by the bomb appraisal officer. His first prank--details of which have not been previously disclosed--completed, the bomb appraisal officer ?returned to the equipment to begin another phase of the data collection.? However, the TSA worker would later return to a screening lane and approach two young women who were collecting their luggage from a conveyor belt. One of the women has been previously identified as Rebecca Solomon, a 22-year-old University of Michigan student who was en route to Detroit. Solomon?s name has been redacted from the TSA documents. After first confirming that the items in front of him belonged to the pair, the TSA employee asked the women, ?Do you have anything in your bag that you?re not supposed to?? After the passengers answered, ?No,? the worker again displayed some purported cocaine. While a TSA memo notes that the white powder was in a vial, Solomon has said that she was shown a plastic baggie filled with powder. ?Did this come out of your bag?? he asked. ?The passengers replied, ?No way. I don?t even know what that is,?? according to a TSA report. The worker ?concluded with, ?I?m just checking. I know it didn?t come out of your bag, it belongs to me. You seem way too nice. Have a good flight.'" ?You almost had me,? one passenger is reported to have responded, according to a TSA memo. Solomon, crying, eventually approached an airline worker to lodge a complaint about the TSA worker. Referring to ?the things that are going on in the world today,? Solomon said she did not consider the cocaine prank a ?funny joke.? She added that airport security workers ?should be taking our jobs seriously.? Two other passengers quoted in the TSA records told officials that they saw the bomb appraisal officer showing the women a bag of white powder that appeared to have been removed from a bag. One witness said that she felt bad for the women after subsequently learning that they were the target of a prank. She added that if the officer ?had played that joke on her then we (TSA) would still be hearing her hollering and something would have to be done right then and there.? As part of its probe of the pranks, investigators spoke with other TSA employees, five of whom confirmed that the officer had tried to trick passengers into thinking that cocaine was found in their luggage. One worker said that they told the officer, ?Don?t do that,? when a victim of the prank appeared distraught. Only one of the workers interviewed, however, informed a supervisor of what was transpiring at the security checkpoint. (8 pages) From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 18:39:17 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Kidnapping, Theft and Rape Are Not "Cyber" Crimes Message-ID: <4F9304FF-20F7-46BE-AF6E-DB4F18E71B37@infowarrior.org> Kidnapping, Theft and Rape Are Not "Cyber" Crimes ? Nov 02, 2010 10:14 AM PDT http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/kidnapping_theft_and_rape_are_not_cyber_crimes/ By Neil Schwartzman Kidnap. Rape. There are no lesser words that can be used to describe what happened to the daughter of an anti-spam investigator in Russia. His daughter was recently released, according to Joseph Menn's recent article on Boing Boing, after having been kidnapped from her home five years ago, fed drugs, and made to service men, as a warning to ward off further investigations. The criminals behind these vicious acts were also responsible for large spamming organization associated with Russian Mob activity. Note that we say "also." When someone is mugged, harassed, kidnapped or raped on a sidewalk, we don't call it "sidewalk crime" and call for new laws to regulate sidewalks. It is crime, and those who commit crimes are subject to the full force of the law. For too long, people have referred to spam in dismissive terms: just hit delete, some say, or let the filters take care of it. Others?most of us, in fact?refer to phishing, which is the first step in theft of real money from real people and institutions, as "cyber crime." It's time for that to stop. Some of these crimes involve technology. So what? Criminals have used technology before. Some of these crimes cross borders. So what? Crimes have crossed borders before. Spam isn't illegal everywhere yet. So what? Spam 2.0 (spam, malware & spyware) is the leading edge of far worse activities, often things that have been illegal as long as we've had laws. It is high time that governments and law enforcement stop thinking of computer crime as that perpetrated by teenagers in their parent's basement. It is the Russian Mob and other organized criminals that are doing this. While we are at it, we should mention 'cyber-warfare', something often conflated with cyber-crime. Cyber-crime is not "cyber-warfare." There may be state or terrorist agencies copying the tactics and methods of these criminals, but that does not mean that the criminals must be left alone until new cyber-warfare agencies have been created and funded. As Purdue computer science professor 'Spaf' Spafford was recently quoted as saying in a note-worthy piece 'Cyberwar Vs. Cybercrime' on the GovInfo Security blog "Why aren't we seeing the investment and prioritization being made in law enforcement, first? Why is all the publicity, funding and prioritization being given to the military?with efforts such as the build-up of the military cyber command?when so much of the clear and present threat is from the criminal element and not from other nation-states?" Just so, Prof. Spafford! As we have said repeatedly on this site, these are criminal gangs who have found an incredible loophole in the justice systems of the world: they can rob banks and people, with little chance of getting caught, let alone going to jail. This is not because they're doing things that aren't illegal; they've just found a new way to hide. David Black, manager of the RCMP's cyber infrastructure protection section recently said to CAUCE Executive Director Neil Schwartzman "we don't do spam". OK, but why not? Spam is no longer, and hasn't been for some time, about simply sending unwanted emails. Spam is now a delivery mechanism for malware, which in turn threatens infrastructure, and facilitates theft. We have seen precious few cases filed using existing Federal computer intrusions laws in Canada, and none, to our knowledge have been filed under the renovated anti-phishing law, S-4, passed in September 2009. Governments and law enforcement agencies need to begin to treat online theft with the same seriousness as they do other physical crimes. It is time to bring this up to the diplomatic level, or seriously consider refusing packets from places that treat the Internet, and innocent victims, as their personal ATM. CAUCE is made up of people who care about email qua email. We understand it, we love it. It is still the 'killer app'. Furthermore, we understand why some folks in law enforcement or the judiciary might ask, "When there are people stealing millions or hurting people in the commission of violent crimes, why are you wasting our time with 'just' a spam case?" Here's why: ? Most spam is sent by organized criminal gangs, just like other organized crime. ? Those gangs intentionally operate trans-nationally, in an effort to frustrate investigation and prosecution. ? Money laundering of the proceeds from spam is routine, and that money directly fuels official corruption and other social ills. ? Some spammers are actually selling something. Their favorite product? Counterfeit pharmaceuticals. In many cases these may be scheduled controlled substances, sold in bulk, and available to minors; in other cases, critical medicines needed to properly treat cancer and other serious illnesses may be counterfeit placebos, with potentially tragic results. ? Spammers operate by compromising tens or hundreds of thousands of end-user PCs, violating those users' privacy and sometimes steal sensitive personally identifiable information such as individuals' and even corporate access to financial services at the same time they're using their systems to spam. Computer 'phishing' is no less a crime than bank robbery, home invasion, and mugging. Cyber criminals consider cyber crime to be a virtually riskless offense; they're unlikely to be identified; if identified, they're unlikely to be investigated; if investigated, they're unlikely to be charged and prosecuted; if prosecuted, they're unlikely to be convicted; if convicted, they're unlikely to do jail time. The courts need to make it clear that that's wrong in all respects. If you commit cyber crimes, you will be identified, investigated, charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to serious time and we will seize your assets. This will not happen so long as crime, which involves the Internet, is dismissed as "cybercrime" and either scoffed at, or used to justify ever-increasing cyberwarfare budgets. This isn't just email. This isn't a war. This isn't "cyber." This is crime. It is time to call a cop, and expect a response. This post was co-authored by CAUCE Executives J.D. Falk and Neil Schwartzman. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 2 19:09:31 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 20:09:31 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Serious Security Bugs Found In Android Kernel Message-ID: <2369B262-A59B-438B-BF2A-162655B164EE@infowarrior.org> Serious Security Bugs Found In Android Kernel An analysis of Google Android Froyo's open source kernel has uncovered 88 flaws that could expose users' data ? Matthew Broersma ? November 2, 2010 ttp://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/serious-security-bugs-found-in-android-kernel-11040 An analysis of the kernel used in Google?s Android [1] smartphone software has turned up 88 high-risk security flaws that could be used to expose users? personal information, security firm Coverity said in a report published on Tuesday. The results, published in the 2010 edition of the Coverity Scan [2] Open Source Integrity Report, are based on an analysis of the Froyo kernel used in HTC?s Droid Incredible handset. Enterprise fears The results arrive as Android is [3] increasing its market share and increasingly being [4] used in the enterprise. [5] While Android implementations vary from device to device, Coverity said the same flaws were likely to exist in other handsets as well. Coverity uncovered a total of 359 bugs, about one-quarter of which were classified as high-risk. The report analysed a total of 61 million lines of open source code from 291 widely used projects, including Apache, Linux, PHP and Samba. While Android?s density of bugs per thousand lines of code was lower than the average found in open source software overall, it was higher than that of the Linux kernel, according to Coverity. The company said some of the bugs appeared to be important enough to have been addressed before the code was released. Fixes demanded Coverity said it will hold off releasing the details of the flaws until January to allow [6] Google and handset vendors to issue fixes. The flaws could be patched via an over-the-air update, Coverity said. Canalys reported on Monday that [4] Android now dominates the US smartphone market with a 44 percent share, up from 33 percent in the second quarter of this year. While the deployment of Android on large numbers of handsets has allowed the software to claw market share away from competitors such as RIM, some have criticised Google?s ?hands-off? approach for [7] harming the quality of Android and its applications. Article printed from eWEEK Europe UK: http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk URL to article: http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/serious-security-bugs-found-in-android-kernel-11040 URLs in this post: ? [1] smartphone : http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/tag/smartphone ? [2] Open Source : http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/tag/open-source ? [3] increasing its market share : http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/iphone-jumps-into-top-tier-of-mobile-phone-rankings-11011 ? [4] used in the enterprise : http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/apple-android-catch-up-to-rim-in-the-enterprise-10505 ? [5] Image : http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/htc-droid-incredible.jpg ? [6] Google : http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/tag/google ? [7] harming the quality : http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/googles-hands-off-approach-damaging-android-8207 From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 3 07:57:29 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:57:29 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - One Congressional Loss That Hurts: Rick Boucher Message-ID: <81B62A9D-F29F-4DB7-BCD5-2F5192942E7D@infowarrior.org> One Congressional Loss That Hurts: Rick Boucher from the too-bad dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/23430511697/one-congressional-loss-that-hurts-rick-boucher.shtml I mentioned on Twitter yesterday that it was really sad how difficult it was to find any candidates I actually wanted to win in the election yesterday. In most cases, the more familiar I was with any candidate, the more I felt they didn't deserve to be elected (and that included both the leading candidates in many elections). There was one exception, however: I hoped that Rick Boucher would win re-election. There is a very, very small number of Congressional Representatives who actually seem to really get technology, telecom and copyright issues, and Boucher is was one of them. Despite easily winning re-election in many past elections (he didn't even have any real competitor last time around), it looks like Boucher has been swept out as part of the anti-incumbent sentiment. Trust me, I understand the desire to get rid of incumbent politicians, but Boucher was one of the rare politicians who actually seemed to get the issues that many of us find important. This is bad news for copyright and for consumers. Not that he was all that successful in passing the laws that mattered on that subject, but he was one of the few who would ask the key questions, and actually try to fix those broken laws -- such as his repeated attempts to fix the DMCA and support fair use, as well as more recent attempts to stop the massive boondoggle that is the Universal Service Fund. Boucher was so respected on these issues, that even Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn and ITIF's Richard Bennett agreed that this was bad news. I've known both Richard and Gigi for a while, and I can't recall them ever agreeing on anything. Gigi wrote up a blog post about what a loss this is for consumers and innovation. Hopefully we'll find out that one of the newly elected representatives actually understands some of these issues -- or perhaps some of the "survivors" will step up and recognize the issues. But Boucher's loss is bad news. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 3 08:17:07 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:17:07 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Star Wars Revisionism: it was all Jar-Jar's fault Message-ID: <82154378-E624-4A7B-B249-F6B19D18D2E5@infowarrior.org> (But we already knew it was JarJar's fault, right??? ---rick) Star Wars Revisionism: it was all Jar-Jar's fault This cute Lego Star Wars video presents a revisionist look at the original Star Wars trilogy in which the prime moving force was the off-stage bumbling of Jar-Jar Binks. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/02/star-wars-revisionis.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 3 10:11:08 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:11:08 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FISA Court Issues New Rules of Procedure Message-ID: <951D1E4E-9765-41EA-A125-78C974461937@infowarrior.org> Surveillance Court Issues New Rules of Procedure http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/11/fisc_new_rules.html http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=3707 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews government applications for domestic intelligence surveillance, issued new rules (pdf) on Monday to govern its proceedings. The new rules differ only slightly from the draft rules (pdf) that were issued for public comment in late August (?FISA Court Proposes New Court Rules,? Secrecy News, September 2, 2010). In general, the rules update past Court procedures to reflect passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which expanded government surveillance authority. In one modest editorial change suggested by FAS, the Court altered a line requiring that ?classified information? be protected to specify that only ?properly classified information? must be protected (Rule 62a). Another new provision in the final rules indicated that not only the government but also the Presiding Judge of the FISA Court ?may provide copies of Court orders, opinions, decisions, or other Court records to Congress? (Rule 62c2). In lengthy comments (pdf) submitted to the Court last month, the ACLU proposed several other substantive changes: the rules should require public release of Court opinions and order that address significant or novel legal questions, including those that affect personal privacy; the Court should release legal briefs that address such questions; and the Court should clarify that it is the final arbiter of what information is to be released and what is to be redacted. ?The public has a right to see judicial rulings that define the scope of the government?s most intrusive surveillance powers and affect the rights of all Americans,? said Melissa Goodman of the ACLU National Security Project. ?Secret law is inconsistent with the basic principles of democracy and makes informed public debate about the government?s surveillance powers nearly impossible.? These specific changes were not adopted in the final rule, but new releases of Court records were not precluded either. Rule 62a explains that a Court order or opinion may be published at the direction of the Presiding Judge, following a declassification review by the executive branch if necessary: ?Before publication, the Court may, as appropriate, direct the Executive Branch to review the order, opinion, or other decision and redact it as necessary to ensure that properly classified information is appropriately protected pursuant to Executive Order 13526 (or its successor).? At first glance, the instruction that the Court ?may, as appropriate? seek declassification review of opinions and orders prior to release seems to be permissive, not mandatory. By contrast, the previous version (pdf) of the Court rules stated that opinions (though not orders) ?must be reviewed? by the executive branch prior to publication. Based on this change in language some observers inferred, happily or unhappily, that declassification review of Court opinions by the executive branch was now optional, and that the Court had reserved the right to release classified information on its own authority without such review. But that appears to be a erroneous reading. The Court?s Rule 3 states unequivocally that ?In all matters, the Court and its staff shall comply with? Executive Order 13526, ?Classified National Security Information?.? That Executive Order does not permit unilateral disclosures of classified information or records without the prior review of the agency that classified them. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 3 15:12:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:12:34 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Microsoft details Windows Phone 7 kill switch Message-ID: Microsoft details Windows Phone 7 kill switch By Stewart Mitchell Posted on 3 Nov 2010 at 11:43 http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/362485/microsoft-details-windows-phone-7-kill-switch/print Microsoft has outlined how it might use the little publicised ?kill switch? in Windows Phone 7 handsets. A kill switch is a tool that allows software controllers to remove certain apps or software from handsets if they pose a security or privacy risk, such as a Trojan planted in an app. Apple's iPhone and Google's Android phone software also have kill switches built-in to cover the evetuality that they need to remove malware, or even just apps that break guidelines, but talk of a kill switch on Windows Phone 7 handsets has been muted since the platform launched last month. ?We don't really talk about it publicly because the focus is on testing of apps to make sure they're okay, but in the rare event that we need to, we have the tools to take action,? said Todd Biggs, director of product management for Windows Phone Marketplace. According to Biggs, Microsoft's strict testing of apps when they are submitted for inclusion in Marketplace should minimise kill switch use, but he explained how the company would react if an application was deemed unsafe once it had been approved. ?If in the Marketplace an app does get through and goes rogue there are a couple of things we can do about it, depending on what it was,? he said. ?We could unpublish it from the catalogue so that it was no longer available, but if it was very rogue then we could remove applications from handsets - we don't want things to go that far, but we could.? Rather than pushing out an instant zap the kill switch would be activated when handsets ?checked in? with Marketplace as part of routine maintenance. ?From a high-level perspective, phones check in to see if there are any downloads or updates available and it will also check if there are any apps that shouldn't be on there,? he said. ?There might be instances where we would remove the app.? Microsoft was reluctant to give examples of situations that would warrant app deletion, but agreed privacy and security concerns would be on the list. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 3 17:50:46 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:50:46 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Attack Severs Myanmar Internet Message-ID: <2F5B3083-961B-4996-872A-233C9E199119@infowarrior.org> Attack Severs Myanmar Internet by Craig Labovitz Back in 2007, the Myanmar government reportedly severed all Myanmar Internet connectivity in a crackdown over growing political unrest. Yesterday, Myanmar once again fell off the Internet. Over the course of the past several days, Myanmar?s main Internet provider, the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication (or PTT for short), suffered a large, sustained DDoS attack disrupting most network traffic in and out of the country. While motivation for the attack is unknown, Twitter and Blogs have been awash in speculation ranging from blaming the Myanmar government (preemptively disrupting Internet connectivity ahead of the November 7 general elections) to external attackers with still mysterious motives. The Myanmar Times reports the attack has been ongoing since October 25th (and adds the attack may impact Myanmar?s tourist industry). We estimate the Myanmar DDoS between 10-15 Gbps (several hundred times more than enough to overwhelm the country?s 45 Mbps T3 terrestrial and satellite links). The DDoS includes dozens of individual attack components (e.g. TCP syn, rst flood) against multiple IP addresses within PTT?s address blocks (203.81.64.0/19, 203.81.72.0/24, 203.81.81.0/24 and 203.81.82.0/24). The attack also appears fairly well-distributed ? ATLAS data shows attack traffic across 20 or more providers with a broad range of source addresses. A summary of the attack statistics in the chart below: < --- > http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2010/11/attac-severs-myanmar-internet/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 3 20:48:03 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cyber Command Achieves FOC Message-ID: On the Web: http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=14030 Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact: http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1 IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 1012-10 November 03, 2010 Cyber Command Achieves Full Operational Capability Department of Defense announced today that U.S. Cyber Command has achieved full operational capability (FOC). Achieving FOC involved U.S. Cyber Command completing a number of critical tasks to ensure it was capable of accomplishing its mission. U.S. Cyber Command is responsible for directing activities to operate and defend DoD networks. ?I am confident in the great service members and civilians we have here at U.S. Cyber Command. Cyberspace is essential to our way of life and U.S. Cyber Command synchronizes our efforts in the defense of DoD networks. We also work closely with our interagency partners to assist them in accomplishing their critical missions,? said Gen. Keith Alexander, commander of U.S. Cyber Command. Some of the critical FOC tasks included establishing a Joint Operations Center and transitioning personnel and functions from two existing organizations, the Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations and the Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare. U.S. Cyber Command?s development will not end at FOC, and the department will continue to grow the capacity and capability essential to operate and defend our networks effectively. There are also enduring tasks that will be on-going after FOC, such as developing the workforce, providing support to the combatant commanders, and efforts to continue growing capacity and capability. U.S. Cyber Command is a sub-unified command under the U.S. Strategic Command. It reached its ?initial operational capability? on May 21, 2010. For more information, media may contact Col. Rivers Johnson Jr., Cyber Command Public Affairs at 301-688-6584. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 06:32:36 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 07:32:36 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: The War On Toner Cartridges References: <548671828.1750.1288840573012.JavaMail.root@zimbra.well.com> Message-ID: (c/o Anonymous) Begin forwarded message: > > > Tuesday, November 02, 2010 > War on toner cartridges > Once again proving that life is far stranger than fiction... > > Unbelievable as it may sound, following the recent bomb attempt, there really is a ban on carrying toner cartridges in hand baggage. > > It's like a crazy mix of Simon Says meets 1984 meets Viz: > > Bin Laden says... > > * Take off your belt > * Throw away your nail scissors > * Take off your shoes > * Throw away your toothpaste and shampoo > * Show us your genitals (after this) > > And now... > > * Throw away your printer toner cartridge > > I mean really, WTF? Is the British public so gobsmackingly stupid, the press so craven and cowardly, and the politicians so...despicably political, that this is going to go through on the nod? Just so we can all agree that Something has been Done? > > I do pity the poor person who until this day has religiously carried a spare printer toner cartridge in his carry-on baggage for every trip, just in case he ran out while on holiday. Whoever he is, he'll be gutted that the terrorists didn't use...I dunno, a camera? An airconditioner? A box? Anything other than a toner cartridge! > From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 07:53:02 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 08:53:02 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cisco rolls out social network monitoring software Message-ID: ttp://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/110310-cisco-social-network-software.html Cisco rolls out social network monitoring software SocialMiner lets Cisco customer service agents inject themselves into public conversations By Jim Duffy, Network World November 03, 2010 04:35 PM ET Sponsored by: Cisco this week unveiled software designed to let companies track customers and prospects on social media networks like Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other public forums and sites. Facebook is fastest social network, LinkedIn most reliable Cisco SocialMiner allows users to monitor status updates, forum posts and blogs of customers so they can be alerted of conversations related to their brand. The software is designed to not only enable enterprises to monitor the conversations of their customers but to engage those that require service, Cisco says. Citing data from Nielsen, Cisco says 34% of online Americans have used Facebook, Twitter or other social media to "rant or rave" about a product, company or brand. "With more and more Web-based conversations taking place over these social platforms, it's now more critical than ever that businesses are aware of what their customers are saying about them and are able to respond to general inquiries or rectify customer service issues so as to enhance and protect brand reputation," Cisco states in its SocialMiner press release. Cisco says it's been using SocialMiner internally since the spring to manage customer engagements involving its consumer products, including the Flip videocam. The software would pick up conversations that mentions Cisco Flip and then a Cisco agent would proactively join the discussion, says John Hernandez, vice president and general manager, Customer Collaboration Business Unit. If discussions included information of a sensitive matter they would then be taken offline, Hernandez says. SocialMiner is a component of Cisco's Contact Center customer service system. It can also be purchased for use with a non-Cisco contact center system, Cisco officials say. In each case, SocialMiner costs $1,000 for the server and $1,500 per agent license. In addition to SocialMiner, Cisco also rolled out Cisco Finesse, a Web 2.0 application that it says combines traditional contact center functions with its Quad enterprise social networking software. Quad was introduced earlier this year. Cisco Finesse is designed to compile customer data into a single "cockpit" so customer service representatives can improve interactions and responses. Finesse costs $1,500 per agent. Cisco also unveiled a media capture and storage device that records, plays, streams and stores audio and video media for preserving and mining through customer interactions. The media capture platform 8.5 allows companies to review previous caller issues to rectify current situations. Media capture platform 8.5 costs $250 per voice recording session and $300 per video session. All of the products will be available by the end of the year. Read more about voip & convergence in Network World's VoIP & Convergence section. All contents copyright 1995-2010 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 08:00:11 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Navy asks Congress to buy both LCS designs Message-ID: <6938A660-534C-4A7C-9D27-55FE4E934656@infowarrior.org> Navy asks Congress to buy both LCS designs By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Nov 3, 2010 18:08:05 EDT http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/11/defense-navy-picks-both-lcs-designs-110310/ Rival teams from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA have been waiting all year to see which of their designs would be chosen for the Navy?s littoral combat ship competition. Now, if the Navy gets permission from the lame-duck Congress, the winner could be: both. At stake had been an award to the winner for 10 LCS hulls. But the Navy, convinced that the competition has driven down the cost for the ships, is asking Congress for permission to award each team contracts for 10 ships, for a total of 20 new LCS hulls. ?We?re engaging with key committee members, their staff and industry on whether awarding a 10-ship block buy to each team merits congressional authorization,? Capt. Cate Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Navy?s acquisition department, said Wednesday. But Mueller cautioned that the move does not mean the effort to pick only one design has been put aside. ?The Navy?s LCS is on track for a down-select decision. We have not stopped the current solicitation,? she said. ?If the [dual-award] path doesn?t prove feasible and we don?t get the congressional authorization, we will proceed to down-select in accordance with the terms of the current solicitation.? ?The Navy sees either approach procures affordably priced ships,? she said. Congress ? which has yet to produce a defense bill for 2011 ? will need to act quickly, as the contract offers and prices put on the table by each industry team expire after Dec. 14. If the LCS contracts aren?t awarded by then, a new round of contract offers would need to be made, possibly pushing a decision into late winter or early spring. Mueller said building both designs has several advantages, including: ? Stabilization of the LCS program and the industrial base. ? Increasing the ship procurement rate to support operational requirements. ? Sustaining competition throughout the program. ? Improving foreign military sales opportunities. Under the new proposal, the Navy would split its buy equally each year between Lockheed and Austal USA. Two ships would be awarded under the 2010 budget and two in 2011, with four ships year each from 2012 through 2015. One key issue that will be put off appears to be the choice of combat system. Each team created its own system, with virtually no commonality between the two types. Under the new proposal, each team would continue to build ships with their original combat systems. But, said Mueller, ?That does not keep us from deciding in the future to go with one or the other.? Other shipbuilders also could be brought into the program, she said, ?because the Navy intends to procure the technical data package for both designs, and if necessary, a second source for either or both designs could be brought in.? One administrative hurdle the Navy needs to award new contracts is approval by the Defense Acquisition Board, a Pentagon panel which reviews the status of all acquisition programs and certifies them for moving ahead. A DAB meeting, Mueller said, likely would not be scheduled until the LCS acquisition strategy is finalized. Sources say the new ships would be split equally between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a change from the current plan to initially base all LCS hulls at San Diego. Navy officials have said that Mayport, Fla., would be the primary Atlantic base for the ships. The port is scheduled to lose many of its current tenants over the next few years as the Navy decommissions the remainder of its frigate force. Each industry team already has delivered one ship and is at work on another. Lockheed?s ships are built in Wisconsin by Marinette Marine, a subsidiary of the Italian shipbuilding giant Fincantieri. Austal USA, a subsidiary of the Australian Austal firm, which specializes in aluminum high-speed craft, builds its ships in Mobile, Ala. Each of the shipbuilding programs is looked on locally as a major job provider and source of income. Both LCS designs have supporters and detractors. While both of the new ships have numerous problems ? situations common to most prototypes ? Lockheed?s steel-hull, aluminum superstructure version is seen as an efficient, capable and handy platform, while the large flight deck and spacious mission bay of Austal USA?s all-aluminum trimaran appeals to many mission planners. Planners for years have seen the designs as mutually supportive ? one of the reasons that the Navy, until the fall of 2009, planned to buy both types. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 09:17:59 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:17:59 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Speaking of hysterical threats Message-ID: I wonder when TSA/DHS/USG will come out with an alert over this?? Risk Assessment of Dihydrogen Monoxide http://hairygoon.com/2010/risk-assessment-of-h20/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 13:02:38 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:02:38 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Submission - Britain's MI6 operates a bit differently than CIA References: <4CD2D2FD.2070808@inetassoc.com> Message-ID: c/o DS Begin forwarded message: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110200467_pf.html > > *Britain's MI6 operates a bit differently than CIA* > > By Walter Pincus > Tuesday, November 2, 2010; 3:55 AM > > "The most draining aspect of my job is reading, every day, intelligence reports describing the plotting of terrorists who are bent on maiming and murdering people in this country." > > Those words, spoken last week, come from the first public speech given by a director of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. Instead of Dame Judi Dench, who plays the role in James Bond films, Sir John Sawers, the real director of the legendary 101-year-old spy service, appeared before the Society of Editors in London. Early in his career, Sawers was an MI6 operative in the Middle East. > > It's worth looking at his precise presentation for its similarities and differences with what CIA Director Leon Panetta might say in a similar circumstance. > > While the U.S. intelligence community is made up of 16 agencies, including CIA and those in the Pentagon, "three specialised services form the [United Kingdom] intelligence community," said Sawers, 55, a Foreign Service diplomat. He listed MI5, which is a domestic service somewhat like the FBI; and GCHQ, the government's electronic eavesdropping agency, which is much like the Pentagon-based National Security Agency. Each also has the lead in the cyber world. Sawers' own service, like the CIA, operates outside the British homeland, gathering information primarily from human sources. > > British Defense Intelligence remains inside its Defense Ministry and under the chief of defense intelligence, normally a three-star general. He coordinates intelligence gathering and analysis for all the military services. Sawers made clear, however, that in Afghanistan his operatives "provide tactical intelligence that guides military operations and saves our soldiers' lives." > > Most different from the United States is management of Britain's MI6. Where the CIA "reports" to the director of national intelligence, the agency takes direction from the White House through the National Security Council, although the president, himself, must authorize its covert operations. > > MI6 "does not choose what it does," Sawers said. Under a 1994 law, cabinet ministers who make up the British National Security Council "tell us what they want to know, what they want us to achieve ... [and] we take our direction from the National Security Council," which is chaired by the prime minister. Other permanent members are the deputy prime minister, the chancellor of the exchequer, the secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs, the home secretary, the secretary of state for defence, the secretary of state for international development and the security minister. > > Individually, Sawers said, "I answer directly to the foreign secretary," unlike the CIA's Panetta. MI6 submits plans for operations to the foreign secretary and "he approves most, but not all, and those operations he does not approve do not happen." > > "When our operations require legal authorization or entail political risk, I seek the foreign secretary's approval in advance. If a case is particularly complex, he can consult the attorney general," Sawers said. > > The three British intelligence agencies in the next five years "will see us intensifying our collaboration to improve our operational impact and to save money," Sawers said. "Yes, even the intelligence services have to make savings," he added, reflecting another issue in common with the Americans. > > Oversight of the U.S. intelligence community is done within both the executive and legislative branches. There is the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of up to 16 members appointed from outside the federal government, who are given assignments by the White House, and there are also inspectors general within the intelligence agencies. > > On Capitol Hill, the House and Senate intelligence committees provide oversight but other panels can investigate when intelligence operations fall under their jurisdiction. > > In Britain oversight is performed both by members of Parliament and by judges. There is the single Intelligence and Security Committee, now chaired by Conservative Party member Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was appointed by Prime Minister David Cameron. The committee traditionally includes other senior politicians, many of them former ministers. "They hold us to account and can investigate areas of our activity," Sawers said. > > In addition, two former judges have full access to MI6 files, as intelligence commissioner and interception commissioner. "They make sure our procedures are proper and lawful," Sawers said. > > As with U.S. intelligence, terrorism is central for the British services. "Over one-third of SIS resources are directed against international terrorism," Sawers said, making it "the largest single area of SIS's work." MI6 tries to penetrate terrorist groups. > > There are other ways in which the countries' two agencies differ. Like the CIA, MI6 has a website, but while the U.S. agency site is only in English, MI6's is also in Arabic, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese. Another sign of British sophistication: while the CIA site has games and quizzes for kids, the MI6 site gives short tests to allow potential recruits to assess their analytical and administrative skills. > > Sawers spoke of matters that I doubt Panetta would include. Based on his experience in the Islamic world, he spoke out on ways to combat terrorism that fell into the policy field. For example, he talked about countries in the Middle East "moving to a more open system of government ... one more responsive to people's grievences" as one way to curtail the growth of terrorists. He then added this bit of advice to policymakers: "But if we demand an abrupt move to the pluralism that we in the West enjoy, we may undermine the controls that are now in place, and terrorists would end up with new opportunities." > > His look into the future was more characteristic of intelligence chiefs. "Whatever the cause or causes of so-called Islamic terrorism, there is little prospect of it fading away soon," he said. > > From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 13:02:55 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - One Spy to Rule Them All: Top Spook Launches Push for Real Power References: <4CD2D35C.5050009@inetassoc.com> Message-ID: <84FFC625-835D-4FD6-A519-BBE12A4E0D16@infowarrior.org> c/o DS Begin forwarded message: > http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/one-spy-to-rule-them-all-top-spook-launches-push-for-real-power/ > > > One Spy to Rule Them All: Top Spook Launches Push for Real Power > > > By Spencer Ackerman > > November 3, 2010 > > Under an emerging deal hashed out between the Pentagon and the director of national intelligence, the country?s top spook might, for the first time, actually control the thousands of spies and contractors he?s responsible for overseeing. Just follow the money. > > You might think the director of national intelligence actually runs the spy world. But that would make too much sense. In fact, as long as there?s been a ?community? of spy agencies, the Defense Department has kept the intelligence budget (now totaling $80.1 billion annually ) under the military thumb. That?s not really surprising, since the military?s intelligence services ? the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and others ? own the majority of big-ticket intel items like space satellites . But it has meant that functional control of the intelligence budget isn?t in the hands of the nation?s top spy, despite years? of legislative and bureaucratic fixes to consolidate control of intelligence under a single official. > > That could be coming to an end. At a Louisiana conference yesterday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, announced that he?s reached ?at least conceptual agreement? with his old friend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to move the National Intelligence Program , the non-operational-military (read: CIA) part of the intel budget, over to his office. That?s $53.1 billion dollars ? out of $80 billion ? that Clapper or his successor will control by 2013. (The remaining $27 billion, for military intelligence activities, will remain in Pentagon hands.) > > The details are still fuzzy, but it sounds like the director can for the first time shift money into spying priorities ? and de-fund programs that aren?t working. The intelligence agencies now have to take greater notice of who?s in charge. Just last year, the CIA routed Clapper?s predecessor in a bureaucratic fight over who appointed the top spooks at overseas spying outposts. That?s a lot harder to do when Clapper?s office has influence over the agency?s cash. > > Clapper had no problem bragging about the big bureaucratic victory . ?That is one specific way to accrue more authority to [my office] in the oversight and execution of that funding,? he told the U.S. Geospatial Intelligence Foundation?s annual meeting. > > It?s also a shift for Clapper himself. Congress created a director of national intelligence in 2004 to manage the 16 spy services, but didn?t actually write into the law mechanisms for the director to direct his own budget. Lawmakers have come to see that as a mistake, but haven?t fixed it. In his previous job heading up defense intelligence, Clapper didn?t mind the congressional error, preferring for the Pentagon to control the intel money ? to the point where the Senate intelligence committee?s leadership initially balked at his nomination to be director. > > But the new arrangement isn?t just good for Clapper. It?s in Gates? interest. The Pentagon chief is trying to cut $100 billion in waste out of the defense budget for five years, an effort he says is necessary to preserve core military functions against future attempts at balancing the federal budget. With the stroke of a pen, $53 billion is no longer Gates? problem. No wonder Clapper called it ?win-win? for the Pentagon and the spy services. > > The move also got cautious praise as a transparency measure. Steve Aftergood, an intelligence-policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists who has fought for years to shine more sunlight into the intelligence budget, wrote that if Clapper can secure congressional support for the budget shift, he?ll remove ?a source of pointless obfuscation, and thereby strengthen oversight and accountability .? > > That?s a big /if/, though: Clapper and Gates will need to convince the congressional armed-service panels that they should turn over their authority over the lion?s share of the intel budget to their colleagues on the intelligence committees. > > It?s also not even Clapper?s only big announcement at the conference. At his confirmation hearing, he said that the spy services had become too dependent on private contractors ? the subject of a recent /Washington Post /expose . > > In Louisiana, Clapper said he?ll start ?smartly? cutting back on contract personnel over a period of years, starting with his own office staff, and he?ll expand the permanent intelligence workforce. Overall, he also pledged to trim the total spy budget ? which is double what it was on 9/11. And he?s bringing in Major General Michael Flynn , the author of a harsh critique of intelligence practices in Afghanistan , to make sure spy agencies share information with each other across the federal and state governments. > > There are a lot of details that need to be worked out, as the agreement with Gates is still ?conceptual.? And already congressional staffers are giving anonymous not-so-fast quotes to the papers. But if Clapper can pull this off, then the country is a step closer to getting the spy agencies on the same page ? something that the 9/11 Commission urged in order to prevent another terrorist attack. > From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 13:08:14 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:08:14 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ed Felten Named FTC Chief Technologist Message-ID: <0E141716-8BF8-4FA4-AC1F-FDD7731D3841@infowarrior.org> FTC Names Edward W. Felten as Agency's Chief Technologist; Eileen Harrington as Executive Director http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/11/cted.shtm Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz today announced the appointment of Edward W. Felten as the agency?s first Chief Technologist. In his new position, Dr. Felten will advise the agency on evolving technology and policy issues. Dr. Felten is a professor of computer science and public affairs and founding director of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. He has served as a consultant to federal agencies, including the FTC, and departments of Justice and Defense, and has testified before Congress on a range of technology, computer security, and privacy issues. He is a fellow of the Association of Computing Machinery and recipient of the Scientific American 50 Award. Felten holds a Ph.D. in computer science and engineering from the University of Washington. Dr. Felten?s research has focused on areas including computer security and privacy, especially relating to consumer products; technology law and policy; Internet software; intellectual property policy; and using technology to improve government. ?Ed is extraordinarily respected in the technology community, and his background and knowledge make him an outstanding choice to serve as the agency?s first Chief Technologist,? Leibowitz said. ?He?s going to add unparalleled expertise on high-technology markets and computer security. And he also will provide invaluable input into the recommendations we?ll be making soon for online privacy, as well as the enforcement actions we?ll soon bring to protect consumer privacy. We?re thrilled to have him on board.? Dr. Felten currently is a part-time consultant for the FTC. He will start full time as Chief Technologist in January. Chairman Leibowitz also announced that Eileen Harrington has been named the agency?s Executive Director. Harrington comes to the FTC from a 15-month stint as Chief Operating Officer at the U.S. Small Business Administration. Previously, she served for 25 years at the FTC, starting as a staff attorney and assuming a variety of senior management positions in the Bureau of Consumer Protection, including Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Deputy Director, and Acting Director. Harrington has a long list of accomplishments from her tenure at the FTC. Perhaps most notably, she received the prestigious Service to America Medal for leading the team that created the National Do Not Call Registry. ?This is a very happy homecoming,? said Leibowitz. ?Eileen has made an invaluable contribution to the FTC in the past, and her strong management skills, enthusiasm, and creativity will once again be put to use for the betterment of the agency and for American consumers. We are delighted to have her back.? The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC?s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC?s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. MEDIA CONTACT: Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2180 From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 15:50:29 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 16:50:29 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Privacy advocates fear massive fed health database Message-ID: <8738993A-E1DE-449B-A710-70C7200E6C9F@infowarrior.org> Privacy advocates fear massive fed health database U.S. Office of Personnel Management wants to collect data from three health programs By Jaikumar Vijayan November 4, 2010 06:00 AM ET http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9194723/Privacy_advocates_fear_massive_fed_health_database_?taxonomyId=152 Computerworld - Several privacy groups have raised alarms over plans by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to build a database that would contain information about the healthcare claims of millions of Americans. The concerns have surfaced because the OPM has provided few details about the new database and because the data collected will be shared with law enforcement, third-party researchers and others. In a letter to OPM Director John Berry, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and 15 other organizations asked the agency to release more details on the need for the database and how the data contained in it will be protected and used. The OPM "should not create this massive database full of detailed individual health records without giving the public a full and fair chance to evaluate the specifics of the program," the letter cautioned. It also called upon the OPM to delay its proposed Nov. 15 launch date for the database because there was not enough time for independent observers to evaluate the proposal. According to the OPM, the planned Health Claims Data Warehouse is designed to help the agency more cost-effectively manage three health claims programs: the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), the National Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Program and the Multi-State Option Plan. The pre-existing condition program, which launched in August, and the multi-state option plan, which is scheduled to go into effect in January 2014, were both introduced earlier this year as part of the Affordable Care Act, the law designed to overhaul health care in the U.S. that was signed by President Obama in March. The OPM is in charge of administering the FEHBP as well as the two new programs. In a formal notice published in the Federal Register last month, the OPM said that creating a central and comprehensive database would allow it to more actively manage the programs and ensure "best value for both enrollees and taxpayers." As part of the effort, the OPM will establish direct data feeds with each of the three programs and will continuously collect, manage and analyze health services data. The data that the agency collects will include individuals' names, addresses, Social Security numbers and dates of birth, plus the names of their spouses and other information about dependents, and information about their healthcare coverage, procedures and diagnoses. According to the so-called systems of record notice (SORN) that the OPM published in the Federal Register, the data collected will be de-identified, which means that details that would tie pieces of data to specific individuals would be removed. This process would occur "in many instances" and before an analysis is conducted, the OPM reports. However, the notice offers no details on how and when such de-identification will be done or the extent to which personal identifiers will be removed before analysis. In addition to using the data for its own internal analysis, the OPM will also make it available, if required, for law enforcement purposes and for use in judicial or administrative proceedings, and to "researchers and analysts" inside and outside government for healthcare research purposes, the OPM notice said. The OPM's notice is troubling for its lack of detail and the limited time it offers for evaluation, said Harley Geiger, policy counsel for the CDT. "There are far too many unknowns about the program for it to be acceptable," at this point, Geiger said. While the OPM, for instance, has indicated that the data it collects will help to better administer the three healthcare programs, there are no details why the data will be useful, he said. The OPM did not respond to several requests for comment. The OPM has also made little mention of how it plans to protect the data it collects or what its processes for de-identification are going to be, Geiger said. Regulations in HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) require specific steps for making health care data anonymous, but there is no indication that the OPM will adopt those standards or something else, Geiger said. The OPM's statement that it will share the data with third-party researchers and analysts is also deeply troubling, as is its willingness to make the data available for law enforcement and judicial purposes, he said. At a minimum, the OPM needs to issue a revised notice fleshing out its plans in more detail and to provide a genuine opportunity for public comment, Geiger said. "This goes completely against public expectations of confidentiality in their [health] records," he said. "People expect their healthcare provider to have their medical information. What they don't expect is for the government to get a copy of that which they will then disclose to law enforcement and to Congress and to researchers." Deborah Peel, founder and chairwoman of the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation in Austin, said the OPM's database proposal raises serious privacy concerns. One of the biggest concerns revolves around the fact that the OPM will share the data it collects with third-party researchers. While the OPM says the data will be used only for medical research purposes, such data is almost never used that way, she said. Most third-party "research" involving protected health information is more about commercial, business analytics than it is about helping patients or doctors, Peel said. "Although this proposal is being described as intended to help promote medical research and efficiency analysis, we do not see adequate safeguards to ensure that the aggregated records are not used as fodder for the health data mining industry," she said. Jaikumar Vijayan covers data security and privacy issues, financial services security and e-voting for Computerworld. Follow Jaikumar on Twitter at @jaivijayan, or subscribe to Jaikumar's RSS feed . His e-mail address is jvijayan at computerworld.com. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 20:11:17 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - White House Orders Standard Practices on Unclassified Information Message-ID: White House Orders Standard Practices on Unclassified Information ? By Kim Zetter ? November 4, 2010 | ? 6:36 pm | ? Categories: Sunshine and Secrecy http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/unclassified-informatio/ The White House released an executive order Thursday that aims to standardize how agencies handle unclassified information that carries statutory protections against dissemination. Such information ? designated ?controlled unclassified information,? or CUI ? is currently handled in an ad hoc manner, with each agency creating its own policies, procedures and markings for safeguarding the information. This can create confusion with those requesting documents under the Freedom of Information Act, and among agency personnel handling such requests. ?This inefficient, confusing patchwork has resulted in inconsistent marking and safeguarding of documents, led to unclear or unnecessarily restrictive dissemination policies, and created impediments to authorized information sharing,? according to the order, signed by President Obama. ?The fact that these agency-specific policies are often hidden from public viewhas only aggravated these issues? (.pdf). To standardize the management of such information, the directive orders all executive branch agencies to produce a list of all the categories and subcategories they currently use to distinguish CUI from other unclassified information and to submit the list within six months to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For each category, the agencies must cite the relevant law, regulation or government policy that justifies protecting the information from dissemination. ?If there is significant doubt about whether information should be designated as CUI, it shall not be so designated,? according to the order. The NARA has a year to winnow these lists down to a single list of acceptable categories and subcategories for CUI. Unclassified controlled information is protected from dissemination by various statutory exemptions passed by Congress and by government-wide policies. These include, for example, exemptions for information about individuals that is protected under the Privacy Act, information about law enforcement investigations and information about proprietary business information and trade secrets. In the case of the latter, businesses are allowed to block government entities, such as the Federal Trade Commission, from disseminating information to the public or to other corporations that they assert could harm their business interests. Open-government advocacy groups such as the California First Amendment Coalition have often accused corporations and agencies of abusing these exemptions to protect their self-interests. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 4 20:49:05 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Nicaragua Raids Costa Rica, Blames Google Maps Message-ID: <2B6E4398-B8A3-459F-8097-0BFB7F8366B8@infowarrior.org> Nicaragua Raids Costa Rica, Blames Google Maps Nov 4, 2010 at 3:31pm ET by Matt McGee http://searchengineland.com/nicaragua-raids-costa-rica-blames-google-maps-54885 An error on Google Maps has caused an international conflict in Central America. A Nicaraguan military commander, relying on Google Maps, moved troops into an area near San Juan Lake along the border between his country and Costa Rica. The troops are accused of setting up camp there, taking down a Costa Rican flag and raising the Nicaraguan flag, doing work to clean up a nearby river, and dumping the sediment in Costa Rican territory. La Nacion ? the largest newspaper in Costa Rica ? says the Nicaraguan commander, Eden Pastora, used Google Maps to ?justify? the incursion even though the official maps used by both countries indicate the territory belongs to Costa Rica. Pastora blames Google Maps in the paper: See the satellite photo on Google and there you see the border. In the last 3,000 meters the two sides are from Nicaragua. (Note: I?m using the Google translation of this original article.) The paper points out that Bing Maps shows the correct and officially recognized border. Here?s a comparison of what I believe is the disputed area: A Google spokesperson in Central America told La Nacion that the company doesn?t know the source of the maps error. Earlier this summer, Google announced that it made ?significant improvements to our borders for over 60 countries and regions.? The Cambodian government has previously accused Google of being ?radically misleading? in how it shows the border between it and Thailand. Meanwhile, tension is rising in Costa Rica ? a country without a formal military. Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla went on national TV last night and asked citizens to ?be calm and firm, amid the outrage that these events provoke within us.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 5 06:24:05 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 07:24:05 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Lack of Flash Gives MacBook Air Two Extra Hours of Battery Life Message-ID: Lack of Flash Gives MacBook Air Two Extra Hours of Battery Life ? By Charlie Sorrel ? November 4, 2010 | ? 5:52 am | ? Categories: Notebooks http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/11/lack-of-flash-gives-macbook-air-two-extra-hours-of-battery-life/# We sometimes sneer at cellphones equipped with Adobe?s Flash browser plug-in: On tiny, energy-efficient mobile processors, the plug-in spikes CPU-usage, causing a big drain on battery life and often making the poor host browser so stuttery and unresponsive that it is rendered useless. But what of full-sized computers? They can handle it, right? Maybe not. Much has been made of Apple?s decision to ship the new MacBook Airs without the Adobe plug-in, and in future all Macs will be made this way. In tests run by Wired.com?s sister site, Ars Technica, it turns out that having Flash installed can cut the notebooks? battery life by one third. That?s right. Simply by not having a browser plug-in installed, the 11-inch MacBook Air gets two extra hours of battery life. Ars: Having Flash installed can cut battery runtime considerably ? as much as 33 percent in our testing. With a handful of websites loaded in Safari, Flash-based ads kept the CPU running far more than seemed necessary, and the best time I recorded with Flash installed was just 4 hours. After deleting Flash, however, the MacBook Air ran for 6:02 ? with the exact same set of websites reloaded in Safari, and with static ads replacing the CPU-sucking Flash versions. Anecdotal reports of the new Airs say that they run cooler and quieter than other Mac notebooks, unless they are using Flash. YouTube videos and Flash ads are pretty much the only things that cause the machines to heat up, and for their usually silent fans to spin up. What to do? Well, there are lots of great Flash-blocking plug-ins for browsers, but these are rather heavy-handed. The sites you visit still think you have Flash, and serve ads and video only for them to be suppressed. If you uninstall Flash completely, though, the site will often have a fallback, serving static ads and ? in many cases ? plain HTML5 video. The content creators get their ad impressions, you get less blinking crap and better battery life, and the world gets the hint that maybe Flash isn?t as ubiquitous as it used to be. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 5 12:37:07 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:37:07 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Higher education must lead in cybersecurity Message-ID: Freeman Hrabowski and Richard Forno: Higher education must lead in cybersecurity Freeman Hrabowski and Richard Forno | Commentary http://www.gazette.net/stories/11052010/policol192137_32540.php Recent news about the renegade computer program Stuxnet ? designed to invade operating systems in targeted power plants ? is a reminder of both the pervasive influence of technology on modern society and the resulting vulnerabilities. President Barack Obama, calling for the nation to focus on cybersecurity, remarked on this irony: "The very technologies that empower us to create and to build also empower those who would disrupt and destroy." Within Maryland, the recent report "CyberMaryland" highlighted four cybersecurity priorities for the state: foster innovation, develop human capital, position Maryland as a cybersecurity leader and ensure our future competitiveness. It is clear that colleges and universities will play a critical role building America's capacity in this vital area. Higher education must address three important priorities. First, we need to produce many more graduates with expertise in cybersecurity in response to what the Center for Strategic and International Studies recently called a "desperate shortage" of cybersecurity specialists. Currently, Maryland's institutions are quickly expanding existing programs and developing new ones to address this shortage. However, although increasing the pool of cybersecurity experts is important, we also must recognize that America has a significant shortage of graduates across all areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). If over the next decade we fail to increase the number of students graduating in all these fields while encouraging more of our current science and engineering students to pursue careers in cybersecurity, we will face a deficit of workers in other STEM careers ? all of which are important to the nation's economy. The University System of Maryland has made science and engineering education a priority, and several of its institutions are focusing on cybersecurity. For example, at UMBC we will continue to be a major producer of STEM graduates while also working closely with the corporate community, as well as state and federal agencies, to implement new graduate programs in cybersecurity that target the skills most needed. University research should be the second priority for building cybersecurity capabilities. The security challenges we face require new approaches to using and securing the Internet. Douglas Maughan, a UMBC graduate and program manager for cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, recently stated that only by encouraging innovation will America regain its position as a leader in cyberspace. Basic and applied research are fundamental to reshaping the way we secure computer hardware, software and networks. University researchers (at UMBC and elsewhere) are already engaged in exciting and important work in this area with the Department of Defense, much of which also has potential for non-military applications. The third priority is to develop partnerships with industry that support technology transfer and connect academic researchers with industry. To improve cybersecurity in our work sites and in our homes, we must develop programs linking universities with entrepreneurs and venture capitalists so that we're capable of rapidly commercializing new discoveries into products that enhance cybersecurity. In this area, UMBC has achieved great success through its ACTiVATE training program in which women entrepreneurs take research conducted in university and federal labs and find commercial applications for these technologies. Long-term global leadership in information technology depends on developing and executing a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. Strong partnerships among our universities, industry, the State of Maryland and the federal government will be critical to strengthening cybersecurity and reducing the mounting risks faced each day by government, business and American citizens using the Internet. # # # # # Freeman Hrabowski is president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Richard Forno is director of UMBC's graduate cybersecurity program. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 5 14:59:35 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:59:35 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself Message-ID: <8D2B99FB-B394-45D0-8CD6-BC6DE598AC83@infowarrior.org> Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself JOE SHARKEY, On Tuesday November 2, 2010, 1:40 am EDT http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Opt-Out-of-a-Body-Scan-Then-nytimes-3016411705.html?x=0 HAVING been taught by nuns in grade school and later going through military boot camp, I have always disliked uniformed authorities shouting at me. So I was unhappy last week when some security screeners at O?Hare International Airport in Chicago started yelling. ?Opt out! We got an opt out!? one bellowed about me in a tone that people in my desert neighborhood in Tucson usually reserve for declaring, ?Rattlesnake!? Other screeners took up the ?Opt out!? shout. I was marched from the metal detector lane to one of those nearby whole-body imagers, ordered to take everything out of my pockets, remove my belt and hold my possessions up high. Then I was required to stand still while I received a rough pat-down by a man whose r?sum?, I suspected, included experience at a state prison. ?Hold your pants up!? he ordered me. What did I do to deserve this? Well, as I approached the checkpoints, I had two choices. One was a familiar lane with the metal detector, so I put my bag on that. To my right was a separate lane dominated with what the Transportation Security Administration initially called ?whole-body imagers? but has now labeled ?advanced imaging technology? units. Critics, of course, call them strip-search machines. I don?t like these things, and not just because of privacy concerns or because of what some critics have asserted are radiation safety issues with some of the machines that use X-ray technology. No, I don?t like the fact that I have to remove every item from every pocket, including my wallet and things as trivial as a Kleenex. You then strike a pose inside with your hands submissively held above your head, like some desperado cornered by the sheriff in a Western movie, while the see-through-clothes machine makes an image of your body. The T.S.A.?s position is that anyone can ?opt out? of a body scan for reasons of privacy or whatever, but will then be subjected to a thorough physical pat-down and careful search of belongings. In my case, I had been routinely using a normal metal detector checkpoint, when I was ordered to switch lanes and instead go to one of the new machines. I said I would prefer not to, given that my carry-on bag, laptop and shoes were already trundling along the regular machine?s conveyor belt, out of sight. That?s when the shouting started. As of Monday afternoon, the agency had not responded to several requests for comment on this. Last week, the agency did tell me that there were 317 of the advanced imaging technology machines now in use at 65 airports around the country. About 500 should be online by the end of the year, the agency said, and another 500 are expected to be installed next year. Ultimately, the agency plans to have the new machines replace metal detectors at all of the roughly 2,000 airport checkpoints. Meanwhile, both passengers and security screeners are making accommodations, and I acknowledge, change is a challenge. But hey, security folks, could we please start communicating better about the procedures, preferably without shouting or insulting our intelligence? Bruce Delahorne, a marketing executive who flies frequently, said he was also recently going through a standard metal detector at O?Hare ? no body imager in sight ? when the old rules abruptly changed. Mr. Delahorne said: ?They had one of the T.S.A. staff announcing loudly: ?Take everything out of your pockets. If you have a wallet, take it out. A handkerchief, out.? I asked the guy, ?Can you explain the reason for the new process?? He said there was nothing new. ?We have always done this.? ? Well, no they haven?t, as you and I and Mr. Delahorne all know. Mr. Delahorne said he thought, ?O.K., I get it. This guy is reading from the card, not talking to me.? So, Mr. Delahorne said, ?I did what they told me to. But on the other side of the metal detector, I said to another screener, ?Could you explain to me why the procedure is now different at this airport, like having to remove a wallet that never set off the metal detector?? And he said, ?No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport.? ? Mr. Delahorne said he was perfectly willing to comply with all procedures to ensure good security. He just wondered whether some of them were being made up on the spot. ?For me,? he said, ?the issue is, who?s in charge here and what are the rules?? E-mail: jsharkey at nytimes.com From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 5 15:01:52 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:01:52 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) Message-ID: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review. On July 2, 2010, EPIC filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom. http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 5 17:34:25 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 18:34:25 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Botmasters Honeypotting the Good Guys Message-ID: Clever. ---rick Recently we obtained access to a backend server used by the EFTPS malware campaign that targets U.S. businesses that recently paid their federal taxes. The victim is normally targeted through spam, which claims that an error occurred and the company?s tax payment was rejected. The email contains a link to ?remedy? the problem, and leads to a compromised website (and in some cases a website set up by the attackers) that redirects to a server that tries to exploit the user?s web browser and plugins (i.e., MDAC, Adobe Reader, Windows Help Center, Java, etc). For more info on the exploits see the Wepawet report. If any of the exploits are successful, the victim is usually infected with the Zeus trojan. What particularly stands out about the EFTPS exploit toolkit is their admin interface. Note that it?s common for most exploit toolkits to contain an admin interface that manages exploits, payloads, and tracks exploit success rates. However, the EFTPS exploit toolkit contains a completely fake admin console. This admin interface acts as a ?hacker honeypot? that records detailed information about who attempted to access the admin console, as well as who attempted to hack into it. The fake login system conveniently accepts default/easily guessed credentials and common SQL injection strings. Finally, notice that the user can also upload ?new bot? malware, which is also logged. This should serve as a warning to researchers, don?t always believe what you see on these stats pages? < -- > http://blog.tllod.com/2010/11/03/statistics-dont-lie-or-do-they/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 5 21:46:42 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:46:42 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA To Ban Printer Cartridges Next Week Message-ID: TSA To Ban Printer Cartridges Next Week : SD 1554-10-05 11.05.2010 | Author: flyingfish | Posted in Uncategorized http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/05/tsa-intends-to-ban-printer-cartridges-next-week/ This coming Monday, the 8th of November, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) expects to announce that it will prohibit airline passengers from flying with printer ink and toner cartridges, sized at 16oz by volume or larger. This will be Security Directive (SD) 1554-10-05. As of this evening, the TSA appears to be working on the exact wording of prohibiting these items, however prohibiting printer cartridges poses a few challenges ? mainly that generally printer cartridges do not have their ink or toner volume readily listed on the cartridge its self. Having been made aware of this information earlier today, and having confirmed it with a management source within the TSA this evening, I sought the opinion of a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) terrorism analyst for their opinion. This is what the DoD terrorism analyst had to say: ?The prohibition of printer ink and toner cartridges does nothing to enhance the security of passenger flights. Now that the global security community is aware of printer cartridges as a potential way to conceal explosives anyone seeking to stay out of the line of sight of security forces will move onto a new item to conceal their weapons. If I was on the front line of aviation security I would suggest seriously looking at desktop hard drives, portable DVD players or home video game consoles. These are all items with enough internal space to pack an explosive in addition to providing the ability to camouflage the trigger wiring harness. Under normal circumstances these items may not catch a second glance, but you have to wonder what kind of person checks a desktop hard drive, portable DVD player or home video game console given the likelihood of damage or theft. As I said in my initial assessment of the Yemen air cargo terrorism plot, organized terrorists are long term planners and they do not play the same cards more than once. The TSA?s reaction in focusing any energy or assets on printer cartridges is a waste of resources and ultimately furthers the public perception of security theater instead of preventative security intelligence. The Yemen air cargo plot was fouled because of intelligence, likely planted intelligence. The next time an attack happens it will not be what we are expecting and it won?t come from where we are expecting it. We have needed an air cargo universal security process, both here and abroad, for many years so there are no gaps. This includes real intelligence and actions, not four suits in a room saying ?This will sound good on the 11 o?clock news, let?s get some cameras down here and show printer cartridges being removed from bags.? This action is a waste of human capital and of the skill sets that should be in place with Transportation Security Officers interacting with passengers and screening baggage at airports. ? It is unclear at this time if the TSA is prohibiting printer cartridges for carry on or checked bags, or both. I have heard a ban on-carry on as well as a ban on both carry-on and checked bags. I sought an official answer from the TSA?s Office of Strategic Communications this evening, however they were unaware of any upcoming addition of printer cartridges being added to the prohibited items list. My question with ink and toner printer cartridges being prohibited is this ? are a lot of commercial airline passengers flying with printer cartridges? I would hope that TSA screeners would find a mobile phone, with no SIM card, wired to a printer cartridge unusual during the baggage screening process and pull that bag for secondary screening ? with or without this item being on the prohibited list. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 5 22:02:22 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 23:02:22 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Stepping_In_for_a_Parent_With_Al?= =?windows-1252?q?zheimer=92s?= Message-ID: November 5, 2010 Stepping In for a Parent With Alzheimer?s http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/your-money/06money.html By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD As my grandfather?s mind slipped away, first slowly, then quickly, as Alzheimer?s disease moved in, he tried to be reassuring. ?I remember the important things,? he would tell us. And he did. He may not have remembered that Barack Obama was president or that he just had a bowl of ice cream (my kindergartner nephew took full advantage), but he always remembered his family. Money management was another matter. Early on in the disease, small red flags began to appear ? failure to pay the association fees on the condominium in Florida, overpaid bills or repetitive trips to the A.T.M. Over time, he had to hand off most financial responsibilities to my mother and grandmother. My grandfather was lucky enough to have relatives nearby who were able to gently intervene before the small mistakes escalated into something more serious, which is all too common. But family members need to carefully consider how they approach their new role as financial caretaker. For adult children, this is the beginning of the role reversal. You may be stepping up to handle mundane tasks like paying the bills, but it?s also the time when you begin to think about your parent?s mortality, and perhaps your own. For the person with encroaching dementia, the loss of autonomy can be devastating. ?What often occurs is that the elder loses additional self-esteem, becomes more depressed and in turn becomes less active,? said Daniel C. Marson, a neuropsychologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. And that?s why these matters must be handled delicately ? and before a more serious financial unraveling occurs ? whether the individual simply needs you to check in once a month, or you need to become the chief financial officer. Below are some strategies. THE TALK Discussing money matters with someone who is already dealing with diminished mental capacity can be challenging, though the conversation can unfold in many ways. It all depends on the family dynamics and the elder person?s level of impairment, personality and comfort level with financial issues, said Dr. Marson, who is also director of the university?s Alzheimer?s Disease Center. In certain situations, the best place to start a dialogue may be in the doctor?s office. ?Go to a health care professional who can be supportive and understand some of the dynamics going on, so that the conversation is structured around identifying something that is a need and that we don?t want to get any worse,? said Becky Bigio, director of the Senior Source program at Selfhelp Community Services in New York. The needs of the person with dementia will change over time, which means the financial caretaker?s role will also need to evolve. It may help to follow a slow but natural progression. ?Involvement may go from, ?Do you have enough money to pay the bills?? to ?It?s O.K. to pay that bill,? to ?I?ll just pay the bills now,?? said Tom Davison, a financial planner in Columbus, Ohio, who has worked with several elderly people in his family and practice. ?The changes may be fast or slow, but move at their pace.? SAFETY MECHANISMS There are also several ways to keep a watchful yet unobtrusive eye on a parent?s financial affairs, even if you don?t live nearby. Setting up automatic bill payments may be the most obvious way. For parents who want to continue paying the bills, allow them to write checks for services that won?t cause harm if the payment is late, and that you can easily remedy later. Some major banks said they allowed customers to authorize a third party to receive statements ? for mortgages, loans or credit cards ? which makes it easy to spot a missed payment or unusual activity. (In some cases, the bank may require a power of attorney or notarized consent.) Long-term care insurers, like John Hancock and Genworth, also permit policyholders to have another person receive a notice if a bill is past due or if there is a lapse in coverage. Other companies should follow that lead and make it easy to set up an automatic e-mail notification of a late notice. LEGAL DOCUMENTS Proper legal documents should also be in place. A durable power of attorney enables a person to step in and handle a parent?s financial affairs. Most banks are understandably wary of powers of attorney, given the room for fraud and abuse. So check with your institution about its requirements. Opening a bank account in the name of a trust also gives one or more trustees decision-making and check-writing privileges. The same goes for anything else in a revocable living trust, where accounts and assets are titled to the trust. ?Trusts like these can have two or more trustees at the same time and can be set up to operate individually or must act together ? there?s all kinds of flexibility and can be written to respond to the particular circumstances of an individual,? Mr. Davison said. ?Do they want checks and balances between an attorney and a kid? Want two kids to have to agree and both sign stuff?? Assets in the living trust have the added benefit of bypassing probate after the person dies. It may be easier to simply add an adult child?s name to the account, but consult with an adviser to make sure it won?t interfere with the person?s estate plans. SIMPLIFY AND SET ROUTINES It?s less confusing for the financial caretaker and the elderly person to keep track of just a few accounts. So try to consolidate. Experts also recommend setting up routines and identifying the triggers that make the elderly person uneasy. For Mr. Davison?s elderly aunt, who had short-term memory loss, the trigger was the mail. As a former business manager who balanced her books to the penny, she was often overwhelmed when the mail arrived. So Mr. Davison told her to open the mail every day and put it in a folder. Each weekend, he and his wife would visit and review the mail with his aunt, a routine that put her at ease. ?See what the trigger points are, and try some ways to soften them,? he said. ?You often can?t solve them, but you can soften them. And whatever was helpful three months ago may not be helpful now. It?s a progression.? HIRING HELP You obviously need to investigate any provider when dealing with the vulnerable and easily swindled, but there are several places to begin your search. AARP offers a money management program for lower-income people in some parts of the country, or, you can hire an accountant or another party to handle the finances. The American Association of Daily Money Managers is another option, and you can call to request someone who has experience with helping people with dementia. There are also companies that cater to elderly people?s special needs. Wells Fargo Private Bank, which requires more than $1 million in investable assets, offers an Elder Services program. It will coordinate a variety of services, from dealing with medical claims, taking the cat to the veterinarian and paying the bills, while keeping a close eye on the accounts for fraudulent activities. The service is included in the bank?s investment management fees, which range from 0.80 to 2 percent of assets. Let?s hope we see more such services ? and not just for the wealthy. PLAN NOW Ideally, all families should prepare for potential issues while everyone is still healthy. There are generally three questions families should answer, according to Ken Dychtwald, a gerontologist, psychologist and consultant. Who will handle the finances? What are the individual?s preferences on long-term care? And how will we pay for it? ?The biggest worry that people have about growing old is being a burden on their family,? Mr. Dychtwald said. ?Ironically, if you don?t think about a game plan before it?s needed, then not only does it become a burden, but there is often damage that comes with it,? both financial and emotional. My mother now says she believes the conversation about money matters should be a rite of passage of sorts, for everyone who reaches retirement. But it?s never too soon to have the talk. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 6 10:44:41 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:44:41 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cyber Command seeks authority to expand its battlefield Message-ID: <90F92A5B-3D68-4091-B95C-508E1BEFBDA4@infowarrior.org> Pentagon's Cyber Command seeks authority to expand its battlefield By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 6, 2010; 12:41 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507304_pf.html The Pentagon's new Cyber Command is seeking authority to carry out computer network attacks around the globe to protect U.S. interests, drawing objections from administration lawyers uncertain about the legality of offensive operations. Cyber Command's chief, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who also heads the National Security Agency, wants sufficient maneuvering room for his new command to mount what he has called "the full spectrum" of operations in cyberspace. Offensive actions could include shutting down part of an opponent's computer network to preempt a cyber-attack against a U.S. target or changing a line of code in an adversary's computer to render malicious software harmless. They are operations that destroy, disrupt or degrade targeted computers or networks. But current and former officials say that senior policymakers and administration lawyers want to limit the military's offensive computer operations to war zones such as Afghanistan, in part because the CIA argues that covert operations outside the battle zone are its responsibility and the State Department is concerned about diplomatic backlash. The administration debate is part of a larger effort to craft a coherent strategy to guide the government in defending the United States against attacks on computer and information systems that officials say could damage power grids, corrupt financial transactions or disable an Internet provider. The effort is fraught because of the unpredictability of some cyber-operations. An action against a target in one country could unintentionally disrupt servers in another, as happened when a cyber-warfare unit under Alexander's command disabled a jihadist Web site in 2008. Policymakers are also struggling to delineate Cyber Command's role in defending critical domestic networks in a way that does not violate Americans' privacy. The policy wrangle predates the Obama administration but was renewed last year as Obama declared cyber-security a matter of national and economic security. The Pentagon has said it will release a national defense cyber-security strategy by year's end. Cyber Command's mission is to defend military networks at home and abroad and, when requested, to help the Department of Homeland Security protect critical private-sector networks in the United States. It works closely with the NSA, the intelligence agency that conducts electronic eavesdropping on foreign targets, which has its headquarters at Fort Meade on the same floor as NSA Director Alexander's office. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in June, Alexander said that Cyber Command "must recruit, educate, train, invest in and retain a cadre of cyber experts who will be conducting seamlessly interoperability . . . across the full spectrum of network operations." "We have to have offensive capabilities, to, in real time, shut down somebody trying to attack us," Alexander told a cyber convention in August. And in testimony to Congress in September, Alexander warned that Cyber Command could not currently defend the country against cyber-attack because it "is not my mission to defend today the entire nation." If an adversary attacked power grids, he added, a defensive effort would "rely heavily on commercial industry." "The issue . . . is what happens when an attacker comes in with an unknown capability," he said. To counter that, he added, "we need to come up with a more . . . dynamic or active defense." Alexander has described active defense as "hunting" inside a computer network for malicious software, which some experts say is difficult to do in open networks and would raise privacy concerns if the government were to do it in the private sector. A senior defense official has described it as the ability to push "out as far as we can" beyond the network perimeter to "where the threat is coming from" in order to eliminate it. But, the official said, "we need to wait until we get some resolution on just how far we can go with regards to marrying the technology and operational concepts with law and the interagency process." The sort of threats that Alexander and other officials worry about include the computer worm Stuxnet, which experts say was meant to sabotage industrial systems - though exactly whose system and what type of sabotage was intended is unclear. NSA experts "have looked at it," Alexander told reporters in September. "They see it as essentially very sophisticated." Officials have not resolved what constitutes an offensive action or which agency should be responsible for carrying out attacks. The CIA has argued that such action is covert, which is traditionally its turf. Defense officials have argued that offensive operations are the province of the military and are part of its mission to counter terrorism, especially when, as one official put it, "al-Qaeda is everywhere." "This infuriating business about who's in charge and who gets to call the shots is just making us muscle-bound," said retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair, who resigned in May as the director of national intelligence after a tenure marred by spy agencies' failures to preempt terrorist plots and political missteps that eroded the White House's confidence in him. Blair decried an "over-legalistic" approach to the issue. "The precedents and the laws on the books are just hopelessly inadequate for the complexity of the global information network," he said. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, whose opinions are binding on the executive branch, prepared a draft opinion in the spring that avoided a conclusive determination on whether computer network attacks outside battle zones were covert or not, according to several officials familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak for the record. Instead, it said that permission for specific operations would be granted based on whether an operation could be, for instance, guaranteed to take place within an area of hostility. Operations outside a war zone would require the permission of countries whose servers or networks might be implicated. The real issue, said another U.S. official, is defining the battlefield. "Operations in the cyber-world can't be likened to Yorktown, Iwo Jima or the Inchon landing," he said. "Defining the battlefield too broadly could lead to undesired consequences, so you have to manage the potential risks. Getting to the enemy could mean touching friends along the way." Senior defense officials are now inclined to "stay conservative" in line with the draft opinion, one senior military official said. He said it is probable that policymakers will have Cyber Command propose specific operations in order to test the boundary lines. But Alexander, a 58-year-old career intelligence officer, is not conservative by nature. He rose through the Army ranks by pushing to make intelligence available on the front lines . As NSA director during the Iraq war, he developed ways to allow soldiers to read useful data culled almost in real time from insurgents' communications. Although he told reporters that he would prefer to have Cyber Command's authority clarified rapidly, he also acknowledged that to "race out and get authorities" only to be told, "Stop, stop, stop, you can't do it," makes no sense. Stewart A. Baker, a former NSA general counsel, said calling cyber-operations, such as dismantling terrorist Web sites, "covert action" incorrectly implies they carry the same risks. "There are lots of hackers in lots of countries who regularly break into computers, regularly disguise their identities," he said. "No one would think that discovering the U.S. had done that would lead to a scandal comparable to . . . the funding of Nicaraguan contras with secret Iranian arms sales, which are the kind of activities the covert action law was written for." From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 6 14:22:55 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:22:55 -0400 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Europe Simulates Total Cyber War Message-ID: <473184F0-0D26-4C30-874C-5D815B6F4B8C@infowarrior.org> http://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/press-releases/cyber-europe-20102019-cyber-security-exercise-with-320-2018incidents2019-successfully-concluded Press Release Nov 05, 2010 http://enisa.europa.eu First EU Cyber Security Exercise 'Cyber Europe 2010? with >320 ?incidents? successfully concluded ? filed under: Public Sector, Information Sharing, EU Institutions/policy, Incident Response, CIIP, CERT, Cooperation, Exercises, Incident Reporting, Resilience The first ever, pan-European cyber security exercise ?Cyber Europe 2010? ended successfully yesterday. More than 150 experts from 70 public bodies around Europe participated in the exercise. They were exposed to more than 320 incidents, or ?injects?. The exercise was a first, key step for strengthening Europe?s cyber defense. The key challenge now is for the Member States to implement the identified ?lessons-learnt? during the exercise. The Agency also advocates that all Member States in Europe should consider conducting national exercises as to improve its Critical Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP). Lessons learnt The exercise revealed a number of points where improvement in communication channels and procedures could be made. The Executive Director of ENISA, Dr Udo Helmbrecht commented: ?This was a first, key step for strengthening Europe?s cyber protection. Each mistake and error made were useful ?lessons-learnt?; that is what exercises are for. Now, the challenge is for the Member States to analyse and properly implement these findings, of how to improve the communication channels and procedures. Both internally within a Member State, and in between Member States, across Europe, as to strengthen our common cooperation?. Objectives: The objectives of the exercise were: - To establish trust in between actors within the Member State, and between the Member States (MS) - To increase understanding of how management of incidents is done in different MS across Europe. - To test the communication channels, communication points and procedures in the MS/between MS. - To highlight interdependencies between MS across Europe. - To increase mutual support procedures during incidents or massive cyber attacks Participants Participating were 22 Member States as players and 8 Member States as observers. In all, ca 50 persons were present in the Exercise Control Centre, situated in Athens, being exposed to more than 320 security so called ?injects? related to the availability of internet and corresponding critical online services. Across Europe in the participating Member States, 80 more persons were acting upon the instructions of the national moderators in Athens. The nationally based players may have contacted further others in their Member States. Typical profiles of players were Computer Emergency Response Teams, Ministries, National Regulatory Authorities, etc. Organisers 'Cyber Europe 2010' is organised by the EU Member States and jointly supported by the European Network Security Agency (ENISA) and the EU?s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Next steps - On 10th November, the Agency will make a media briefing in Berlin, at the Commission Representation, providing more information and draft conclusions about the outcome of the exercise. - The exercise will be evaluated in depth. There will also be evaluations made at national levels. These will later be fed into an accumulated public, EU-wide report of the exercise. The full report is anticipated to be published in the beginning of next year, i.e. early 2011. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 09:19:16 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 10:19:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - State Department Warns Against AES Crypto Message-ID: (via cryptome) State Department Warns Against AES Crypto A sends: Passport security --DONT USE AES FOR SENSITIVE COMMS (why is that?) pg 3 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89272.pdf The Bureau of Information Resource Management's Radio Programs Branch (IRM/OPS/ITI/LWS/RPB) provides all overseas missions two-way radios equipped with Digital Encryption Standard (DES) or Advance Encryption Standard (AES). These encryption algorithms provide limited protection from unauthorized interception of voice communications and are only approved for the transmission of Department of State Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) and Department of Defense For Official Use Only (FOUO) communications. Under no circumstances should DES- or AES-equipped radios be used for the transmission of classified information, as defined by Executive Order 12958. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 09:45:31 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 10:45:31 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USA Nutritional Hypocracy Message-ID: (What good is eating "healthy stuff" (ie green beans, veg) when they're smothered in an overdose of cheese? Just one of the many aspects of profits-v-health going on in American food industries. And we wonder why health care costs are so high?? ---rick) November 6, 2010 While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html By MICHAEL MOSS Domino?s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies. Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino?s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign. Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. ?This partnership is clearly working,? Brandon Solano, the Domino?s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times. But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino?s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day?s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories. And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture ? the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting. Urged on by government warnings about saturated fat, Americans have been moving toward low-fat milk for decades, leaving a surplus of whole milk and milk fat. Yet the government, through Dairy Management, is engaged in an effort to find ways to get dairy back into Americans? diets, primarily through cheese. Americans now eat an average of 33 pounds of cheese a year, nearly triple the 1970 rate. Cheese has become the largest source of saturated fat; an ounce of many cheeses contains as much saturated fat as a glass of whole milk. When Michelle Obama implored restaurateurs in September to help fight obesity, she cited the proliferation of cheeseburgers and macaroni and cheese. ?I want to challenge every restaurant to offer healthy menu options,? she told the National Restaurant Association?s annual meeting. But in a series of confidential agreements approved by agriculture secretaries in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Dairy Management has worked with restaurants to expand their menus with cheese-laden products. Consider the Taco Bell steak quesadilla, with cheddar, pepper jack, mozzarella and a creamy sauce. ?The item used an average of eight times more cheese than other items on their menu,? the Agriculture Department said in a report, extolling Dairy Management?s work ? without mentioning that the quesadilla has more than three-quarters of the daily recommended level of saturated fat and sodium. Dairy Management, whose annual budget approaches $140 million, is largely financed by a government-mandated fee on the dairy industry. But it also receives several million dollars a year from the Agriculture Department, which appoints some of its board members, approves its marketing campaigns and major contracts and periodically reports to Congress on its work. The organization?s activities, revealed through interviews and records, provide a stark example of inherent conflicts in the Agriculture Department?s historical roles as both marketer of agriculture products and America?s nutrition police. In one instance, Dairy Management spent millions of dollars on research to support a national advertising campaign promoting the notion that people could lose weight by consuming more dairy products, records and interviews show. The campaign went on for four years, ending in 2007, even though other researchers ? one paid by Dairy Management itself ? found no such weight-loss benefits. When the campaign was challenged as false, government lawyers defended it, saying the Agriculture Department ?reviewed, approved and continually oversaw? the effort. Dr. Walter C. Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a former member of the federal government?s nutrition advisory committee, said: ?The U.S.D.A. should not be involved in these programs that are promoting foods that we are consuming too much of already. A small amount of good-flavored cheese can be compatible with a healthy diet, but consumption in the U.S. is enormous and way beyond what is optimally healthy.? The Agriculture Department declined to make top officials available for interviews for this article, and Dairy Management would not comment. In answering written questions, the department said that dairy promotion was intended to bolster farmers and rural economies, and that its oversight left Dairy Management?s board with ?significant independence? in deciding how best to support those interests. The department acknowledged that cheese is high in saturated fat, but said that lower milk consumption had made cheese an important source of calcium. ?When eaten in moderation and with attention to portion size, cheese can fit into a low-fat, healthy diet,? the department said. In its reports to Congress, however, the Agriculture Department tallies Dairy Management?s successes in millions of pounds of cheese served. In 2007, the department highlighted Pizza Hut?s Cheesy Bites pizza, Wendy?s ?dual Double Melt sandwich concept,? and Burger King?s Cheesy Angus Bacon cheeseburger and TenderCrisp chicken sandwich. ?Both featured two slices of American cheese, a slice of pepper jack and a cheesy sauce,? the department said. These efforts, the department reported, helped generate a ?cheese sales growth of nearly 30 million pounds.? Relentless Marketing Every day, the nation?s cows produce an average of about 60 million gallons of raw milk, yet less than a third goes toward making milk that people drink. And the majority of that milk has fat removed to make the low-fat or nonfat milk that Americans prefer. A vast amount of leftover whole milk and extracted milk fat results. For years, the federal government bought the industry?s excess cheese and butter, an outgrowth of a Depression-era commitment to use price supports and other tools to maintain the dairy industry as a vital national resource. This stockpile, packed away in cool caves in Missouri, grew to a value of more than $4 billion by 1983, when Washington switched gears. The government started buying only what it needed for food assistance programs. It also began paying farmers to slaughter some dairy cows. But at the time, the industry was moving toward larger, more sophisticated operations that increased productivity through artificial insemination, hormones and lighting that kept cows more active. In 1995, the government created Dairy Management Inc., a nonprofit corporation that has defined its mission as increasing dairy consumption by ?offering the products consumers want, where and when they want them.? Dairy Management, through the ?Got Milk?? campaign, has been successful at slowing the decline in milk consumption, particularly focusing on schoolchildren. It has also relentlessly marketed cheese and pushed back against the Agriculture Department?s suggestion that people eat only low-fat or fat-free varieties. In a July letter to the department?s nutrition committee, Dairy Management wrote that efforts to make fat-free cheese have largely foundered because fat is what makes cheese appealing. ?Consumer acceptance of low-fat and fat-free cheeses has been limited,? it said. Agriculture Department data show that cheese is a major reason the average American diet contains too much saturated fat. Research has found that the cardiovascular benefits in cutting saturated fat may depend on what replaces it. Refined starches and sugar might be just as bad or even worse, while switching to unsaturated fats has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease. The department?s nutrition committee issued a new standard this summer calling for saturated fat not to exceed 7 percent of total calories, about 15.6 grams in a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet. Yet the average intake has remained about 11 percent to 12 percent of total calories for at least 15 years. The department issued nutritional hints in a brochure titled ?Steps To A Healthier You!? It instructs pizza lovers: ?Ask for whole wheat crust and half the cheese? ? even as Dairy Management has worked with pizza chains like Domino?s to increase cheese. Dairy Management runs the largest of 18 Agriculture Department programs that market beef, pork, potatoes and other commodities. Their budgets are largely paid by levies imposed on farmers, but Dairy Management, which reported expenditures of $136 million last year, also received $5.3 million that year from the Agriculture Department to promote dairy sales overseas. By comparison, the department?s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which promotes healthy diets, has a total budget of $6.5 million. Although by law the secretary of agriculture approves Dairy Management?s contracts and advertising campaigns, the organization has become a full-blown company with 162 employees skilled in product development and marketing. It also includes the National Dairy Council, a 95-year-old group that acts as its research and communications arm. Dairy Management?s longtime chief executive, Thomas P. Gallagher, received $633,475 in compensation in 2008, with first-class travel privileges, according to federal tax filings. Annual compensation for two other officials top $300,000 each. Mr. Gallagher, who declined to be interviewed for this article, was described by board members, employees and food industry officials as an astute executive and effective champion of the sprawling dairy industry. ?He?s a big thinker,? said David Brandon, former chief executive of Domino?s. ?A very creative guy who thinks big and is willing to make bets in helping to drive the business on behalf of his dairy farmers.? Disputed Research ?Great news for dieters,? Dairy Management said in an advertisement in People magazine in 2005. ?Clinical studies show that people on a reduced-calorie diet who consume three servings of milk, cheese or yogurt each day can lose significantly more weight and more body fat than those who just cut calories.? With milk consumption in decline, Dairy Management had hit on a fresh marketing strategy with its weight-loss campaign. When the campaign began in 2003, a Dairy Management official said it was inspired by newly relaxed federal rules on health claims and the ensuing ?rapid growth of ?better for you? products.? It was based on research by Michael B. Zemel, a University of Tennessee nutritionist and author of ?The Calcium Key: The Revolutionary Diet Discovery That Will Help You Lose Weight Faster.? Precisely how dairy facilitates weight loss is unclear, Dr. Zemel said in interviews and e-mails, but in part it involves counteracting a hormone that fosters fat deposits when the body is low on calcium. Dairy Management licensed Dr. Zemel?s research, promoted his book and enlisted a team of scientific advisers who ?identified further research to develop more aggressive claims in the future,? according to a campaign strategy presentation. One such study was conducted by Jean Harvey-Berino, chairwoman of the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Vermont. ?I think they felt they had a lot riding on it,? she said of the weight loss claim, ?and felt it was a cash cow if it worked out.? ?I?m a big promoter of dairy,? she added, noting that her research was also paid for by Dairy Management. But by 2004, her study had found no evidence of weight loss. She said Dairy Management took the news poorly, threatening to audit her work. She said she was astonished when the organization pressed on with its ad campaign. ?I thought they were crazy, and that eventually somebody would catch up with them,? she said. Her study was published in 2005, and at scientific meetings she heard from other researchers who also failed to confirm Dr. Zemel?s work, including Dr. Jack A. Yanovski, an obesity unit chief at the National Institutes of Health. But in late 2006, Dairy Management was still citing the weight-loss claim in urging the Agriculture Department not to cut the amount of cheese in federal food assistance programs. ?The available data provide strong support for a beneficial effect of increased dairy foods on body weight and body composition,? two organization officials wrote, making no mention of Dr. Harvey-Berino?s findings. Having dismissed the weight-loss claim in 2005, the federal nutrition advisory committee this summer again found the underlying science ?not convincing.? The campaign lasted until 2007, when the Federal Trade Commission acted on a two-year-old petition by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocacy group that challenged the campaign?s claims. ?If you want to look at why people are fat today, it?s pretty hard to identify a contributor more significant than this meteoric rise in cheese consumption,? Dr. Neal D. Barnard, president of the physicians? group, said in an interview. The trade commission notified the group that Agriculture Department and dairy officials had decided to halt the campaign pending additional research. Dr. Zemel said he remained hopeful that his findings would eventually be upheld. Meanwhile, Dairy Management, which allotted $12.4 million for nutrition research in 2008, has moved on to finance studies on promising opportunities, including the promotion of chocolate milk as a sports recovery drink and the use of cheese to entice children into eating healthy foods like string beans. An All-Out Campaign On Oct. 13, Domino?s announced the latest in its Legends line of cheesier pizza, which Dairy Management is promoting with the $12 million marketing effort. Called the Wisconsin, the new pie has six cheeses on top and two more in the crust. ?This is one way that we can support dairy farms across the country: by selling a pizza featuring an abundance of their products,? a Domino?s spokesman said in a news release. ?We think that?s a good thing.? A laboratory test of the Wisconsin that was commissioned by The Times found that one-quarter of a medium thin-crust pie had 12 grams of saturated fat, more than three-quarters of the recommended daily maximum. It also has 430 calories, double the calories in pizza formulations that the chain bills as its ?lighter options.? According to contract records released through the Freedom of Information Act, Dairy Management?s role in helping to develop Domino?s pizzas included generating and testing new pizza concepts. When Dairy Management began working with companies like Domino?s, it first had to convince them that cheese would make their products more desirable, records and interviews show. It provided banners and special lighting for the drive-up window menus at fast food restaurants, recalled Debra Olson Linday, who led Dairy Management?s early efforts in promoting cheese to restaurant chains before leaving in 1997. By 1999, food retailers and manufacturers were coming to Dairy Management for help. ?Let?s sell more pizza and more cheese!? said two officials with Pizza Hut, which began putting cheese inside its crust after holding development meetings with Dairy Management, according to a memorandum released by the Agriculture Department. Derek Correia, a former Pizza Hut product innovations chief, said Dairy Management also helped find suppliers for the extra cheese. ?We were using four cheeses, if not six, and with a company like Pizza Hut, that is a lot of supply,? he said in an interview. And unlike with its advertising campaigns, Dairy Management and the Agriculture Department could point to specific results with these projects. The ?Summer of Cheese? promotion it developed with Pizza Hut in 2002 generated the use of 102 million additional pounds of cheese, the department reported to Congress. ?More cheese on pizza equals more cheese sales,? Mr. Gallagher, the Dairy Management chief executive, wrote in a guest column in a trade publication last year. ?In fact, if every pizza included one more ounce of cheese, we would sell an additional 250 million pounds of cheese annually.? Working with some of the largest food companies, Dairy Management has also pushed to expand the use of cheese in processed foods and home cooking. The Agriculture Department has reported a 5 percent to 16 percent increase in sales of cheese snacks in stores where Dairy Management has helped grocers reinvent their dairy aisles. Now on display is an array of sliced, grated and cubed products, along with handy recipes for home cooking that use more cheese. The strategy is focusing on families whose cheese ?habit? outpaces their concern about the health risks, Dairy Management documents show. One study gave them a name: ?Cheese snacking fanatics.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 10:20:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:20:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Do we want the next generation to grow up comfortable with being tracked? Message-ID: Do we want the next generation to grow up comfortable with being tracked? http://dailycensored.com/2010/11/07/do-we-want-the-next-generation-to-grow-up-comfortable-with-being-tracked/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 11:20:22 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - MPAA Lists Major Torrent, Usenet and Hosting Sites In Submission To U.S. Government Message-ID: <410FE649-3D12-4A04-BD78-7E33D4A10BBF@infowarrior.org> MPAA Lists Major Torrent, Usenet and Hosting Sites In Submission To U.S. Government Written by enigmax on November 07, 2010 http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-lists-major-torrent-usenet-and-hosting-sites-in-submission-to-u-s-government-101107/ In a response to a request from the Office of the US Trade Representative, the MPAA has submitted a list of ?notorious markets? for pirated goods located outside the United States. Among them are some of the world?s leading torrent sites including BTjunkie, Demonoid, isoHunt, KickAssTorrents and The Pirate Bay. Usenet service UseNext makes an appearance alongside file-hosters MegaUpload and RapidShare. In a letter addressed to Kira Alvarez, Chief Negotiator and Deputy Assistant for Intellectual Property Enforcement at the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the MPAA has submitted a list of online and physical locations where unauthorized movie industry products can be obtained. ?The Motion Picture Association of America submits the following response to the request for written submissions issued October 1, 2010, by the Office of the US Trade Representative, inviting submissions from the public on notorious markets outside of the United States,? wrote Interim CEO and President of the MPAA, Bob Pisano. Following a preamble describing the importance of the movie industry to the U.S. economy, Pisano stresses the influence MPAA member companies products wield internationally and the need to protect their business outside US borders. ?The industry distributes its films to over 150 countries and in 2007, 46 percent of MPAA?s member companies? revenue came from overseas,? he wrote. ?MPAA has a strong interest in the health and sustainability of these international markets and appreciates USTR?s interest in identifying notorious markets that threaten legitimate commerce, impair legitimate markets? viability and curb U.S. competitiveness and hurt our overall economic strength. It is critical that our trading partners protect and enforce intellectual property rights.? It will come as no surprise to learn that Pisano?s list of ?notorious markets? is headed by some of the world?s biggest torrent sites. Below, we list the sites being targeted and the description of each that the MPAA gave to the U.S. Government, errors (such as TPB having a tracker) intact. BTjunkie.org ? Sweden This BitTorrent indexer with an Alexa ranking of 385 aggregates content ?torrents?, which are executable instructions that initiate the download process. Btjunkie offers nearly 100,000 active torrents that are identified as copyrighted movie or television files. Unique to btjunkie.org is its ability to make available both public and non-public infringing content. With most release groups posting new content to non-public torrent websites, this indexing capability is particularly challenging for rightsholders. The site is currently hosted by Sweden?s NetworkSpiration. Demonoid.com ? Ukraine Demonoid is a very active, semi-private BitTorrent tracker and website with servers located in the Ukraine. Individuals can view what is available but downloading the torrent metadata requires the user to log in. A review of the accessible content on the site lists nearly 100,000 copyrighted movies and television files. Demonoid?s Alexa ranking is 516 which is extremely high for a semi-private environment IsoHunt ? Canada This is the most popular BitTorrent site in the world after The Pirate Bay. IsoHunt boasts of having 12.51 million peers and 3,743,581 active torrents and has an Alexa rank of 227. A U.S. Court issued a permanent injunction against IsoHunt after finding that over 90% of the downloads made using IsoHunt?s services related to infringing content and that the defendants were liable for inducing infringement. Yet, its Canadian operator continues to run the site with impunity. The site?s operator has commenced an action in Canada seeking a declaration that its operations do not violate Canadian law. IsoHunt can be found at 208.71.112.30. Its corporate address is IsoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., 820 Broadway West, Vancouver, BC V8Q 4K1. Kickasstorrents.com ? Sweden This BitTorrent portal has a commercial look and feel that could deceive users into thinking it is legitimate. It has been gaining popularity since 2009. The site is hosted by Sweden?s Dedicated Network, Luxembourg?s Root, and France?s OVH. This infrastructure creates redundancy to defend against successful litigation, raids or other actions that may threaten the service. Its current Alexa ranking is 457 and it appears to offer access to 8.1 million torrent files. Rutracker.org ? Russia This BitTorrent portal is the clone to Torrents.ru, which was taken down by the Russian criminal authorities. It is an indexing site that serves four million users and it has over one million active torrents. It has a global Alexa ranking of 297 and a shockingly high local ranking ? 15. Torrent.ru had its domain name suspended by RU-Center, the nation?s largest registrar and web-host, but for now the site is back up at Rutracker.org and it remains to be seen whether the new domain will be taken down by the authorities. Its IP address is 195.82.146.114 and it is hosted by AvtomatizatsiyaBusiness Consulting. ThePirateBay.org ? Sweden/Netherlands This BitTorrent portal has servers in both Sweden and the Netherlands. The Pirate Bay (TPB) comprises a BitTorrent tracker and websites which facilitate the exchange of vast amounts of infringing content. The Pirate Bay operators proudly claim that it is the biggest tracker of its kind in the world, with over one million users. Since its establishment in 2004, the website has grown exponentially and is now accessible in some 39 separate languages. It has facilitated the illegal exchange of untold millions of protected copyright works. Rightsholders, their trade associations and collecting societies have made countless complaints about the TPB?s activities. The Pirate Bay contains significant and lucrative third-party advertising, much of it promoting the porn industry and US green cards. Advertising revenue is typically a function of number of unique site visits per day. With more than one million hits per day ? the Pirate Bay takes in an estimated $60,000 per month from advertisers in addition to thousands of dollars collected from user ?donations.? In May 2006, the Swedish Police executed search warrants at 10 separate locations and seized 17 computer servers and made three arrests, closing down the site for a brief period. Although the site operators were ultimately convicted by a Stockholm court, the site has not been shut down. Only the Italian government has taken such action vis ? vis Italy. This site has also sparked numerous civil proceedings. Cyberlockers/File-hosters From torrent sites, the MPAA then moves to their next biggest target ? file-hoster/cyberlocker services. ?It is very common for links to illegal copies of movies and television shows stored on cyberlockers to be widely disseminated across the Internet via linking websites, forums, blogs or email,? says Pisano. ?Some cyberlockers offer both legitimate and infringing content. The cyberlockers listed below were identified because traffic to their sites is driven by the vast amounts of infringing premium content available to users.? The MPAA goes on to list several hosting services including Megaupload.com, Megavideo.com, RapidShare.com, Webhards (Korea) and Ba-k.com (Mexico). The linking site Kino.to, which appeared in our recent article, is also listed as problematic. Not even the newsgroups escape scrutiny, with famous Usenet service UseNext making the list. The MPAA?s description can be seen below: UseNext.de ? Germany/Netherlands. This Usenet service markets to mainstream P2P users much more heavily and directly than do traditional subscription Usenet services. UseNext claims that over 1.2 million videos are available and proclaims ?There is nothing you won?t find here.? High-quality Blu-ray rips of MPAA members? content can be found on UseNext. UseNext has approximately 200,000 regular users. UseNext provides a free trial period to users and then subscription plans start at approximately $10 USD a month and go up based on the quantity of content users wish to download. It is estimated that UseNext clears around 100,000 EUR a month. UseNext is a German operation with indexing servers in the Netherlands. Its Alexa rank is 5,845 and its German rank is 2,811. The rest of Pisano?s letter is dedicated to both online services selling counterfeit physical products and real-life physical locations around the world selling the same, including markets in such diverse locations such as Ukraine, Czech Republic, Canada, Indonesia, Ireland, India, various South American countries and China. ?MPAA supports USTR?s efforts to identify foreign notorious markets. These markets are an immediate threat to legitimate commerce, impairing legitimate markets? viability and curbing U.S. competitiveness. We strongly support efforts by the US government to work with trading partners to protect and enforce intellectual property rights and, in so doing, protect U.S. jobs,? Pisano concludes. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 13:54:54 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:54:54 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - College textbook rental pilot not might not be making the grade Message-ID: <70C523F7-AF57-46C2-8230-6101CA2B612B@infowarrior.org> College textbook rental pilot not might not be making the grade By Cristian Salazar Saturday, November 6, 2010; 11:04 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110604799_pf.html About half the nation's major college and university bookstores offered textbook rentals this fall as part of an effort to cut a cost that can be a barrier to affordable college education, at least a fivefold increase from the 300 stores that did so a year ago. The expansion was driven in part by federal lawmakers, who endorsed a pilot program for rentals because of concern over the $600 to $900 students spend buying books each year. Twelve schools were awarded up to $1 million each this fall under a congressionally mandated Education Department effort to create book rental programs, several of them targeting lower-income or first-generation immigrant college freshmen. But at many colleges, the programs are limited by the number of available titles, publishers who release frequent new editions and professors who think their right to choose course materials is essential to academic freedom. Schools and publishing experts say the programs are expensive to start up and difficult to operate. There also are complaints that rental prices are still too high, costing as much as half the price of a new book. In addition, publishers face no consequences if they fail to comply with a federal law requiring publishers to give professors the price of textbooks and to list revisions to new editions. The law, which went into effect this year, also asks schools to release book lists early so that students can shop for best prices before classes begin. "We are prohibited even from enforcing it," said Jane Glickman, an Education Department spokeswoman. "It's like guidance to the schools." In the end, students will decide how they get their textbooks - and they have an ever-expanding galaxy of choices. They can buy them new, shrink-wrapped at campus stores. Or search online for discounted used copies at numerous Web sites such as Amazon.com or Bigwords.com. They can download to their computers or rent them - from their campus bookstore, from online Web sites and even the publishers themselves. Two of the largest bookstore operators, Barnes & Noble and Follett Higher Education Group, have spent millions to build their own Internet rental portals in the face of Web site competition, stocking up on inventory and developing tracking software. Yet for all the innovation from digital media and the Internet, prices are still set by publishers, who market directly to faculty. Faculty decide titles for study, often without considering prices. That means students are still paying hundreds each semester. "It's ridiculous. I think we pay so much for tuition already, books should be at least affordable," said Janelle Grant, 26, a sophomore at the University of Richmond. The National Association of College Stores says about 1,500 of its 3,000 members are running rental programs this fall and more are considering doing so, but they are wading into the model with trepidation. Startup costs can be staggering: Schools have to stock inventory, possibly hire new staff and invest in computer software to track books. And rentals carry risk, said Charles Schmidt, a spokesman for NACS. If a publisher changes an edition or persuades faculty to use a different one, the rental model won't work. "You need to rent the book about three times to get the profit back," he said. James V. Koch, an economics professor at Old Dominion University and former college president who has studied the textbook market, said that for a rental system to be profitable, books have to be standardized. "Some faculty members look at this and see it as a violation of their academic freedom," he said. Bruce Hildebrand, of the American Publishers Association, said students can buy cheaper versions of books in a variety of formats - but don't. "The majority still choose the traditional, hardcover, full color textbook," he said. - Associated Press From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 13:57:53 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:57:53 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - National Unfriend Day Message-ID: November 7, 2010 9:51 AM PST Kimmel launches day to delete your Facebook friends by Chris Matyszczyk http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20022027-71.html Are you friend obese? Is the burden of too many Facebook friends weighing you down? Do you spend your days so concerned about those hundreds who hang on your every word that you can no longer function as, say, the CEO of a major tech company? Jimmy Kimmel, the talk show host who isn't Jimmy Fallon, has a solution. He would like you to observe National Unfriend Day. On November 17, he encourages you to remove some of the friend fat in your life. William Shatner helped Kimmel in his announcement by philosophizing: "These people on Facebook..they're not your friends. That's all." So cast off those people whose updates reek of rancor, whose babies dribble with unhappiness, whose dogs look as uninteresting as their owners. Eliminate ex-lovers whose bodies and lives have sagged. Unfriend everyone whom you haven't seen in real life within the last 10 years, unless they have emigrated to another continent or are currently serving five years for illegally downloading cartoons. Tell your parents: "Look, Mom and Dad, I'm downsizing my life. I'm paring down my pairings. And you're just one of the pairings that has to go." I know that many of you have mathematical tendencies, so you might also try to simply delete every second friend on your bloated list. Choose the odd or even numbers, I don't mind. Then see if you really miss anyone. See if you suddenly receive more conventional missives of pain, like emails, phone calls, or, most excitingly, late-night visits to your door. Then, as your current lover, half-sister or supervisor stares at you with miffed mien, whisper to them as gently as you can: "It wasn't my idea. It was my friend Jimmy's." From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 20:32:11 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:32:11 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Absolutely Hilarious Computer Quotes Message-ID: <21F3B1A0-F397-499C-87C2-AB2645FBC14F@infowarrior.org> Absolutely Hilarious Computer Quotes http://www.geek24.com/g/2006/06/13/absolutely-hilarious-computer-quotes Funny | Life | Geeked by Geek 24 Geeks on 13 June, 2006 - 17:31. "If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0" "The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents." "Some things Man was never meant to know. For everything else, there's Google." "unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep" - my daily unix command list "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." - Robert Firth "If Python is executable pseudocode, then perl is executable line noise." "The more I C, the less I see." "To err is human... to really foul up requires the root password." "After Perl everything else is just assembly language." "If brute force doesn't solve your problems, then you aren't using enough." "Life would be so much easier if we only had the source code." "Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who its friends are." "COBOL programmers understand why women hate periods." ?Programming is like sex, one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life.? ? Michael Sinz "There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - This is not humorous by itself; but in the context it's a classic by Bill Gates in 1981 Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips." "Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer." - Erik Naggum "Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. Computers are from hell." "SUPERCOMPUTER: what it sounded like before you bought it." "Windows95: It's like upgrading from Reagan to Bush. "People say Microsoft paid 14M$ for using the Rolling Stones song 'Start me up' in their commercials. This is wrong. Microsoft payed 14M$ only for a part of the song. For instance, they didn't use the line 'You'll make a grown man cry'." "I'm not anti-social; I'm just not user friendly" "A printer consists of three main parts: the case, the jammed paper tray and the blinking red light" "The best accelerator available for a Mac is one that causes it to go at 9.81 m/s2." "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila" "1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d" "To go forward, you must backup." "I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code" "A Windows user spends 1/3 of his life sleeping, 1/3 working, 1/3 waiting." "My software never has bugs. It just develops random features." "Better to be a geek than an idiot." "Windows isn't a virus, viruses do something." "Geek's favorite pickup line: Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform? " "Be nice to geeks when you're in school, you might end-up working for one when you grow-up." "Difference between a virus and windows ? Viruses rarely fail." "Evolution is God's way of issuing upgrades." "The only problem with troubleshooting is that sometimes trouble shoots back." "It's a little-known fact that the Y1K problem caused the Dark Ages." "The box said 'Required Windows 95 or better'. So, I installed LINUX." "Computer are like air conditioners: they stop working when you open windows." "once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of 'hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!" quoth the server, 404." "Mac users swear by their Mac, PC users swear at their PC." "Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error." "Dating a girl is just like writing software. Everything's going to work just fine in the testing lab (dating), but as soon as you have contract with a customer (marriage), then your program (life) is going to be facing new situations you never expected. You'll be forced to patch the code (admit you're wrong) and then the code (wife) will just end up all bloated and unmaintainable in the end." "Real men don't use backups, they post their stuff on a public ftp server and let the rest of the world make copies." - Linus Torvalds "There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that understand trinary, those that don't, and those that confuse it with binary." "If you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if you teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a lifetime." "It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa." "I had a fortune cookie the other day and it said: 'Outlook not so good'. I said: 'Sure, but Microsoft ships it anyway'." "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." "The term reboot comes from the middle age (before computers). Horses who stopped in mid-stride required a boot to the rear to start again. Thus the term to rear-boot, later abbreviated into reboot." "Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code." "The great thing about Object Oriented code is that it can make small, simple problems look like large, complex ones." "Hacking is like sex. You get in, you get out, and hope that you didn't leave something that can be traced back to you." From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 7 21:54:46 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Facebook_v=2E_Gmail=3A_What_they?= =?windows-1252?q?_know_about_you_and_whom_they=92re_telling?= Message-ID: <147E1C29-6FA3-414A-9F67-FC0C0469C7EC@infowarrior.org> Facebook v. Gmail: What they know about you and whom they?re telling On November 7, 2010, in Privacy: Who Can You Trust?, by Nicki C http://www.yalelawtech.org/privacy-who-can-you-trust/facebook-v-gmail-what-they-know-about-you-and-whom-they%E2%80%99re-telling/ It?s now common knowledge that Facebook has been less than perfect in terms of protecting its users? privacy. But do people really know how unprotected they are? Do you? A comparison with Gmail?s privacy policy reveals stark differences and illustrates how a site with similar functionality can respect users? privacy. While Gmail and Facebook obviously don?t share exactly the same purpose (as Facebook is primarily a social networking tool and Gmail is primarily an email provider), there is, in fact, much overlap. Facebook has private message exchanges, Gmail has contact lists and Google Buzz, and both have an online chat function and current status update capabilities. Thus it is both useful and meaningful to compare the privacy policies of the two sites. First, Facebook and Gmail differ in what extraneous information they collect. Facebook collects information ?about your browser type, location, and IP address, as well as the pages you visit (emphasis added).? Gmail does not collect information on what pages you visit, but instead, limits its collection to relevant information such as IP address, browser type and language. At the risk of sounding biased, I ask you to consider what nefarious reason Facebook has for collecting information on what other sites you visit and what they are doing with this seemingly irrelevant information. They can get quite enough information for targeted advertisements from your listed interests and activities, as well as from your general information (age, location, gender, etc). (As a side note, although Google took some heat for supposed privacy violations in Google Buzz, this application had to be opted-in, and has since been updated to a better policy, and thus stands apart from the default and continuing privacy issues of Facebook.) Second, the sites? policies differ in scope. Both sites involve third party applications or affiliated sites. Whereas information provided to affiliated Google Services on other sites falls under Gmail?s privacy policy, information provided to popular third party applications on Facebook (even those pre-approved by Facebook) is subject to those applications? privacy policies, which, as you can imagine, may not be all that respectful of your privacy. Third, a friend?s settings on Facebook can affect the leakage of your private information: ?If your friend connects with an application or website, it will be able to access your name, profile picture, gender, user ID, and information you have shared with ?everyone.?? In Gmail, a contact?s privacy settings have no effect on your information. Finally, there are various reasons why privacy on Facebook is worse than on Gmail in terms of Facebook-specific activities. If a friend on Facebooktags you in a photo or video or at a place, you can remove the tag, or you can limit who can see that you have been tagged on your profile, but you cannot prevent the person from tagging you in the first place. If they publish the tagged media to their news feed (which is often the default option), many people will likely see the offending picture/video/location before you get the chance to remove the tag yourself. Another issue deals with Facebook?s default privacy settings. These settings allow ?social ads? to use your picture in advertisements that your friends see, unless you opt-out. Gmail has no such egregious misuse of your information. Similarly, Facebook may store information about a payment source account that you use for transactions on Facebook (such as buying a virtual gift for a friend?s birthday). Again, Gmail does not store your bank account information. (While no analog features to social ads and virtual gifts currently exist in Gmail, they easily could be implemented, but tellingly, haven?t been). There have also been issues with breaches in Facebook?s already lenient policy. Such leaks may allow apps to sell your information to ad companies and to track your online behavior. As many people still consider the Web a place that makes anonymity possible, this online footprint may leave you feeling unsettled and a little creeped out. The fact that a company such as Rapleaf may have been tracking you through Facebook, compiling information on you and selling your information should make you reconsider how anonymous you think your online activity, especially on Facebook, really is. For example, some political campaigns may buy information from Rapleaf (including voter-registration files, shopping history, social-networking activity, real estate records, and your name and email) to better target their demographic. Remember when people were really upset by the lack of privacy of the then-new Facebook mini-feed? It seems we?ve been desensitized to this particular invasion of privacy. Let?s not continue this apathetic trend to the point where Big Brother can convict us of google search crimes (thoughtcrimes of the digital age). From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 8 12:34:27 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:34:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The End of In-Flight Wi-Fi? Message-ID: The End of In-Flight Wi-Fi? http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/the_end_of_in-f.html Okay, now the terrorists have really affected me personally: they're forcing us to turn off airplane Wi-Fi. No, it's not that the Yemeni package bombs had a Wi-Fi triggering mechanism -- they seem to have had a cell phone triggering mechanism, dubious at best -- but we can imagine an Internet-based triggering mechanism. Put together a sloppy and unsuccessful package bomb with an imagined triggering mechanism, and you have a new and dangerous threat that -- even though it was a threat ever since the first airplane got Wi-Fi capability -- must be immediately dealt with right now. Please, let's not ever tell the TSA about timers. Or altimeters. And, while we're talking about the TSA, be sure to opt out of the full-body scanners and remember your sense of humor when a TSA officer slips white powder into your suitcase and then threatens you with arrest. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 8 14:39:49 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:39:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?World=92s_Pilots_Reject_Naked_Bo?= =?windows-1252?q?dy_Scanners_Over_Radiation_Danger=2C_Privacy_Breach?= Message-ID: World?s Pilots Reject Naked Body Scanners Over Radiation Danger, Privacy Breach Steve Watson Infowars.com November 8, 2010 http://www.infowars.com/worlds-pilots-reject-naked-body-scanners-over-radiation-danger-privacy-breach/ The largest union of airline pilots in the world is urging its members to boycott body imaging machines currently being rolled out in airports all over the globe, citing dangers of excessive exposure to harmful levels of radiation during the screening process. The president of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents 11,500 pilots, many of whom work for American Airlines, has urged members of the union to revolt against the devices. Captain Dave Bates voiced the union?s concerns in a letter published by The Atlantic late last week. Bates asks that members be aware ?that there are ?backscatter? AIT devices now being deployed that produce ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to your health.? The move follows the detention and suspension of an American pilot who refused to be scanned. Captain Bates suggests that pilots refrain from being put through the scanners and if necessary opt for a pat down by TSA officials instead. ?We already experience significantly higher radiation exposure than most other occupations, and there is mounting evidence of higher-than-average cancer rates as a consequence.? Bates? letter states. Earlier in the year, scientists warned that the machines constitute a potential health risk, noting that the radiation given off by the devices has been dangerously underestimated and could lead to an increased risk of skin cancer. Despite these fears, the blatant violation of privacy laws, and the consistent lies that the authorities have engaged in over capabilities of the machines, Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, recently announced plans to expand the full-body scanner program even further. In the U.S., travelers can refuse the body scanner and opt for the pat down, however, this option is not offered by the TSA, rather the traveler must declare that they wish to ?opt out?. A recent New York Times report describes the humiliating turn of events should airline passengers exercise this right, with individuals being singled out and prodded, probed and poked by TSA agents in front of everyone else queuing in the security lines. New pat down procedures have recently been instituted by the TSA, allowing agents to use their fingers and the palms of their hands to feel around breasts and genitalia. Previously agents were instructed to brush the backs of their hands against these areas. The APA president, Captain Bates, acknowledges how humiliating the new pat downs are in his letter: ?There is absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience. In my view, it is unacceptable to submit to one in public while wearing the uniform of a professional airline pilot. I recommend that all pilots insist that such screening is performed in an out-of-view area to protect their privacy and dignity.? he writes. The new pat down technique has even been likened to ?foreplay?. An American Civil Liberties Union spokesman has called the new security procedures a choice between a ?virtual strip search? and a ?grope.? ?Travelers are being asked to choose between being scanned ?naked? and exposed to radiation, or getting what people are describing as just a highly invasive search by hands of their entire bodies.? Chris Ott, a spokesman for the ACLU of Massachusetts, said. People traveling out of the UK and other areas of Europe don?t even get the choice ? they are forced to go through the scanner if asked and cannot refuse or they are banned from traveling. This policy seems to be slowly extending into the U.S., however, given recent reports from airport workers in El Paso, Texas who say that everyone is now being forced through the machines. Privacy group Big Brother Watch has backed the APA?s advice to pilots, with director Alex Deane, noting ?Scanners are dangerous. There?s a reason that the nurse stands behind a screen when you get an x-ray at hospital. Radiation is potentially harmful, even in small doses, and the regularity with which frequent flyers are exposed to potentially cancer-causing radiation.? ?If pilots aren?t going to be scanned, why should members of the public?? Deane added. ?This stance from a professional group, the world?s leading association of pilots, must shake the government out of its absurd position on scanners.? The TSA has a regularly updated list of which American airports are using AIT full-body scanners here. Alex Jones? recent analysis of this issue and an interview with an employee who was subjected to the new TSA pat down procedure has so far been viewed by almost 200,000 on You Tube after the top rated news aggregator The Drudge Report linked to the video: APA president Captain Bates? letter in full: Fellow Pilots, In response to increased threats to civil aviation around the world, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented the use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) body scanners at some airport locations. While I?m sure that each of us recognizes that the threats to our lives are real, the practice of airport security screening of airline pilots has spun out of control and does nothing to improve national security. It?s long past time that policymakers take the steps necessary to exempt commercial pilots from airport security screening and grant designated pilot access to SIDA utilizing either Crew Pass or biometric identification. As I recently wrote to the TSA Administrator: ?Our pilots are highly motivated partners in the effort to protect our nation?s security, with many of us serving as Federal Flight Deck Officers. We are all keenly aware that we may serve as the last line of defense against another terrorist attack on commercial aviation. Rather than being viewed as potential threats, we should be treated commensurate with the authority and responsibility that we are vested with as professional pilots.? It is important to note that there are ?backscatter? AIT devices now being deployed that produce ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to your health. Airline pilots in the United States already receive higher doses of radiation in their on-the-job environment than nearly every other category of worker in the United States, including nuclear power plant employees. As I also stated in my recent letter to the Administrator of the TSA: ?We are exposed to radiation every day on the job. For example, a typical Atlantic crossing during a solar flare can expose a pilot to radiation equivalent to 100 chest X-rays per hour. Requiring pilots to go through the AIT means additional radiation exposure. I share our pilots? concerns about this additional radiation exposure and plan to recommend that our pilots refrain from going through the AIT. We already experience significantly higher radiation exposure than most other occupations, and there is mounting evidence of higher-than-average cancer rates as a consequence.? It?s safe to say that most of the APA leadership shares my view that no pilot at American Airlines should subject themselves to the needless privacy invasion and potential health risks caused by the AIT body scanners. I therefore recommend that the pilots of American Airlines consider the following guidelines: Use designated crew lines if available. Politely decline AIT exposure and request alternative screening. There is absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience. In my view, it is unacceptable to submit to one in public while wearing the uniform of a professional airline pilot. I recommend that all pilots insist that such screening is performed in an out-of-view area to protect their privacy and dignity. If screening delays your arrival at the cockpit, do not cut corners that jeopardize the safety of the flight. Consummate professionalism and safety are always paramount. Maintain composure and professionalism at all times and recognize that you are probably being videotaped. If you feel that you have been treated with less than courtesy, respect and professionalism, please submit an observer report to APA. Please be sure to include the time, date, security checkpoint and name of the TSA employee who performed the screening. Avoid confrontation. Your APA Board of Directors and National Officers are holding a conference call this week to discuss these issues and further guidance may be forthcoming. While I cannot promise results tomorrow, I pledge to dedicate APA resources in the days and weeks to come to achieve direct access to SIDA for the pilots of American Airlines. In the meantime, I am confident that you will continue to exhibit your usual utmost professionalism as you safely operate and protect our nation?s air transport system. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 8 15:42:08 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:42:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - SEC Bans Market-Maker `Stub' Quotes Blamed for Losses in May 6 Stock Crash Message-ID: <675C41AA-9032-449F-8AA1-9B7FE7C0E409@infowarrior.org> SEC Bans Market-Maker `Stub' Quotes Blamed for Losses in May 6 Stock Crash By Nina Mehta and Gregory Mott - Nov 8, 2010 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-11-08/sec-bans-market-maker-stub-quotes-blamed-for-losses-in-may-6-stock-crash.html The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission banned a market-maker pricing practice known as stub quotes, prohibiting a technique that caused shares to trade as low as 1 cent during the May 6 crash. Stub quotes are placeholders provided by market makers to satisfy a regulatory obligation to submit both bids and offers. Transactions aren?t meant to occur at those levels, which are at prices such as a penny or thousands of dollars. On May 6, when a 20-minute rout briefly erased $862 billion in value before stocks rebounded, companies such as Accenture Plc tumbled as traders pulled out of the market, leaving only stub quotes. The SEC announced the ban today. ?We won?t have problems like we saw on May 6 where the only bid was for one penny and the only offer for $1,000,? said Justin Schack, a director in market structure analysis at Rosenblatt Securities Inc. in New York. ?The new rule doesn?t necessarily address all the problems related to brokers? order routing practices that were revealed on May 6,? Schack added. The SEC mandated that market makers? quotes be within 8 percent of the national best bid or offer, known as the NBBO, according to a statement e-mailed today. The rule begins Dec. 6. Circuit Breakers The requirements are aimed at preventing circuit breakers that pause trading for Standard & Poor?s 500 Index and Russell 1000 Index companies as well as some exchange-traded funds from being triggered. The curb, introduced in June for S&P 500 companies, was expanded to the Russell 1000 and 344 exchange- traded funds. It halts trading for a security for five minutes once it rises or falls at least 10 percent within five minutes. NYSE Euronext, Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. and Bats Global Markets, which own the biggest U.S. stock markets, requested the change in September. Before 9:45 a.m. and after 3:35 p.m. New York time, when the volatility curbs don?t operate, quotes will have to be no more than 20 percent away from the best nationally available price. For securities not subject to trading curbs, market makers must quote within 30 percent of the best price. ?Executions against stub quotes represented a significant proportion of the trades that were executed at extreme prices on May 6, and subsequently broken,? the SEC said today. To contact the reporters on this story: Nina Mehta in New York at nmehta24 at bloomberg.net; Gregory Mott in Washington at gmott1 at bloomberg.net. To contact the editors responsible for this story: Nick Baker at nbaker7 at bloomberg.net; Lawrence Roberts at lroberts13 at bloomberg.net. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 9 13:19:00 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:19:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast Message-ID: <952AB460-85CC-46B5-B2A5-6C8C2070FB61@infowarrior.org> LOS ANGELES, Nov. 9, 2010 Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast Military Mum on Nature of "Big Missile" Rising Out of Pacific - a Possible Show of U.S. Military Might http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/national/main7036716.shtml (CBS) A mysterious missile launch off the southern California coast was caught by CBS affiliate KCBS's cameras Monday night, and officials are staying tight-lipped over the nature of the projectile. CBS station KFMB put in calls to the Navy and Air Force Monday night about the striking launch off the coast of Los Angeles, which was easily visible from the coast, but the military has said nothing about the launch. KFMB showed video of the apparent missile to former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Ellsworth, who is also a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, to get his thoughts. "It's spectacular? It takes people's breath away," said Ellsworth, calling the projectile, "a big missile". Magnificent images were captured by the KCBS news helicopter in L.A. around sunset Monday evening. The location of the missile was about 35 miles out to sea, west of L.A. and north of Catalina Island. A Navy spokesperson told KFMB it wasn't their missile. He said there was no Navy activity reported in the area Monday evening. On Friday night, Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, launched a Delta II rocket, carrying an Italian satellite into orbit, but a sergeant at the base told KFMB there had been no launches since then. Ellsworth urged American to wait for definitive answers to come from the military. When asked, however, what he thought it might be, the former ambassador said it could possibly have been a missile test timed as a demonstration of American military might as President Obama tours Asia. "It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine ? to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that," speculated Ellsworth. Ellsworth said such tests were carried out in the Atlantic to demonstrate America's power to the Soviets, when there was a Soviet Union, but he doesn't believe an ICBM has previously been tested by the U.S. over the Pacific. Officially, at least, the projectile remains a mystery missile. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 9 14:00:37 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:00:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?For_Edge_on_Alzheimer=92s=2C_Tes?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_Early_Treatments?= Message-ID: November 8, 2010 For Edge on Alzheimer?s, Testing Early Treatments By PAM BELLUCK http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/health/09alzheimers.html Much of the research on Alzheimer?s next year will be about going back in time, trying to determine when and how the brain begins to deteriorate. Scientists now know Alzheimer?s attacks the brain long before people exhibit memory loss or cognitive decline. But the specifics are crucial because so far, drug after drug has failed to effectively treat Alzheimer?s in people who already show symptoms. Many scientists now think the problem may be that the drugs were given too late, when, as Dr. John C. Morris, an Alzheimer?s expert at Washington University in St. Louis, puts it, ?there?s a heck of a lot of brain cell damage and we?re trying to treat a very damaged brain.? If drugs could be given sooner, tailored to specific biological changes, or biomarkers, in the brain, treatment, or even prevention, might be more successful. ?We?re trying to go earlier and earlier in the course of the disease,? said Neil Buckholtz, chief of the Dementias of Aging branch at the National Institute on Aging. ?The idea is to locate how people move through these stages and what indications there are of each stage.? Several research projects are expecting to make strides next year. One involves the world?s largest family to experience Alzheimer?s disease, an extended clan of about 5,000 people in Colombia, many of whom have inherited a genetic mutation that guarantees they will develop dementia, usually in their 40s. Except for its clear genetic cause and that it strikes people so young, the Colombian condition is virtually identical in its disease process to more common Alzheimer?s, which has unknown causes and afflicts millions of elderly people. A team of American and Colombian scientists plans to test treatments on Colombians in their late 30s and early 40s who are destined to get Alzheimer?s but have not yet developed symptoms to see if dementia can be prevented or significantly delayed. The treatment, to be chosen by an independent panel, will be a drug or vaccine that attacks beta-amyloid, the protein associated with plaques, deposits between nerve cells. A project leader, Dr. Eric Reiman, director of the Banner Alzheimer?s Institute in Phoenix, said testing on as many as 2,000 people, including about 750 with the mutation, is likely to begin late next year or early in 2012. Meanwhile, the project, begun this year, has had some tantalizing findings. To try to find the youngest age at which brain changes appear, brain scans, spinal taps and memory tests were conducted with 44 family members, ages 18 to 26. While Dr. Reiman said he could not discuss specific data yet, the tests showed enough evidence of Alzheimer?s-related biomarkers on people with the mutation that fMRI brain scans will be done on even younger family members, ages 8 to 17. If the scans reveal children with the mutation have Alzheimer?s-like anomalies, like atrophy in the hippocampus, which is involved in forming new memories, that would suggest the brain begins transforming decades before symptoms appear. To examine when beta-amyloid begins accumulating, the project will also conduct amyloid imaging on an additional 50 family members, age 18 and older. The team, also led by Dr. Pierre Tariot of the Banner institute and Dr. Francisco Lopera, who is at the University of Antioquia in Medellin, also plans to test drug treatments on an unrelated group: 60- to 80-year-old Americans with a different rare trait: two copies of the ApoE4 gene, which does not cause but increases risk of common Alzheimer?s. A different project, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network, or DIAN, led by Dr. Morris, is studying members of families in the United States, Australia and Britain who have mutations that cause dementia at age 46, on average. DIAN has recruited 100 people, 18 and older, whose parents had Alzheimer?s-causing mutations but who do not yet show symptoms; it plans to recruit 300 more. So far, researchers have found evidence that ?biomarker changes do seem to occur at least 10 years, maybe 20 years before the age of onset? of symptoms, Dr. Morris said. DIAN also plans to test drugs on participants, hopefully within three years, and is talking with companies, which are interested, but need assurance that testing drugs on apparently healthy people, those without symptoms, is worth the investment and potential risk, Dr. Morris said. The Colombia and DIAN projects are ?really the first time companies have come to grips with this,? said Dr. Morris, who believes Alzheimer?s is so complex that a combination of drugs will be needed to attack different biomarkers. Another project looking for early signs is the Alzheimer?s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, or ADNI, a collaboration of government and industry, involving scientists at 55 research sites in the United States and Canada. It has been following about 800 people for about six years and has yielded significant findings about changes in the hippocampus, and about screening for Alzheimer?s proteins with PET scans and spinal fluid tests. ADNI will recruit 550 more participants, including many with budding memory loss called early mild cognitive impairment. They will be, Dr. Buckholtz said, ?not quite as sharp as they were previously, but not to the point where they are really forgetting.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 9 14:35:50 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:35:50 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Tom Shales on those pop-up promos that just won't go away Message-ID: <62DB9231-3D99-4CF0-9161-C51BCB5CA510@infowarrior.org> (I'ts even worse on BBC America, where they not only run a perma-bug with "BBC" and "SomeShowLaterTonight" on the lower right, but they have the audacity to then have a permanent bug on the lower left of the screen telling you the name of the show you're watching. If I'm watching "Dr Who" do I need to see "DR WHO" in white letters on the screen as well?? All the more reason I love Netflix and alternate means of getting quality content presented in a QUALITY VIEWING EXPERIENCE. --- rick) Tom Shales on those pop-up promos that just won't go away By Tom Shales Tuesday, November 9, 2010; C05 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110806143_pf.html There's no official count on this, but it's fairly safe to say it: Everybody hates them. They're those infuriating pop-up promos super-imposed on the bottom of the screen and appearing with greater and greater frequency while you try to watch a television program. Unfortunately, they're as popular with networks as they are unpopular with viewers. There is absolutely no sign of relief ahead and instead a distinct possibility that the problem will get worse. It happens so often, it almost seems normal. You're watching a rerun of "Law & Order" on TBS, let's say, and even though the show has reached a climactic emotional moment, and the tawdry loony is confessing to the crime, up there pops, from the bottom of the screen, images of characters from a silly sitcom like "Are We There Yet?" or romping pranksters from "Just for Laughs," and the mood is shattered. You're suddenly watching two shows at once, or at least 1 1/2 . Your eyes are distracted, the drama is muted, and you might sputter some angry epithet about greed amongst the networks. Greedy they are, but also desperate. With the number of program choices greatly amplified, especially in cable, and with the economy lying heap-like in the gutter, the fight for your attention is at an all-time feverish pitch. Hence, the pop-up promos and no, they don't care how much you hate them. "Yes, people complain but they complain that the music's too loud, too," says one veteran network vice president, who asked not to be identified so as to speak more freely. "Still, they suffer through it in order to watch television." There's no research to show that being pelted with promos keeps anybody from watching TV. In the business, the promos are referred to flippantly as "buttons" or "bugs," but the more official term is "lower thirds," because they take up -- theoretically -- the lower third of the screen. But sometimes the promos, elaborately produced with special footage and animation, reach into that upper two-thirds, too. Who knows but that the standard will change, and the networks, emboldened, will soon be airing promos called "bottom halves." The situation is much worse on cable than on the broadcast networks. On some cable channels the promos simply never stop; it's like a veritable parallel channel that co-exists with whatever it is you actually want to watch; this parallel channel shows nothing but promos in endless spewage. Why do the networks persist in a practice they know irritates or infuriates viewers? First, there's nothing to stop them -- no FCC rule (tiny-minded FCC commissioners only care about dirty words anyway) or other sanction. Second, they've run out of spare time in which to put promos; unless they shorten the running time of programs even more -- and some "hour-long" shows barely amount to 40 minutes of program material as it is -- their promo availabilities are scarce. "Lower thirds" have the advantage, obviously, of reaching viewers who are already captive. In addition, they are TiVo-proof; you'll see them even if you fast-forward through regular commercials. In its first few decades, television was free of this kind of clutter; the term "clutter" referred instead to the proliferation of 30-second, 15-second and even 10-second spots that were crowded together around station breaks or commercial breaks and pummeled viewers with a dizzy blitz of messages. You wouldn't think these would be very effective, but apparently, they serve the networks' purpose. Now clutter has become a matter more of space than of time. Digital technology has made it a lot easier to superimpose (hence, "supers") words and pictures onto the screen without altering the dominant picture or making a loud buzzing sound, which really used to happen when white letters were super'd over program material. In addition, the programs were quaintly considered inviolate, not to be besmirched with outside material like promos or commercials. Actually, if the networks can get audiences to tolerate pop-up promos by the dozens, maybe they'll start selling pop-up commercials, too. There's already been some of that, though it has hardly reached the blight stage. But the promos have. They are everywhere. They are no respecter of programs, themes, personalities, whatever. Eleanor Roosevelt could come back to life and do charity spiels for orphans; the promos would go right on, crawling across her bosom. They often start immediately following a commercial break that may have included promos of its own, then they continue cluttering up the lower third until the next commercial break comes along. It's somewhat comparable to a recorded song in which the back-up band drowns out the singer. Promo departments are full of people who think they're just as creative as those who make programs; they may even have a certain disdain for the program-makers and take delight in cranking out promos that upstage the shows. Whatever the deeper and darker motivations, the pernicious lower thirds will continue ad nauseam to dance and scamper along the gutter, and they're likely to increase in whatever crannies are so far untouched. A few really quality, classy networks -- like TCM, Turner Classic Movies -- have so far eschewed the practice, but on most others, the promos are virtually always there. Once upon a time, television networks subscribed to a Code of Conduct enforced by the National Association of Broadcasters, a code that probably would have regulated, and even limited, the amount of promotional material (included under "non-program material" generally) that a network could throw in viewers' faces, in whatever form. But a foolish old judge in a federal court struck down the code years ago as a "restraint of trade." And as our network vice president puts it, "Since then, it's been basically the Wild West out there ." From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 10 05:34:02 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:34:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - UK Needs Cyber Attack Capability: Minister Message-ID: November 10, 2010 UK Needs Cyber Attack Capability: Minister By REUTERS Filed at 6:08 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/11/10/technology/tech-us-britain-cyber.html LONDON (Reuters) - Britain should have an offensive ability to launch computer attacks to deter aggressors as part of a growing emphasis on cyber warfare, a British minister said -- and potential enemies should know its capabilities were already "considerable." Despite broad cuts to government spending, including on defense, cyber security will receive greater funding. Britain announced a 650 million pound ($1.05 billion) program last month, labeling it a key priority. As computer systems become more vital in the control of essential services, from power grids to banking, computerized attacks are seen as becoming as important a part of nations' arsenals as conventional or nuclear weaponry. "We face a variety of threats in the cyber domain," armed forces minister Nick Harvey told Reuters on Tuesday after giving a speech on cyber policy at London think tank Chatham House. "In every other domain (of warfare) you have the concept of deterrence and ... in the fullness of time we would expect to get into a position where people understood our capabilities." Asked if he was acknowledging Britain did not have adequate offensive capacity at present, he said: "I don't think other countries who know anything about this are in any doubt that we have considerable capabilities in this field. "If they have paid any attention to our security and defense review, they will have seen the signs of clear intent to remain well placed in this domain." In his speech, Harvey had said the ability to electronically "turn out the lights" of a potential adversary would provide policymakers with wider options than simply a conventional military attack. Experts say the Stuxnet computer worm identified this year -- and widely suspected to have been built by a state intelligence agency to attack the Iranian nuclear program -- shows the increasing sophistication of cyber weaponry. CLEAR INTENT A recent parliamentary report said British communications spy agency GCHQ had indicated China and Russia posed the greatest threat of electronic attack on Britain. Both states are seen as having prioritized cyber warfare as a way of getting around U.S. conventional military dominance. Harvey told Reuters it was not possible to say how much of the 650 million pounds would be sent on offence, and that some attack techniques might be developed as a side-effect of research to improve electronic defenses. Security experts say GCHQ's uniquely close relationship with U.S. agencies has long been key to its status as a world leader, far exceeding any cooperation with European allies. Britain and France last week agreed to set up a military cooperation pact seen aimed at preserving geopolitical clout in the face of the spending cuts -- but Harvey said there had been little discussion so far of the sort of cooperation on cyber warfare that Britain has long had with the United States. "It's not something we've specifically discussed in any detail with the French," Harvey said. "It is true that we have a particularly close relationship with the United States on this." (Editing by Mark Trevelyan) From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 10 09:27:59 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:27:59 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Flight attendants union upset over new pat-down procedures Message-ID: Flight attendants union upset over new pat-down procedures http://www.abc15.com/dpp/lifestyle/travel/flight-attendants-union-upset-over-new-pat-down-procedures ? By: Christopher Sign PHOENIX - A flight attendants union with 2,000 members is upset over what it calls "invasive pat-downs" recently implemented by the TSA. "We're getting calls daily about peoples' experiences, our members are concerned," said Deborah Volpe, Vice President of the Association of Flight Attendants Local 66. Volpe confirmed that the union is offering advice to its flight attendants, who mostly work for Tempe-based USAirways, involving the security moves. According to a union email obtained by ABC15, it tells flight attendants if they opt out of using the body scanner through security and are required to undergo a pat-down to ask the pat-down be conducted in a private area with a witness. "We don't want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public," said Volpe. "They actually make contact with the genital area." Some passengers have told ABC15 they've already encountered flight delays due to crew members having problems with TSA employees. "It (delay) was over three hours when they finally found a crew member to take her place," said Les Johnson who says his Charlotte bound flight was delayed. "She (flight attendant) felt that she was groped and supposedly filed a claim." According to Volpe, complaints from flight attendants are expected to continue to increase and said some flight attendants are planning to file lawsuits. "They've already contacted the ACLU," said Volpe when referring to some members of the union. "We don't know if somebody may have had an experience with a sexual assault and its (pat-down) going to drudge up some bad memories." Volpe made it clear the union is not against security. "Security is the most important aspect, our offices were used as murder weapons," said Volpe. "Keep in mind we undergo extensive background checks and we fly quite often." Volpe said she has been a flight attendant for nearly 25 years and she and other union leaders are pushing for a "crew pass" system that would allow flight attendants and pilots to essentially by-pass security. "We don't want to delay anyone, we just feel this pat-down is a little much." Copyright 2010 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 10 14:50:28 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:50:28 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - unconfirmed: Major TSA WTF Message-ID: (This has not been picked up by any other news sites yet, so take it as you will until it's confirmed. --rick) Question the TSA at your own Risk by George Donnelly on November 9, 2010 http://wewontfly.com/question-tsa-risk The TSA chose Meg McLain for special screening. They wanted her to go through the new porno-scanners. When she opted out, TSA (Transportation Security Administration of the Department of Homeland Security, US federal government) agents raised an enormous ruckus. When she asked some question about what they planned to do to her, they flipped out. TSA agents yelled at her, handcuffed her to a chair, ripped up her ticket, called in 12 local Miami cops and finally escorted her out of the airport. Listen to her story as she told it on radio show Free Talk Live last night. Things are truly getting scary. For best results, listen to the audio on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 10 16:51:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:51:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Pilot: Airport security reaches new levels of absurdity Message-ID: <30F69608-527A-4BE4-9D39-5C25D2EB0B89@infowarrior.org> Airport security reaches new levels of absurdity Here's what happens when you refuse to comply with TSA's "new rule." Blue-glove groping, anyone? By Patrick Smith ? http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/11/04/belt_removal_at_security_checkpoint/index.html Wait, wait, stop the presses. It gets worse. Airport security, I mean. Truly I had no intention of devoting yet another post to the sad, silly foibles of the Transportation Security Administration, but I'm risking heart attack or a nervous breakdown if I don't get this latest one out of my system. I was at the airport yesterday, on duty, headed through a TSA checkpoint in my full uniform and with all of my applicable credentials. I hoisted my bags onto the belt, deposited my MacBook in a plastic tray, and approached the metal detector. "Sir," said a guard. And I knew. I just knew this was going to be something stupid. "I need you to remove your belt." "Huh? My belt? Why?" "All passengers need to remove their belts." "I'm not a passenger." "All pilots have to remove their belts." "We do? Why?" "Sir, remove your belt." "Why?" "Because that's the rule." "What rule? I never have to remove my belt. The buckle is nonmetallic." "It's the new rule. All belts have to come off." "What new rule? I don't understand." "Sir, you need to take it off." "But ... What if I don't?" "Then you'll have to go through secondary screening and a full pat-down." And so I opted for the secondary screening. Not that a pat-down is reasonable, either, but I did not want to submit to something that I felt was excessive and ridiculous without a reason or explanation. I was asked to stand in a cordoned-off area, where I waited for several minutes as guards stood around looking at me. Finally a supervisor came over, wearing disposable blue gloves, to administer my secondary screening. "Sir," he said, "um, you still need to remove your belt." "What do you mean? I chose this so I could leave the belt on." "No, either way the belt has to come off." "What? And if it doesn't come off?" "Then I cannot let you through." So, it would seem, secondary screening isn't really "secondary" at all. Instead of simply taking off my belt, I get a full, blue-glove groping and I have to take off my belt. Either that or I'm not allowed to fly the plane. "Really?" I asked. "Really." And with that I started laughing. Much to his credit, the supervisor also laughed. He smiled, nodded and proceeded to explain this "new rule." Before getting to that explanation, I will note, for what it's worth, that this particular supervisor, who asked that I not reveal his name or location, was perhaps the most decent and reasonable TSA employee I've ever interacted with. He was courteous and professional, not to mention sympathetic. He acknowledged that much of what flight crews are forced to endure does not make sense from a security standpoint. He does not enact policy; he enforces it. Further, he seemed fully aware of the ridiculousness of the new belts procedure. Belts, it has been determined, can interfere with the images procured by the new full-body scanners being deployed at checkpoints around the country. And so, from now on, passengers need to remove them. Now, although we can debate the body scanners from an effectiveness point of view, or from a privacy-rights point of view, separately, this at least makes sense. Fair enough, except for one thing. As I looked around me, I noticed that there weren't any body scanners anywhere at the checkpoint. "But sir," I said, motioning to the left and right, "there are no scanners here." "I know," he replied. "I know. But to keep things consistent, across the board, everybody has to do it." "Really?" "Really." He looked at me. He shrugged and sighed. It's not his fault, I know. I took off my belt. Somebody, somewhere, needs to shake us from this stupor of blind policy and blind obedience. I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't some test -- a test of just how stupid Americans are. If TSA said that from now on we had to hop on one foot while humming "God Bless America," would we do that too? That'd be ludicrous, certainly, but how much more ludicrous is it, really, than asking people to remove their belts for purposes of walking through a nonexistent body scanner? From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 11 06:44:14 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:44:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?DHS-CBP-TSA_Terrorist_Watchlist_?= =?windows-1252?q?Screening_Implementation_User=92s_Guide?= Message-ID: <294D5A5A-3801-40C2-AB53-0848B2B8C75A@infowarrior.org> (SSI) DHS-CBP-TSA Terrorist Watchlist Screening Implementation User?s Guide APIS Pre-Departure Final Rule Secure Flight Final Rule Visa Waiver Program ? Electronic System for Travel Authorization Interim Final Rule ? SF-BAP-1020 Ver 3.4 ? 102 pages ? Sensitive Security Information ? May 14, 2010 http://publicintelligence.net/ssi-dhs-cbp-tsa-terrorist-watchlist-screening-implementation-users-guide/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 11 06:47:04 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Backlash grows over TSA's 'naked strip searches' Message-ID: <954705EA-85E7-4B4F-9F2F-875DA4497A1D@infowarrior.org> November 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST Backlash grows over TSA's 'naked strip searches' by Declan McCullagh http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022477-281.html Two months ago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the federal stimulus legislation would pay for the purchase of hundreds of controversial full-body scanners. "Through the Recovery Act, we are able to continue our accelerated deployment of enhanced technology as part of our layered approach to security at airports nationwide," Napolitano said at the time. Since then, the number of scanners has roughly doubled since Napolitano's announcement and are now found in 68 U.S. airports, and the Transportation Security Administration says the controversial devices have proven to be a success. "We have received minimal complaints," a TSA spokeswoman told CNET yesterday. She said that the agency, part of DHS, keeps track of air traveler complaints and has not seen a significant rise. A growing number of airline passengers, labor unions, and advocacy groups, however, say the new procedures--a choice of full-body scans or what the TSA delicately calls "enhanced patdowns"--go too far. (They were implemented without much fanfare in late October, amid lingering questions (PDF) about whether travelers are always offered a choice of manual screening.) Unions representing U.S. Airways pilots, American Airlines pilots, and some flight attendants are advising their members to skip the full-body scans, even if it means that their genitals are touched. Air travelers are speaking out online, with a woman saying in a YouTube video her breasts were "twisted," and ExpressJet pilot Michael Roberts emerging as an instant hero after he rejected both the body scanning and "enhanced patdowns" options and was unceremoniously ejected from the security line from Memphis International Airport. One lawsuit has been filed and at least two more are being contemplated. There are snarky suggestions for what TSA actually stands for, attempts at grope-induced erotic fiction, and now even a movie. These privacy concerns, and in a few cases even outright rebellion, come as an estimated 24 million travelers are expected to fly during the 2010 Thanksgiving holiday season. One Web site, OptOutDay.com, is recommending what might be called strict civil obedience: it suggests that all air travelers on November 24, the day before Thanksgiving, choose "to opt-out of the naked body scanner machines" that amount to "virtual strip searches." Normally, that kind of public outcry might be enough to spur TSA to back down--after all, in 2004 it relaxed its metal detector procedures to allow passengers a second try, and a year later it relaxed its rules to allow scissors in carry-on bags. Plus, the U.S. House of Representatives (but not the Senate) approved a bill saying that "whole-body imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary method of screening a passenger." But with a lame duck Congress not even in session until next week, no hearings on full-body scanners currently scheduled, and renewed concerns about explosives in printer cartridges, an immediate reversal seems unlikely. Instead, TSA is defending its practice. "TSA constantly evaluates and updates screening procedures to stay ahead of evolving threats, and we have done so several times already this year," a spokeswoman said. "As such, TSA has implemented an enhanced pat down at security checkpoints as one of our many layers of security to keep the traveling public safe." "Administrator John Pistole is committed to intelligence-driven security measures, including advanced imaging technology and the pat down procedure and ordered a review of certain policies shortly after taking office to reinforce TSA's risk-based approach to security," TSA said. "We look forward to further discussion with pilots on these important issues." TSA's official blogger, who uses the apparent pseudonym Blogger Bob, went so far as to say this week that: "There is no fondling, squeezing, groping, or any sort of sexual assault taking place at airports. You have a professional workforce carrying out procedures they were trained to perform to keep aviation security safe." Another possible catalyst for an eventual change in screening procedures is a lawsuit that the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit advocacy group, filed against the TSA and Homeland Security last week. "The agency went off the rails in the spring of 2009 when it decided on its own authority to make body scanners the primary screening technique in the United States," says Marc Rotenberg, EPIC's executive director. "We think there had to be a public rulemaking. We think the conduct implicates freedom of religion. We think it implicates the Privacy Act." EPIC's lawsuit is ambitious. It says that TSA should have conducted a formal, 90-day public rulemaking to "fully evaluate all privacy, security, and health risks" and wants the DC Circuit to require the agency to conduct one. In addition, making full-body scanners the primary method of screening violates the Fourth Amendment, the suit says, because the scans are "far more invasive than necessary." In September, the DC Circuit shot down EPIC's initial request for an emergency halt, saying the standards for a preliminary injunction against TSA were not met. Rotenberg remains optimistic, saying "these are obligations that are written into federal law" that TSA must follow. (This time, EPIC is not asking for an emergency injunction.) The ACLU says it's also weighing a lawsuit but has not filed one so far. TSA has "always done pat-downs," but until recently they haven't been so aggressive, says Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel at the ACLU in Washington, D.C. "The pat-downs never used to go up a woman's skirt." "It's become troubling," Calabrese says. "You've got these controversial naked strip search machines that they're rolling out at airports across America. And if you choose not to go through the naked strip search machine, you're subject to this (level of intrusive physical contact). It seems punitive. It seems designed to drive you to the naked strip search machine." Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image that TSA says is viewed by a remote technician. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images with non-ionizing radio waves and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. TSA says it does not store scans, and there is no evidence indicating the agency does at routine airport checkpoints. But documents that EPIC obtained show the agency's procurement specifications require that the machines be capable of storing the images on USB drives. A 70-page document (PDF), classified as "sensitive security information," says that in a test mode the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. Another federal agency, the Marshals Service, has acknowledged (PDF) that tens of thousands of images from a Brijot Gen2 machine were stored from just one courthouse checkpoint. The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface." Meanwhile, the backlash among air travelers will likely continue as more full-body scanners pop up in airports and more travelers are faced with the choice of intrusive scanning or an intrusive pat-down done with someone's fingers instead of the back of a hand. Body scanners in the Orlando airport were turned on yesterday, for instance, and they've appeared at Dulles airport this week as well. A flotilla of Web sites, including Nudeoscope.com, DontScan.us, and StopDigitalStripSearches.org is hoping to translate that dissatisfaction into political action. The Council on American-Islamic Relations sent out a travel advisory yesterday with special recommendations for Muslim women. Another line of attack is health concerns: biochemistry faculty members at the University of California at San Francisco have written the White House saying the X-ray "dose to the skin may be dangerously high." (A response co-authored by FDA and TSA officials dismissed any health risks as "miniscule.") "For some reason TSA is rushing these things out," says Charlie Leocha of the Consumer Travel Alliance. "They haven't fully studied them. They haven't tested them. They don't know if it'll detect the explosives you're looking for...We're at a perfect storm, but will TSA listen to anyone? I don't know." From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 11 12:05:25 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:05:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The State of the Electronic Identity Market: technologies, stakeholders infrastructure, services and policies Message-ID: <023E7104-AD80-4F79-9CA8-EE6FAAEADB2A@infowarrior.org> The State of the Electronic Identity Market: technologies, stakeholders infrastructure, services and policies ? Authors: Toby Stevens, John Elliott, Anssi Hoikkanen, Ioannis Maghiros, Wainer Lusoli ? EUR Number: 24567 EN ? Publication date: 10/2010 Abstract Authenticating onto systems, connecting to mobile networks and providing identity data to access services is common ground for most EU citizens, however what is disruptive is that digital technologies fundamentally alter and upset the ways identity is managed, by people, companies and governments. Technological progress in cryptography, identity systems design, smart card design and mobile phone authentication have been developed as a convenient and reliable answer to the need for authentication. Yet, these advances are not sufficient to satisfy the needs across people's many spheres of activity: work, leisure, health, social activities nor have they been used to enable cross-border service implementation in the Single Digital Market, or to ensure trust in cross border eCommerce. The study findings assert that the potentially great added value of eID technologies in enabling the Digital Economy has not yet been fulfilled, and fresh efforts are needed to build identification and authentication systems that people can live with, trust and use. The study finds that usability, minimum disclosure and portability, essential features of future systems, are at the margin of the market and cross-country, cross-sector eID systems for business and public service are only in their infancy. This report joins up the dots, and provides significant exploratory evidence of the potential of eID for the Single Digital Market. A clear understanding of this market is crucial for policy action on identification and authentication, eSignature and interoperability. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=3739 From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 11 13:12:37 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:12:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA Responds to Female Radio Host Incideent Message-ID: <0D43DF94-AEF2-4286-AA24-4A3FD4EF5D4A@infowarrior.org> In response to yesterday's post "unconfirmed: Major TSA WTF" TSA's "Blogger Bob" (their official blog site) responds with comment and camera video: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/response-to-female-radio-host-cuffed-to.html Original story (from yesterday): Question the TSA at your own Risk by George Donnelly on November 9, 2010 http://wewontfly.com/question-tsa-risk From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 11 19:06:18 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:06:18 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Is_America_catching_the_=91Briti?= =?windows-1252?q?sh_Disease=92=3F?= Message-ID: <5DF3A41E-7ABD-4933-A71F-0ACE15F53117@infowarrior.org> Is America catching the ?British Disease?? Barry Eichengreen, professor of economics and political science http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/11/10/is-america-catching-the-british-disease/ In the United States, the scent of decline is in the air. Imperial overreach, political polarization, and a costly financial crisis are weighing on the economy. Some pundits now worry that America is about to succumb to the ?British disease.? Doomed to slow growth, the US of today, like the exhausted Britain that emerged from World War II, will be forced to curtail its international commitments. This will create space for rising powers like China, but it will also expose the world to a period of heightened geopolitical uncertainty. In thinking about these prospects, it is important to understand the nature of the British disease. It was not simply that America and Germany grew faster than Britain after 1870. After all, it is entirely natural for late-developing countries to grow rapidly, as is true of China today. The problem was Britain?s failure in the late nineteenth century to take its economy to the next level. Britain was slow to move from the old industries of the first Industrial Revolution into modern sectors like electrical engineering, which impeded the adoption of mass-production methods. It also failed to adopt precision machinery that depended on electricity, which prevented it from producing machined components for use in assembling typewriters, cash registers, and motor vehicles. The same story can be told about other new industries like synthetic chemicals, dyestuffs, and telephony, in all of which Britain failed to establish a foothold. The rise of new economic powers with lower costs made employment loss in old industries like textiles, iron and steel, and shipbuilding inevitable. But Britain?s signal failure was in not replacing these old nineteenth-century industries with new twentieth-century successors. Is America doomed to the same fate? Answering this question requires understanding the reasons behind Britain?s lack of technological progressiveness. One popular explanation is a culture that denigrated industry and entrepreneurship. Over the long course of British modernization, the industrial classes were absorbed into the establishment. From the mid-nineteenth century, the best minds went into politics, not business. Enterprise managers promoted from the shop floor were, it is said, second rate. Now we supposedly see a similar problem in the US. In the words of David Brooks of The New York Times: ?After decades of affluence, the US has drifted away from the hardheaded practical mentality that built the nation?s wealth in the first place?.America?s brightest minds have been abandoning industry and technical enterprise in favor of more prestigious but less productive fields like law, finance, consulting, and nonprofit activism.? In fact, this supposed explanation for British decline has not stood the test of time. There is no systematic evidence that British managers were inferior. Indeed, expanding the pool of potential managers beyond the children of a firm?s founders had precisely the opposite effect. It allowed the cream to rise to the top. In today?s America, too, it is hard to find evidence of this purported problem. Silicon Valley companies do not complain of a dearth of talented managers. There is no shortage of new MBAs establishing start-ups or even going to work for auto companies. A second popular explanation for British decline focuses on the educational system. Oxford and Cambridge, established long before the industrial era, produced eminent philosophers and historians, but too few scientists and engineers. It is difficult, however, to see how this argument applies to the US, whose universities remain world leaders, attracting graduate students in science and engineering from around the world ? many of whom remain in the country. Still others explain British decline as a function of the financial system. British banks, having grown up in the early nineteenth century, when industry?s capital needs were modest, specialized in financing foreign trade rather than domestic investment, thereby starving industry of the capital needed to grow. In fact, actual evidence of any such British bias in favor of foreign over domestic investment is weak. And, in any case, that history, too, is irrelevant to the US today, which is on the receiving, not the sending, end of foreign investment. A final explanation for Britain?s failure to keep up makes economic policy the culprit. Britain failed to put in place an effective competition policy. In response to the collapse of demand in 1929, it erected high tariff walls. Sheltered from foreign competition, industry grew fat and lazy. After WWII, repeated shifts between Labour and Conservative governments led to stop-go policies that heightened uncertainty and created chronic financial problems. Herein lies the most convincing explanation for British decline. The country failed to develop a coherent policy response to the financial crisis of the 1930?s. Its political parties, rather than working together to address pressing economic problems, remained at each other?s throats. The country turned inward. Its politics grew fractious, its policies erratic, and its finances increasingly unstable. In short, Britain?s was a political, not an economic, failure. And that history, unfortunately, is all too pertinent to America?s fate. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 11 21:19:25 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:19:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Decoding the Value of Computer Science Message-ID: November 7, 2010 Decoding the Value of Computer Science Michael Morgenstern for The Chronicle By Kevin Carey http://chronicle.com/article/Decoding-the-Value-of-Computer/125266/ In The Social Network, a computer-programming prodigy goes to Harvard and creates a technology company in his sophomore dorm. Six year later, the company is worth billions and touches one out of every 14 people on earth. Facebook is a familiar American success story, with its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, following a path blazed by Bill Gates and others like him. But it may also become increasingly rare. Far fewer students are studying computer science in college than once did. This is a problem in more ways than one. The signs are everywhere. This year, for the first time in decades, the College Board failed to offer high-school students the Advanced Placement AB Computer Science exam. The number of high schools teaching computer science is shrinking, and last year only about 5,000 students sat for the AB test. Two decades ago, I was one of them. I have never held an information-technology job. Yet the more time passes, the more I understand how important that education was. Something is lost when students no longer study the working of things. My childhood interest in programming was a product of nature and nurture. My father worked as a computer scientist, first in a university and then as a researcher for General Electric. As a kid, I tagged along to his lab on weekends, watching him connect single-board DEC computers into ring networks and two-dimensional arrays, feeling the ozone hum of closet-sized machines. By my adolescence, in the mid-1980s, we had moved to a well-off suburb whose high school could afford its own mainframe. That plus social awkwardness meant many a night plugged into a 300-baud modem, battling other 15-year-olds in rudimentary deep-space combat and accumulating treasure in Ascii-rendered dungeons without end. Before long I wanted to understand where those games came from and how, exactly, they worked. So I took to programming, first in Basic and then Pascal. Coding taught me the shape of logic, the value of brevity, and the attention to detail that debugging requires. I learned that a beautiful program with a single misplaced semicolon is like a sports car with one piston out of line. Both are dead machines, functionally indistinguishable from junk. I learned that you are good enough to build things that do what they are supposed to do, or you are not. I left for college intending to major in computer science. That lasted until about the fifth 8:30 a.m. Monday class, at which point my enthusiasm for parties and beer got the upper hand, and I switched to the humanities, which offered more-forgiving academic standards and course schedules. I never touched Pascal again. Fortunately, other students had more fortitude. They helped build and sustain the IT revolution that continues to make America the center of global innovation. But the number of people going this way is in decline. According to the Computing Research Association, the annual number of bachelor's degrees awarded in computer science and computer engineering dropped 12 percent in 2009. When Zuckerberg started Facebook, in 2004, universities awarded over 20,000 computer degrees. The total fell below 10,000 last year. This "geek shortage," as Wired magazine puts it, endangers everything from innovation and economic growth to national defense. And as I learned in my first job after graduate school, perhaps even more. There, at the Indiana state-budget office, my role was to calculate how proposals for setting local school property-tax rates and distributing funds would play out in the state's 293 school districts. I did this by teaching myself the statistical program SAS. The syntax itself was easy, since the underlying logic wasn't far from Pascal. But the only way to simulate the state's byzantine school-financing law was to understand every inch of it, every historical curiosity and long-embedded political compromise, to the last dollar and cent. To write code about a thing, you have to know the thing itself, absolutely. Over time I became mildly obsessed with the care and feeding of my SAS code. I wrote and rewrote it with the aim of creating the simplest and most elegant procedure possible, one that would do its job with a minimum of space and time. It wasn't that someone was bothering me about computer resources. It just seemed like the right thing to do. Eventually I reached the limit of how clean my code could be. Yet I was unsatisfied. Parts still seemed vestigial and wrong. I realized the problem wasn't my modest programming skills but the law itself, which had grown incrementally over the decades, each budget bringing new tweaks and procedures that were layered atop the last. So I sat down, mostly as an intellectual exercise, to rewrite the formula from first principles. The result yielded a satisfyingly direct SAS procedure. Almost as an afterthought, I showed it to a friend who worked for the state legislature. To my surprise, she reacted with enthusiasm, and a few months later the new financing formula became law. Good public policy and good code, it turned out, go hand in hand. The law has reaccumulated some extraneous procedures in the decade since. But my basic ideas are still there, directing billions of dollars to schoolchildren using language recorded in, as state laws are officially named, the Indiana Code. A few years later, I switched careers and began writing for magazines and publications like this one. It's difficult work. You have to say a great deal in a small amount of space. Struggling to build a whole world in 3,000 words, I thought back to stories my father would tell of consulting on the Galileo space-probe project. To make it work with 1970s technology and withstand the rigors of deep space, he and his fellow programmers had to fit every procedure?"take pictures," "fire rockets," "radio NASA back on Earth"?into a machine with 64K bytes of what we now call RAM. That's about 1/60,000th of what you can buy in a cheap laptop at Best Buy today. So every program on Galileo was polished to a gleam. Good editors know there is no Moore's law of human cognition that would double our ability to retain and process information every 18 months. Instead, the technology-driven surfeit of modern information has made the need for clarity and concision more acute. My editors rarely said a word about words, in the sense of how to phrase an idea. The real work was in structure, in constructing an unbroken chain of logic, evidence, and emotion that would bring readers to precisely where I wanted them to be. I learned to minimize the number of operating variables (people). I also learned that while some talented writers can get away with recursive scene-setting, it is usually best to start at the beginning and finish at the end. I discovered that skilled writers, like programmers, embed subtle pieces of documentation in their prose to remind readers where they are and where they are going to be. Writing, in other words, is just coding by a different name. It's like constructing a program that runs in the universal human operating system of narrative, because, as Joan Didion once said, we tell ourselves stories in order to live. Authors adhere to a set of principles as structured in their own way as any computer language. Publications worth writing for insist on Galilean standards of quality and concision. Computer science exposed two generations of young people to the rigors of logic and rhetoric that have disappeared from far too many curricula in the humanities. Those students learned to speak to the machines with which the future of humanity will be increasingly intertwined. They discovered the virtue of understanding the instructions that lie at the heart of things, of realizing the danger of misplaced semicolons, of learning to labor until what you have built is good enough to do what it is supposed to do. I left computer science when I was 17 years old. Thankfully, it never left me. Kevin Carey is policy director of Education Sector, an independent think tank in Washington. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 08:03:43 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - University Begins Reporting All P2P Users to the Police Message-ID: <020D1D8D-D476-4C91-8048-BCFBC8D33C34@infowarrior.org> University Begins Reporting All P2P Users to the Police Written by Ernesto on November 12, 2010 http://torrentfreak.com/university-begins-reporting-all-p2p-users-to-the-police-101112/ Georgia?s Valdosta State University has updated its network with software that can pinpoint students who use P2P software. The university is committed to stop file-sharing on its network even if that results in prison sentences for students. Offenders will be disciplined by the school and then handed over to the police, the university has announced. In recent years, US colleges and universities have undertaken measures to reduce piracy, and go after students who use file-sharing networks to share copyrighted files. In July, the US put into effect a new requirement for colleges and universities to stop illicit file-sharing on their networks. This legislation puts defiant schools at risk of losing federal funding if they don?t do enough to stop illicit file-sharers on their campus. Schools across the country responded appropriately to the new rules and some have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to install anti-file-sharing systems on their network. This week, Valdosta State University (VSU) upgraded theirs. According to the university it can now identify students who use P2P software, and those who are caught will be reported to the police. ?Once individuals are identified, VSU hands responsibility over to police. Users can face felony punishments, including a possible prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000 per offense,? reports the student newspaper. The new system is undoubtedly going to cause collateral damage, since an effective P2P detection tool will be unable to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate use of P2P software. This means that booting up your BitTorrent client to download free films such as Snowblind will result in a referral to the police station. To some these measures may appear as a witch-hunt against students using P2P software, but Joe Newton, VSU Director of Information Technology, sees it as a form of education. ?As an institution of higher learning, we will take an educational approach to the problem and use approved campus procedures to reach appropriate resolutions,? he said. Combating piracy is not a new endeavor for the Georgia university. VSU already had anti-piracy tracking tools installed, but with the old system it was not possible to identify individual users. In addition, the old system was increasingly being bypassed by certain branches of P2P software. ?Over this past summer, ?Ares?, a new P2P program/protocol became popular among college students. Ares allows its users to evade school network controls that limit P2P use,? it was reported. Those who are ?educated? on P2P technologies do of course know that this application is hardly new. In fact, the first version was released back in 2002, long before BitTorrent clients such as uTorrent and Vuze emerged. It seems that VSU?s harsh talk is part of a scare campaign to prohibit students from using P2P software. We doubt that the police will be involved at all, and if they are it seems unlikely that they will take any form of action without a complaint from a rightsholder. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 08:04:54 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:04:54 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NATO To Offer Russia Access To US Satellite Data Message-ID: <4D8FEDC8-23FC-43F6-BB6E-9F987A20AA0A@infowarrior.org> http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/nato-to-offer-russia-access-to-us-satellite-data-20101112-ncx NATO To Offer Russia Access To US Satellite Data Updated: Friday, 12 Nov 2010, 8:14 AM EST Published : Friday, 12 Nov 2010, 8:14 AM EST AFP - NATO will offer Russia access to some US military satellite data in exchange for its participation in a missile shield project for continental Europe, a Moscow newspaper reported Friday. The offer will come as part of a broader deal to be extended to Russia at the NATO-Russia Council that immediately follows the 28-member Alliance's Nov. 19-20 summit in Lisbon, the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper quoted a NATO source as saying. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accepted an invitation to attend the talks, which will also focus on NATO's activities in Afghanistan, in which Russia is also taking part. NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has invited Russia to join the proposed missile shield, at the same time stressing that "we do not want to impose a specific missile defense architecture on Russia." Medvedev has cautiously welcomed the deal but said Russia would like to see more details. Nezavisimaya Gazeta cited a NATO source as saying that the deal involves a proposal to share information about missile and other threats. It would also grant Russia access to some US satellite intelligence imagery, including about countries such as North Korea. "By joining the NATO system ... Moscow could strengthen the territorial security of Russia by receiving 'certain information' from US satellites -- for example, images of the DPRK [North Korea]," the newspaper wrote, citing its NATO source. Russia would also be offered broader political consultations that give Moscow a chance to voice any potential concerns about the shield, and invited to joint NATO exercises and training sessions, the report said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday that Russia was open to cooperation with NATO on missile defense, but added that the partnership must be on equal terms. "We proceed from the fact that if it's equal cooperation ... then such cooperation is quite possible. Strategic partnership should be built on an equal basis," he said. Copyright 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 08:15:57 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - More TSA "grope vs porno shoot" tees Message-ID: <44175F4A-1679-4762-B39A-526986B6C05B@infowarrior.org> More TSA "grope vs porno shoot" tees Cory Doctorow at 8:58 PM Thursday, Nov 11, 2010 With their new "You choose: star in a porno shoot or let me squeeze your genitals" policy, it really feels like the TSA may have finally found the limit of Americans' tolerance for pointless humiliation in the service of some inarticulate "security" goal -- at least judging by the flood of TSA shirts, pledges, civil disobedience campaigns, etc, that we've gotten today. Among that pack, one of the better entries is this pair of tees from Despair.com. Perfect for an airport checkpoint near you. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/11/more-tsa-grope-vs-po.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 09:46:20 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:46:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - WH: Watchdog Planned for Online Privacy Message-ID: Watchdog Planned for Online Privacy By JULIA ANGWIN http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608970171176014.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories The Obama administration is preparing a stepped-up approach to policing Internet privacy that calls for new laws and the creation of a new position to oversee the effort, according to people familiar with the situation. The Obama administration is preparing a stepped-up approach to policing Internet privacy that calls for new laws and the creation of a new position to oversee the effort, according to people familiar with the situation. Julia Angwin has details. The strategy is expected to be unveiled in a report being issued by the U.S. Commerce Department in coming weeks, these people said. The report isn't yet final and could change, these people said. In a related move, the White House has created a special task force that is expected to help transform the Commerce Department recommendations into policy, these people said. The White House task force, set up three weeks ago, is led by Cameron Kerry, the brother of Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Commerce Department general counsel, and Christopher Schroeder, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice. The initiatives would mark a turning point in Internet policy. Recent administrations typically steered away from Internet regulations out of concern for stifling innovation. But the increasingly central role of personal information in the Internet economy helped spark government action, according to people familiar with the situation. The Wall Street Journal has been examining this online information-gathering industry in its "What They Know" investigative series. Privacy issues are bubbling up on Capitol Hill. Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas), co-chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus and ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he welcomed the administration's privacy initiative. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 14:35:04 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:35:04 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Pithy security QOTD Message-ID: With all the broo-haa-haa about Big Sis' new microwave scanners and TSA molestation, the following crossed my mind this afternoon, which I share for your amusement and collective head-shaking: "From interrogations to passenger screening, from password requirements to policies and personnel procedures, when it comes to security, chances are that anything done or defined as "enhanced" neither will be a good thing nor actually enhance security." --- Richard Forno From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 18:25:00 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners Message-ID: <24F41E35-AF4C-4871-A69E-71B8B61436E7@infowarrior.org> National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners ? By Kim Zetter ? November 12, 2010 | ? 6:00 pm | http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/national-opt-out/ Air travelers, mark your calendar. An activist opposed to the new invasive body scanners in use at airports around the country just designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 as a National Opt-Out Day. He?s encouraging airline passengers to decline the TSA?s technological strip searches en masse on that day as a protest against the scanners, and the new ?enhanced pat-downs? inflicted on refuseniks. ?The goal of National Opt Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change,? reads the call-to-action at OptOutDay.com, set up by Brian Sodegren. ?No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we?re guilty until proven innocent.? Some travel writers have expressed concern that the protest, called for the busiest air-travel day in the country, could cause backups and delays for all travelers. The planned protest taps a growing unease over the full-body scans. Privacy groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center are seeking a court order to halt the use of invasive scanners, saying the scanners are illegal and violate passenger privacy. They also say the government has done little to ensure that images taken by the devices are not saved. The TSA has asserted that the machines cannot store pictures, but security personnel at a courthouse in Florida were found to not only have saved images but shared them among colleagues in order to humiliate one of their coworkers. Scientists have also expressed concern that radiation from the devices could have long-term health effects on travelers. Although passengers have the right to opt-out of going through a scanner, the Transportation Security Administration recently announced that passengers who opt-out of body scanners at airport security checkpoints would be required to undergo an enhanced physical pat-down that would include agents using open hands and fingers to touch and press chest and groin areas of passengers. In the past, agents were instructed to use the backs of their hands for pat-downs. Sodegren, who declined to be interviewed in the wake of growing publicity about his movement, wrote on the site that, ?You should never have to explain to your children, ?Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it?s a government employee, then it?s OK.?? The U.S. Airline Pilots Association and other pilot groups have urged their members to avoid the scanners and have also condemned the new pat-down policy as humiliating to pilots. They?ve advised pilots who don?t feel comfortable undergoing pat-downs in front of passengers to request they be conducted in a private room. Any pilots who don?t feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to ?call in sick and remove themselves from the trip.? Travel writer Carl Unger expressed concern that the timing of the boycott could affect already frazzled passengers who are trying to reach their Thanksgiving destinations. ?Chaos makes great news, sure, and news makes great exposure for a cause such as this,? he wrote at Smarter Travelbut I wonder if throwing a wrench into people?s holiday travels is the best way to win hearts and minds.? Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was set to meet with executives from the travel industry on Friday to discuss concerns that security is having a detrimental effect on travel, according to Reuters. ?We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying,? Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, told the news agency. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 18:29:31 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:29:31 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US Air, American Pilots Decry Security Measures Message-ID: <89E17C70-CFA6-41BC-81D0-066DF47B4515@infowarrior.org> US Air, American Pilots Decry Security Measures Ted Reed 11/12/10 - 02:01 PM EST http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10920866.html CHARLOTTE, N.C. (TheStreet) -- Pilots could be endangered by repeated radiation exposure from airport body imaging scanners, according to the president of the US Airways(LCC) pilots union. Increasingly, the Transportation Security Administration is using the scanners, which employ "advanced imaging technology" and are now used at 65 U.S. airports. Some critics charge the scanners offer intrusive looks at the subject's bodies. But Mike Cleary, president of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, objects because they emit radiation. "Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks," Cleary wrote in a letter to members. "Pilots should not submit to AIT screening," Cleary noted. "As pilots, we are (already) exposed to more radiation as a function of our normal duties than nearly every other category of worker in the United States. Currently, the alternative to only a full-body scan is a pat down which, under guidelines implemented on Oct. 29, requires TSA officers to use open hands and fingers, rather than the backs of their hands, to search a passenger's body. Cleary said that too is unacceptable. In the short-term, he recommends that pilots seek out checkpoints where the new machines are not in use. Longer term, he said, the union will pursue remedies including potentially approaching Congress. Dave Bates, president of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots at American(AMR), has a similar view. In a message to union members last week, Bates objected to both the radiation associated with the body scanners and the humiliation associated with enhanced pat downs. "Airline pilots in the United States already receive higher doses of radiation in their on-the-job environment than nearly every other category of worker in the United States, including nuclear power plant employees," Bates said, because of exposure to the sun at high altitudes. At the same time, "there is absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience," he said. Pilots are "keenly aware that we may serve as the last line of defense against another terrorist attack on commercial aviation," Bates said. "Rather than being viewed as potential threats, we should be treated commensurate with the authority and responsibility that we are vested with as professional pilots." The TSA maintains that the level of radiation produced by the scanners is too low to pose a health risk. In an interview, USAPA spokesman James Ray declared: "My office is six or seven miles about the planet earth, in a greenhouse essentially, and pilots are much more susceptible to cancer, especially skin cancer, than members of the public. A lot of pilots use sun screen in the cockpit. "While it may be a very low level of radiation that these machines emit, people in the medical field tell us that going through it thousands of times is definitely not a good idea," Ray said. He added that pilots who are inclined to cause injury or damage don't need to carry dangerous items onboard an aircraft. Nevertheless, he said, the proper way to screen pilots is to use biometrics, retinal scans or some other technique that would assure they are who they say they are. -- Written by Ted Reed in Charlotte, N.C. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 12 21:50:28 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:50:28 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - U.S. officials try to address air security worries Message-ID: <431B83FF-9064-4F40-BDC0-15021C02FDDB@infowarrior.org> U.S. officials try to address air security worries By Jeremy Pelofsky http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AB5B820101113 WASHINGTON | Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:33pm EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Department of Homeland Security said on Friday it is trying to address concerns of pilots about stepped-up screening at U.S. airports and worries in the travel industry that fliers will limit trips because of more rigorous checks. Security officials have defended the measures after foiled plots by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which tried to hide bombs in clothing and parcels that made it aboard a U.S. passenger airliner and two cargo planes. After fierce complaints by pilots about new full-body scanners and more thorough patdowns that began recently, the Transportation Security Administration has started testing other methods for them, a DHS official said. TSA is examining "alternative security protocols for airline pilots that would expedite screening for this low-risk population while maintaining high security standards," the DHS official told Reuters. The new tests come after talks earlier this week between TSA Administrator John Pistole and the head of the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilot union, about how to address the concerns among cockpit crews. The union has advised its members who are uncomfortable after being patted down to call in sick and not fly. Pilots have also expressed worries about health risks from the body scanners because they go through them more often than travelers. DHS officials have said they are safe and people are exposed to more radiation naturally than from one scan. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and Pistole met executives from the travel industry, including hotels and online sites, on Friday to talk about concerns the added security is crimping travel and hurting their businesses. "The meeting with Secretary Napolitano was informative but not entirely reassuring," said Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president with the U.S. Travel Association. "We understand the challenge DHS confronts but the question is where we draw the line." Pistole mentioned several forthcoming reforms for so-called trusted travelers, Freeman said. "Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," he said. After the meeting, DHS said Napolitano told the executives she was committed to improving security, working with the industry and deploying more security personnel and new technology to address potential risks. The meeting was "to underscore the department's continued commitment to partnering with the nation's travel and tourism industry to facilitate the flow of trade and travel while maintaining high security standards to protect the American people," DHS said in a statement. Privacy groups have gone to court to challenge the body scanners as illegal and violations of privacy. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 13 09:13:31 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:13:31 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?iso-8859-1?q?UK_military_will_spend_=A3650_mill?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ion_on_cyber_warfare?= Message-ID: British military will spend ?650 million on cyber warfare That much cash buys a lot of bits By Lawrence Latif Fri Nov 12 2010, 17:56 http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1896098/british-military-spend-gbp650-million-cyber-warfare THE GLORIOUS British military that was chased out of Basra in Iraq and is likely to advance to the rear out of Afghanistan for about the fifth time in the last 200 years has apparently decided to spend ?650 million on developing its cyber warfare capabilities. At least that won't require it to close with an enemy force and actually fight, or perhaps, in order to be effective, maybe it will. Aside from defensive capabilities, Politics.co.uk has learned the military will look at deploying cyber warfare techniques in an offensive manner. This follows from armed forces minister Nick Harvey saying, "actions in cyberspace form part of the battlefield rather than being separate to it". Harvey added that physical capabilities, presumably referring to old fashioned infantry and artillery "will never be replaced" and that cyber warfare capabilities will integrate with more traditional forms of warfare. At present the Ministry of Defense (MoD) refuses to acknowledge it is developing any cyber warfare capabilities. All of this asks the question, just how will the might of the British military embrace routers instead of rockets? Cyber warfare brings up connotations of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, however any attack is likely to include far more than saturating the critical military, government and financial servers or even the Internet links of a country. Recently Burma found itself at the focus of a persistent DDoS attack that resulted in the country's Internet connectivity going down. Perhaps ironically, mitigating the effects of such an attack could in theory help improve the Internet infrastructure within a country. It should be noted that not all DDoS attacks need to saturate connectivity in order to have the desired effect. The UK's MoD is likely to consider some good old fashioned social engineering techniques for the humble Tommy to get his foot through the door when it comes to cyber warfare. A cyber attack is likely to target a country's infrastructure such as energy distribution hubs, communication centres and utilities to try to paralyse the country. With many of these systems being run on private networks and hopefully not connected to the public Internet, the need for physical access will still be required. Indeed, it is hard not to be reminded of Die Hard 4.0 when talking about cyberwarfare on this scale. Alas, we exhausted the production budget of The INQUIRER in an attempt to hire Bruce Willis for a video demonstration, but sadly the princely offer of a pint and a packet of crisps wasn't enough to lure him out of his comfortable surroundings. Just like physical warfare, it's unlikely that militaries engaging in cyber warfare will go after civilian broadband connections, as the effect would simply not be worth the effort. And thanks to Britain's poor broadband infrastructure, Brits should be able to sleep easy knowing that no self-respecting warlord will waste his time attacking bumpkin broadband connections. Research into offensive cyber warfare capabilities might not only result in upgrades to UK Internet infrastructure but also improved defence capabilities. While it's unlikely that any of this will end up in the hands of the public, it does go to show that the Internet is now being considered as a battleground worth fighting upon. ? From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 13 09:14:37 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Internet2 Accelerates to 100 Gigabit Message-ID: <4218EF06-91D8-4173-A14E-A4AB9CAA5A4F@infowarrior.org> www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/news/article.php/3913006 Internet2 Accelerates to 100 Gigabit By Sean Michael Kerner November 12, 2010 Internet2 is moving to 100 Gigabit per second (100G) networking thanks to new technologies and standards. Internet2 is a high-speed network connecting over 50,000 research and educational facilities. The official move to 100G networking should not come as a surprise, as Internet2 first announced its 100G intentions back in 2008. What has changed in the last two years is that 100G networking has moved from becoming just an idea to becoming an implementable reality. "In 2008 Internet2, ESnet and our partners were really trying to help the market realize the need for 100G capabilities being driven by the research and education community," Rob Vietzke, Internet2 Executive Director of Network Services told InternetNews.com. "Our goal was to push faster adoption of 100G standards and get ready for the deployment that we are now beginning this year." Vietzke added that today vendors are shipping 100G transponders for DWDM systems as well as 100G interfaces for routers. Availability of 100G equipment is linked to the fact that the IEEE 40/100 Gigabit Ethernet standard was ratified in June. "Another thing that has changed is that scientists involved in big science projects like the Large Hadron Collider are already delivering huge data flows that require these expanded capabilities," Vietzke said. Internet2 will be using equipment from Juniper Networks in order to build out its 100G infrastructure. Luc Ceuppens, Vice President of Product Marketing, Juniper Networks told InternetNews.com that Internet2 currently has T1600 core routers in service. He add that Internet2 is currently deploying the new 100G network on a region-by-region basis and expects to complete deployment in 2013. The T1600 is Juniper's flagship core routing platform. A 100G line card for the T1600 was announced by Juniper back in June of 2009. Internet2's new 100G enabled network will actually have a total network capacity that dwarfs current systems. Back in 2008, Vietzke told InternetNews.com that Internet2 was running a 100 gigabit per second backbone by utilizing ten 10 Gbps waves. "The new network that will be built will include between 5 and 8 terabits of capacity, based on the latest 100G DWDM systems and Juniper's T1600 routers," Vietzke said "It will have capability for at least fifty 100G waves and include a national scale 100G Ethernet service on the T1600 on day one." In terms of cost, Juniper declined to comment on the specific value of the deployment of their gear to Internet2. That said, Vietzke noted that Internet2 has received funding from the U.S. government for the effort. "Internet2 has been very fortunate to receive a $62.5M American Reinvestment and Recovery Act investment that will help support this project and deliver next generation network capabilities not only to our existing community but to as many as 200,000 community anchor institutions across the country," Vietzke said. Sean Michael Kerner is a senior editor at InternetNews.com, the news service of Internet.com, the network for technology professionals. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 13 09:21:29 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:21:29 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - 11/24 as "National Opt-Out Day" for air travellers Message-ID: <8E186FCE-2870-4DA4-8CC5-429940EE4541@infowarrior.org> Wednesday, November 24, 2010 is NATIONAL OPT-OUT DAY! http://www.optoutday.com/ It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an "enhanced pat down" that touches people's breasts and genitals in an aggressive manner. You should never have to explain to your children, "Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK." The goal of National Opt Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change. We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent. This day is needed because many people do not understand what they consent to when choosing to fly. Here are the details: Who? You, your family and friends traveling by air on Wednesday, November 24, 2010. What? National Opt-Out Day. You have the right to opt-out of the naked body scanner machines (AIT, or Advance Imaging Technology, as the government calls it). All you have to do is say "I opt out" when they tell you to go through one of the machines. You will then be given an "enhanced" pat down. Remember too, as the TSA says, "Everyday is opt-out day." That is, you can opt out any time you fly. Where? At an airport near you! When? Wednesday, November 24, 2010. We want families to sit around the dinner table, eating turkey, talking about their experience - what constitutes an unreasonable search, how forceful of a pat down will we allow, especially of children, and how much privacy are we will to give up? We hope the experience then propels people to write their Member of Congress and the airlines to demand change. Why? The government should not have the ability to virtually strip search anyone it wants. The problem is compounded in that if you do not want to go through the naked body scanner, the government has made the alternative perhaps worse! In an effort to try and make everyone comply with the scanners, the government has instituted "enhanced" pat downs. There are reports from travelers across the country about how the TSA now touches the genitals and private areas of men, women and children in a much more aggressive manner. We do not believe the government has a right to see you naked or aggressively feel you up just because you bought an airline ticket. How? By saying "I opt out" when told to go through the bodying imaging machines and submitting to a pat down. Also, be sure to have your pat down by TSA in full public - do not go to the back room when asked. Every citizen must see for themselves how the government treats law-abiding citizens. follow us on twitter: http://twitter.com/nationaloptout For more information on these machines and to read stories of what happens when you use the naked body scanners or opt out, please visit: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security-222/ http://www.dontscan.me/ http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/ To file an incident report, use the Electronic Privacy Information Center's site: http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/ contact us at admin at optoutday.com From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 13 21:04:53 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:04:53 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Report: TSA encounter at San Diego Message-ID: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html Musings, thoughts, diatribes, etc. Strap in and hang on. 13 November 2010 TSA encounter at SAN [These events took place roughly between 5:30 and 6:30 AM, November 13th in Terminal 2 of the San Diego International Airport. I'm writing this approximately 2 1/2 hours after the events transpired, and they are correct to the best of my recollection. I will admit to being particularly fuzzy on the exact order of events when dealing with the agents after getting my ticket refunded; however, all of the events described did occur. I had my phone recording audio and video of much of these events. It can be viewed below. Please spread this story as far and wide as possible. I will make no claims to copyright or otherwise.] This morning, I tried to fly out of San Diego International Airport but was refused by the TSA. I had been somewhat prepared for this eventuality. I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines and the possible harm to health as well as the vivid pictures they create of people's naked bodies. Not wanting to go through them, I had done my research on the TSA's website prior to traveling to see if SAN had them. From all indications, they did not. When I arrived at the security line, I found that the TSA's website was out of date. SAN does in fact utilize backscatter x-ray machines. I made my way through the line toward the first line of "defense": the TSA ID checker. This agent looked over my boarding pass, looked over my ID, looked at me and then back at my ID. After that, he waved me through. SAN is still operating metal detectors, so I walked over to one of the lines for them. After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector, the person in front of me in line was pulled out to go through the backscatter machine. After asking what it was and being told, he opted out. This left the machine free, and before I could go through the metal detector, I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so." At this point, I was informed that I would be subject to a pat down, and I waited for another agent. < --- BIG SNIP -- > http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 13 21:05:03 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:05:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - 'Naked scanners': Lobbyists join the war on terror Message-ID: <96FBAE75-2370-4385-8F77-8337434EDAF3@infowarrior.org> (Let's not forget that former DHS chief Chertoff is a TV talking head on 'homeland security' --- he is all for such scanners during his appearances, then the media discovered he's closely-tied to one of the scanner companies. Conflict of interest, Mikey? --- rick) Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705355601/Homeland-Security-Secretary-Michael-Chertoff-benefiting-from-scanner-sales.html ? 'Naked scanners': Lobbyists join the war on terror By: Timothy P. Carney Senior Examiner Columnist November 12, 2010 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/_Naked-scanners__-Lobbyists-join-the-war-on-terror-1540901-107548388.html The degradations of passing through full-body scanners that provide naked pictures of you to Transportation Security Administration agents may not mean that the terrorists have won -- but they do mark victories for a few politically connected high-tech companies and their revolving-door lobbyists. Many experts and critics suspect that the full-body "naked scanners" recently deployed at U.S. airports do little to make us more secure, and a lot to make us angry, embarrassed and late. For instance, the scanners can't see through skin, and so weapons or explosives can be hidden safely in body cavities. But this is government we're talking about. A program or product doesn't need to be effective, it only needs to have a good lobby. And the naked-scanner lobby is small but well-connected. If you've seen one of these scanners at an airport, there's a good chance it was made by L-3 Communications, a major contractor with the Department of Homeland Security. L-3 employs three different lobbying firms including Park Strategies, where former Sen. Al D'Amato, R-N.Y., plumps on the company's behalf. Back in 1989, President George H.W. Bush appointed D'Amato to the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism following the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Also on Park's L-3 account is former Appropriations staffer Kraig Siracuse. The scanner contract, issued four days after the Christmas Day bomb attempt last year, is worth $165 million to L-3. Rapiscan got the other naked-scanner contract from the TSA, worth $173 million. Rapiscan's lobbyists include Susan Carr, a former senior legislative aide to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. When Defense Daily reported on Price's appropriations bill last winter, the publication noted "Price likes the budget for its emphasis on filling gaps in aviation security, in particular the whole body imaging systems." An early TSA contractor for full-body scanners was the American Science and Engineering company. AS&E's lobbying team is impressive, including Tom Blank, a former deputy administrator for the TSA. Fellow AS&E lobbyist Chad Wolf was an assistant administrator at TSA and an aide to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who sits on the Transportation and Defense subcommittees of Appropriations. Finally, Democratic former Rep. Bud Cramer is also an AS&E lobbyist -- he sat on the Defense and Transportation subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. The full-body scanners have caused an understandable uproar. Even before the devices were rolled out, they sparked predictable mischief: During training on the scanners, a group of TSA workers noted and mocked the genitalia of the guinea-pig employee sent through the scanner. The guy soon beat down one of his mockers and was arrested for assault. After assurances by contractors and the TSA that the nude images of the scanners' subjects weren't being stored and saved, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted that it had stored thousands of such images. Homeland Security insists that the "naked scans" are optional, but if you're randomly selected for one and you "opt out," you're subject to a very intimate frisk. There's good reason to doubt these scanners significantly reduce the chance of a successful terrorist attack on an airplane. Deploying these naked scanners was a reaction to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed attempt to blow up a plane on Christmas 2009, but the Government Accountability Office found, "it remains unclear whether [the scanners] would have been able to detect the weapon Mr. Abdulmutallab used." But there's a deeper question to ask: how far are we willing to go to prevent weapons or bombs from getting on airplanes? In the past decade, terrorists on airplanes have killed just about 3,000 people -- all on one day. Even if the Christmas Day bomber had succeeded, the number would be under 3,500. Those are horrible deaths. But in that same period, more than 150,000 people have been murdered in the United States. We haven't put the entire U.S. on lockdown -- or even murder capitals like Detroit, New Orleans and Baltimore. While reducing the murder rate to zero is very desirable, we also understand that the costs, in terms of liberty and resources, are too great. But when it comes to air travel, 9/11 seems to have stripped away our ability to put things in perspective. Politicians feed into that paranoia with their rhetoric. And lobbyists and government contractors feed on the paranoia. Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney at washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 14 12:49:25 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:49:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Rape Survivor Devastated by TSA Enhanced Pat Down Message-ID: (c/o TS) PNC-Minnesota: Rape Survivor Devastated by TSA Enhanced Pat Down http://wildhunt.org/blog/2010/11/pnc-minnesota-rape-survivor-devastated-by-tsa-enhanced-pat-down.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 14 13:37:57 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:37:57 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Outsourcing censorship: ICANN, Inc. insists on it! Message-ID: <67957EB6-5407-486E-93EF-AA0F1B2337CE@infowarrior.org> Outsourcing censorship: ICANN, Inc. insists on it! by Milton Mueller on Sun 14 Nov 2010 12:46 PM EST | Permanent Link | ShareThis http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/11/14/4679990.html In a rather shocking development, ICANN?s staff is trying to reject key consensus recommendations regarding the censorship of new top level domains. The staff's "explanatory memo" on why it is trying to discard the decisions of a Cross-community Working Group show a complete lack of interest in the freedom of expression implications of the new gTLD objection process. The focus is, instead, on lowering legal and financial risks to the Corporation. A conference call tomorrow (Monday, November 15) may be able to alter this. But the staff position, if it remains in place, will fuel many of the concerns IGP and others have expressed regarding ICANN, Inc.?s status as an international institution. ICANN?s policy process looks out for its own interest as a corporation first and foremost, and it lacks accountability to its stakeholders, because there is no requirement to follow the results of its own vaunted bottom-up processes. The Cross-community Working Group on Recommendation 6 (CWG), which dealt with so-called morality and public order objections, engaged in extensive deliberations in August and September 2010. The CWG contained representatives of the GAC and the At Large Advisory Committee and the GNSO. Many were surprised by how rapidly and effectively the group reached consensus on so many areas of this contentious issue. Now the staff seems to be tossing out all that work. (For a discussion of the CWG's results on the IGP blog in September, see this.) The key issue is who makes the decision to censor domains. The CWG recommended unanimously that the Board be made directly responsible for any decision to veto domains, and achieved strong support that a 2/3 supermajority be required for an adverse decision. While CWG proposed that the board be allowed to consult with independent experts, it recommended that they only provide advice to the Board, not that the decision itself be made by them. There were two reasons for this recommendation. One was to ensure that the exercise of censorship by the board would be handled transparently and very carefully. If the Board makes the decision directly then it is clear who voted for or against censoring a domain, and there is no ambiguity about who is responsible for the decision. The other reason for rejecting a DRSP was derived from our experience with the domain name trademark dispute resolution process (UDRP). It was felt that a private dispute resolution provider that collects fees from responding to objections would develop a vested interest in the exercise of censorship. Such a provider would develop an objector?s bias, just as WIPO and other UDRP service providers have developed a complainants? bias. For both reasons, the implications for freedom of expression of outsourcing censorship to a commercial dispute service provider are quite bad. The CWG achieved a high level of agreement on these points. But in its analysis of the Cross-community Working Group report, ICANN staff has insisted on outsourcing the decision to censor new top level domains. The staff report makes it clear exactly why this is happening: it is considered by them to be a very important part of a ?risk mitigation strategy? for ICANN, Inc. ?Without outside dispute resolution,? the staff wrote, ?ICANN would have to re-evaluate risks and program costs overall.? What a startling admission! ICANN?s lawyers are telling the board that if it makes the decision directly and by themselves, they might be held accountable legally. And indeed, isn?t that how things are supposed to work? Before you suppress anyone?s rights to expression you ought to be very careful, and if you do so without justification or arbitrarily, the victim should have legal recourse. But the staff is telling us that ICANN wants to be able to censor expression with minimal consequences. In order to achieve that goal it is proposing to launder the decision by outsourcing it to a private dispute resolution service provider. Then they can claim that ?experts made the decision, not us.? This is a disgraceful act and must not stand. There were other odd aspects to the staff report. The CWG unanimously agreed to discard ?morality and public order? as a label describing the objection and recommended using another term. The label with the strongest support in the group was ?Objections Based on General Principles of International Law.? Interestingly, even the former CEO of ICANN, Paul Twomey, supported that label in the public comment period, offering an eloquent explanation of why we need to keep the scope of the objections narrow and tied to law - not "interests" or "sensitivities" or any other mushy rationale. The CWG considered, and strongly rejected the term ?public interest? as the basis for objections because that is far too broad and subjective a term. Claims that a TLD string or concept is not in ?the public interest? could be made about virtually anything. And yet, the staff has chosen to re-label Recommendation 6 as ?limited public interest? (LPI). This arbitrary and groundless change can probably be reversed. It is much more desirable to base objections on ?general principles of international law? and ICANN staff has no valid rationale for choosing the term it did. The staff has also refused to implement changes proposed to the role of the Independent Objector. There was broad consensus in the CWG that it was a bad idea to give an essentially unaccountable individual an untrammeled right to initiate censorship requests on his or her own. The staff insists on creating this monster, however. As noted, a re-convening of CWG to confer with the almighty staff will be held tomorrow. Hopefully it will produce positive results. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 14 19:14:00 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:14:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Germans: Nude Protest for Airport Screenings Message-ID: <4B198F4F-DE07-4195-8A3D-F0158C24C75F@infowarrior.org> Gotta love the Pirate Party. :) SSFW Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZSEf_4F3jk .... and this Reuters Poll: http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/ Are you less likely to fly because of stepped-up security procedures such as full-body scans and patdowns? Yes - I will make alternate travel plans to avoid intrusive security scans and patdowns (97%, 24,256 Votes) No - It is a necessary procedure to ensure terror plots are thwarted (2%, 542 Votes) Undecided (1%, 293 Votes) Total Voters: 25,091 Spread The word: Travellers, OPT OUT ON NOV 24 !! http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/national-opt-out/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 14 19:31:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:31:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Big Sis op-ed in Monday USATODAY Message-ID: <616CD978-4FDA-4758-BF4F-B6085BFE2BEB@infowarrior.org> Wonder if the global (and domestic) protests against scanners and TSA gropage is having the proper effect in Washington? Though I take exception to her claim that this tech "cannot store, export, print or transmit image" --- they've already been proven to do just that, as I recall. --- rick Napolitano: Scanners are safe, pat-downs discreet By Janet Napolitano http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST1_N.htm Nearly a year after a thwarted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner last Christmas Day, the recent attempt by terrorists to conceal and ship explosive devices aboard aircraft bound for the United States reminds us that al-Qaeda and those inspired by its ideology are determined to strike our global aviation system and are constantly adapting their tactics for doing so. Our best defense against such threats remains a risk-based, layered security approach that utilizes a range of measures, both seen and unseen, including law enforcement, advanced technology, intelligence, watch-list checks and international collaboration. This layered approach to aviation security is only as strong as the partnerships upon which it is built. In addition to the more than 50,000 trained transportation security officers, transportation security inspectors, behavior detection officers and canine teams who are on the front lines guarding against threats to the system, we rely on law enforcement and intelligence agencies across the federal government. We require airlines and cargo carriers to carry out specific tasks such as the screening of cargo and passengers overseas. We work closely with local law enforcement officers in airports throughout the country. And we ask the American people to play an important part of our layered defense. We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy. As part of our layered approach, we have expedited the deployment of new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units to help detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats on passengers. These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures. AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety. And the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we've found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again. Rigorous privacy safeguards are also in place to protect the traveling public. All images generated by imaging technology are viewed in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The officer assisting the passenger never sees the image, and the officer viewing the image never interacts with the passenger. The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images. If an anomaly is detected during screening with AIT, if an alarm occurs after a passenger goes through a walk-through metal detector, or if a passenger opts out of either of these screening methods, we use pat-downs to help detect hidden and dangerous items like the one we saw in the failed terrorist attack last Christmas Day. Pat-downs have long been one of the many security measures used by the U.S. and countries across the world to make air travel as secure as possible. They're conducted by same-gender officers, and all passengers have the right to request private screening and have a traveling companion present during the screening process. In the last two weeks we have also implemented a number of measures to strengthen our defenses against an attack using cargo shipments to the U.S. The deployment of this technology and the implementation of these measures represent the evolution of our national security architecture, an evolution driven by intelligence, risk and a commitment to be one step ahead of those who seek to do us harm. To fulfill the important role we ask of American travelers, and to be prepared at the security checkpoint this holiday season, be ready to remove everything from your pockets prior to screening. If you have a hidden medical device, bring it to the officer's attention before screening. We'll be better able to help expedite your screening that way. As always, we also ask the traveling public to be on the lookout for unattended bags or suspicious activity. Alert travelers have helped thwart plots and crimes in the past, and we encourage everyone to remain vigilant during a time when we know our enemies would like to strike. If you see something suspicious, report it to an airport security official or law enforcement. Each and every one of the security measures we implement serves an important goal: providing safe and efficient air travel for the millions of people who rely on our aviation system every day. We face a determined enemy. Our security depends on us being more determined and more creative to adapt to evolving threats. It relies upon a multi-layered approach that leverages the strengths of our international partners, the latest intelligence, and the patience and vigilance of the American traveling public. Janet Napolitano is secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 14 20:48:35 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:48:35 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Forbes blogger: Abolish the TSA Message-ID: <557FE94E-2C37-4C5C-8383-E527839AB927@infowarrior.org> Full Frontal Nudity Doesn?t Make Us Safer: Abolish the TSA By ART CARDEN http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2010/11/14/full-frontal-nudity-doesnt-make-us-safer-abolish-the-tsa/ The Republicans control the House of Representatives and are bracing for a long battle over the President?s health care proposal. In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, I propose that the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety. I?m talking about the Transportation Security Administration. Bipartisan support should be immediate. For fiscal conservatives, it?s hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA. For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer. But won?t that compromise safety? I doubt it. The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility. This might be beside the point: in 2003, William Anderson incisively argued that some of the steps that airlines (and passengers) would have needed to take to prevent the 9/11 disaster probably would have been illegal. The odds of dying from a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds of dying from doing any of a number of incredibly mundane things we do every day. You are almost certainly more likely to die or be injured driving to the airport than you are to be injured by a terrorist once you?re in the air, even without a TSA. Indeed, once you have successfully made it to the airport, the most dangerous part of your trip is over. Until it?s time to drive home, that is. Last week, I picked up a ?TSA Customer Comment Card.? First, it?s important that we get one thing straight: I am not the TSA?s ?customer.? The term ?customer? denotes an honorable relationship in which I and a seller voluntarily trade value for value. There?s nothing voluntary about my relationship with the TSA. A much more appropriate term for our relationship is ?subject.? The TSA stands between me and those with whom I would like to trade, and I am not allowed to without their blessing. Second, the TSA doesn?t provide security. It provides security theater, as Jeffrey Goldberg argues. The kid with the slushie in Tucson before the three-ounce-rule? The little girl in the princess costume at an airport I don?t remember? The countless grandmothers? I?m more likely to be killed tripping over my own two feet while I?m distracted by the lunacy of it all than I am to be killed by one of them in a terrorist attack. The moral cost of all this is considerable, as James Otteson and Bradley Birzer argue. For even more theater of the absurd, consider that the TSA screens pilots. If a pilot wants to bring a plane down, he or she can probably do it with bare hands, and certainly without weapons. It?s also not entirely crazy to think that an airline will take measures to keep their pilots from turning their multi-million dollar planes into flying bombs. Through the index funds in my retirement portfolio, I?m pretty sure I own stock in at least one airline, and I?m pretty sure airline managers know that cutting corners on security isn?t in my best interests as a shareholder. And the items being confiscated? Are nailclippers and aftershave the tools of terrorists? What about the plastic cup of water I was told to dispose of because ?it could be acid? (I quote the TSA screener) in New Orleans before the three-ounce rule? What about the can of Coke I was relieved of after a flight from Copenhagen to Atlanta a few months ago? I would be more scared of someone giving a can of Coke to a child and contributing to the onset of juvenile diabetes than of using it to hide something that could compromise the safety of an aircraft. And finally, most screening devices are ineffective because anyone who is serious about getting contraband on an airplane can smuggle it in a body cavity or a surgical implant. The scanners the TSA uses aren?t going to stop them. Over the next few years, we?re headed for a bitter, partisan clash over legislative priorities. Before the battle starts, let?s reach for that low-hanging, bipartisan fruit. Let?s abolish the TSA. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 06:23:55 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:23:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Facebook now 'ingrained' in relationships Message-ID: <9746579D-30CE-404E-8FB8-070D7F9B4B19@infowarrior.org> Facebook now 'ingrained' in relationships ? By Danny Rose ? From: AAP ? November 15, 2010 3:16PM http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/facebook-now-ingrained-in-relationships/story-e6frfku0-1225953888381 AN Australian study shows how Facebook and other forms of online social networking are now "ingrained" and how, for many, their friendships have come to depend on it. Those who opt out completely were now a rare breed, the poll revealed, with just three per cent of respondents aged 18 to 30 not having a Facebook profile or equivalent. While among respondents aged up to 80 years, the percentage of those who shunned all forms on online social networking was still less than 15 per cent. "It is really ingrained in our society now," said Rebecca Mathews, a researcher at the Australian Psychological Society (APS). "It is a major change in the way we communicate. I guess the telephone being invented was another major one that is comparable." Dr Mathews polled more than 1800 people and found, overall, that 86 per cent were using online social networking - the vast majority using Facebook but also sites like Twitter and RSVP - and for many it was now part of their everyday routine. A majority (53 per cent) of respondents said the websites gave them more regular contact with friends and family, while 79 per cent said it fostered closer ties with those living far away. About a quarter (26 per cent) said they went out more and had more face-to-face contact as a result online social networking. Half (52 per cent) of users aged 18 to 30 said they would "lose contact with many of their friends if they stopped", which raises the hypothetical question of what if Facebook was ever switched off? "I don't think we'd fall in a heap, but it would be a major adjustment," Dr Mathews said. "Once we introduce technology we really struggle to go backwards and, overall, we do think it is a positive." More than a quarter (28 per cent) reported a "negative experience", such as harassment or unwanted contact, from online social networking but Dr Mathews said this matched rates of bullying in schools and workplaces. "It may not be be that online social networking sites are a vehicle for negative experiences and bullying but just another forum in which they occur," she said. Other key findings include: * Among those who shun online social networking, the most common reasons were loss of interest, having "better things to do" and preferring to speak to people face-to-face. * The majority (77 per cent) of users checked their profile daily, while 51 per cent did so "several times" daily. * It's not a youth-dominated activity, with 81 per cent of those aged 31 to 50, and 64 per cent of those over 50, using online social networking. * One in five (21 per cent) of those aged 31 to 50 said they had formed an "intimate relationship" with someone they met online. * Facebook users aged under 30 had an average 263 friends, while those aged 31 to 50 had 206 friends and those aged over 50 had 92 friends. "People are reporting they have more social connections, and feeling part of a group is really important ... so we see this as really positive for their mental health," Dr Mathews said. "As long as people set up the sites to meet their personal needs and to protect themselves (in terms of privacy)." The APS has a guide to positive online social networking. The research was released to mark National Psychology Week (November 14 - 20). From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 06:28:16 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:28:16 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FUD ALERT: California missile launch, work of Chinese hackers? Message-ID: <3DA6DC25-3E79-42DF-AD64-4C0817F52E91@infowarrior.org> (c/o WK) [It was only a matter of time before the tinfoil hat / peanut-gallery community would add Cyberwar to their paranoid rants, while we now know the mystery 'missile' was really a US Air flight, I still love this explanation of what that was... http://youtu.be/8n2smBKFclU - WK] November 14, 2010 By LBG1 California missile launch, work of Chinese hackers? When KCBS aired the news helicopter footage of a mystery missile launch last Monday off the coast of southern California the ?expert? most quoted by the press, GlobalSecurities.org Director John Pike. It was Pike?s ?optical illusion? which got the most press. Another quote from Pike which got far less press, this statement from Pike during the 36 hour time period the DOD took to come up with the ?most likely an aircraft? explanation: Pike said he didn?t understand why the military had not recognized the contrail of an aircraft. ?The Air Force must ? understand how contrails are formed,? he said. ?Why they can?t get some major out to belabor the obvious, I don?t know.? The military?s response, 36 hours after the event, an ?illusion?? Based on the news reports we?ve read related to the Pentagon and Chinese hackers, the questions of, If Chinese hackers were responsible for the missile launch, would it have been construed by the DOD as an act of ?cyberwar? by China? A cyberwar act which occurred while the President of the United States was overseas in the Far East? If Chinese hackers were responsible for a U.S. submarine ?accidentally? firing a missile, would the DOD admit it to the press, the American public, and, the Chinese government? Our military admitting Chinese military hackers had successfully hacked into the U.S. Dept. of Defense computer and fired one of our missiles? [...] http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/11/california-missile-chinese-cyberwar-or-dod-accident/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 06:39:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:39:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA Passenger Screening Body Scanner Stimulus Package Report Message-ID: <2F825524-8020-43AC-97EB-113D8930695C@infowarrior.org> Passenger Screening Program Specific Recovery Act Plan ? 27 pages ? May 24, 2010 http://publicintelligence.net/tsa-passenger-screening-body-scanner-stimulus-package-report/ The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Passenger Screening Program (PSP) Recovery Act Plan provides a summary of the specific projects and activities planned under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It fulfills the reporting requirement specified in Section 2.8 of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum dated April 3, 2009 (Updated Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, M-09-15). TSA?s PSP supports the Department of Homeland Security?s (DHS) goals of protecting our Nation from dangerous people and dangerous goods, and protecting our Nation?s critical transportation infrastructure by strengthening screening of travelers and their carry-on baggage to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist or other criminal attack to the air transportation system. PSP?s objective is to prevent the entry of explosives, firearms, and other prohibited items on commercial aircraft, while ensuring freedom of movement for people and commerce. To that end, PSP provides efficient life cycle management of security technology solutions and processes for the screening of passengers at security checkpoints at our Nation?s airports. PSP was allocated $266million of the $1 billion in ARRA funding appropriated to Aviation Security. The funds will be obligated between Q3 FY09 and Q4 FY10. PSP will use the funding provided to accelerate its planned deployment schedule for new equipment by more than three years and strengthen PSP?s ability to meet its objectives and achieve the following benefits: ? Enhanced detection capability ? Improved checkpoint efficiency ? Preserved passenger privacy and dignity Specifically, PSP will deploy the following enhanced checkpoint screening equipment: Advanced Technology (AT) X-ray, Bottled Liquid Scanners (BLS), Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), Chemical Analysis Devices (CADs), and Next-Generation Explosive Trace Detectors (ETD). ? Approximately $266 million in ARRA funds will be used to deploy state-of-the-art checkpoint screening equipment including Advanced Technology (AT) X-ray, Bottled Liquid Scanners (BLS), Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), Chemical Analysis Devices (CADs), and Next-Generation Explosive Trace Detectors (ETD). This investment will accelerate TSA?s planned checkpoint screening technology deployment schedule by more than three years and strengthen the PSP?s ability to meet their objectives including: ? detecting explosive threats, weapons, and prohibited items concealed on passengers and their carry-on items; ? improving checkpoint efficiency through technology and process automation; ? preserving passenger privacy and dignity while increasing passenger safety; ? and providing layered security. ? Enhanced Threat Detection Capability State-of-the-art screening technology purchased with ARRA funds will enable TSA to accelerate, by as much as three years, the deployment of enhanced screening technology at passenger checkpoints throughout the country. For example, ARRA funding will expedite the deployment of: ? Advanced Technology X-ray (AT) ? Advanced Technology systems are penetration X-ray based technologies that provide an enhanced view of a bag?s contents through improved image resolution. AT systems are upgradeable, offering a cost-effective platform to develop enhanced detection capabilities. The development of technologies to support liquids detection is occurring in parallel with the deployment of baseline ATs. Once complete and tested, these algorithms could be integrated with the deployed ATs to allow passengers to carry liquids through the checkpoint. ? Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) ? AIT is a new imaging capability that will be used to inspect a passenger?s body for concealed weapons (metal and non-metal), explosives, and other prohibited items. In addition, the AIT offers operators the opportunity to review anomalies on an individual, to determine if a hand wand and/or physical pat-down inspection is required. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 06:52:48 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:52:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?The_=91Path=92_to_Social_Network?= =?windows-1252?q?_Serenity_Is_Lined_With_50_Friends?= Message-ID: The ?Path? to Social Network Serenity Is Lined With 50 Friends ? By Steven Levy ? November 15, 2010 | ? 12:00 am | ? Categories: Silicon Valley, Social Media, Startups http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/the-path-to-social-network-tranquility-is-lined-by-50-friends/ Three ideas lurk behind Path, a new social service that launches Monday as an iPhone app. As CEO Dave Morin explains it, the first two are the products of scientific research. As a former Facebook exec ? Morin was responsible for the Facebook platform that supported apps from outside developers ? he was drawn to the work of evolutionary anthropologist R.I.M. Dunbar, whose work on the primate neocortex suggested that brain size limits the number of close connections. This applies to grooming cliques among apes and Internet social networks among humans. Dunbar has recently been scientifically frolicking in the anthropological gold mine of Facebook and has revealed his early findings that digitally, as well as in the real world, our species is incapable of managing an ?inner circle? of more than 150 friends. That increment became known as ?Dunbar?s Number.? Is a ?Favored Fifty? the magic number for your Personal Network? This led Morin, who left Facebook early this year, to conclude that his new startup would put a limit on connections so that users would have ?a quality network.? Proceeding on another Dunbar theory ? that the rings of our social networks ripple out in factors of three ? he and his team created what Path calls The Personal Network. Morin calculates 5 closest friends of relatives in the most intimate circle, fifteen or so who we have regular contact with, and around three times that in the boundary of who is truly trusted. That led him to put a limit of fifty to one?s Path network, all of whom have consented to a reciprocal relationship. Thus posting on Path is not an act of broadcasting or self-promotion, but sharing a moment with someone who really knows you. The second idea came from Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel-winning economist who has studied the nature of memories, particularly their relationship to happiness. Hearing Kahneman speak at this year?s TED Conference led Morin to make Path into ?a giving network, not a taking network.? Instead of professional networking or cracker barrel punditry, the purpose of Path would be to capture the daily ?moments? that convey joy, particularly when the recipient of those posts knows what they mean to the person expressing them. Morin?s canonical example is sharing with his favored fifty the simple fact that he may be imbibing a hot mocha. ?My friends know how much I love mochas,? he says. ?So my friends are happy for me.? This leads to the third idea behind Path. The only way that Morin?s friends and family on Path will learn that he is having a mocha is via a picture snapped on his iPhone and instantly sent to his network of 50 or less. Morin says that later on, Path will support actual communication via language ? maybe Twitter-like updates or videos, or links or whatever. But for now, the sole means of expression and communication is via photo images. Users will thumb-scroll through an iPhone feed of images of moments captured by their friends, tagged by location, object, and human subject. ?You can literally see your friend?s lives through their eyes,? says Morin. In practice, this constraint may spur a burst of creativity as people strive to depict the range of their emotions, social situations, frustrations, and celebrations solely through a series of captured images. Meanwhile, Path itself will gather an impressive database of things, people and locations that its users find interesting, as they upload photos that otherwise would never have been shot. (Morin is vague about how the company will utilize this data, but gives the usual privacy assurances that no private information will go outside one?s network.) Path rolls out with an impressive pedigree: the resumes of employees ? include key positions at Apple as well as Facebook, and its backed by an all star cast of angel investors. Morin?s co-founder and chairman is Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster. (A third co-founder is Dustin Mierau, author of Macster, the Mac Napster client.) Business plan? Morin says that rather than court intrusive advertising, the business plan is to offer premium services. As the service evolves, Path team is open to tweaks and adjustments. Even the current limit of fifty connections is not sacrosanct. ?But we?ll never, ever go with more than 150,? says Morin. Dunbar, and our neocortexes, would undoubtedly approve. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 07:24:33 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:24:33 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - CERT Aus opens, has beers with AusCERT Message-ID: CERT Aus opens, has beers with AusCERT By Darren Pauli, ZDNet.com.au on November 12th, 2010 (3 days ago) http://www.zdnet.com.au/cert-aus-opens-has-beers-with-auscert-339307220.htm The government's official Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Australia has opened today a stone's throw from the veteran industry AusCERT offices, and staff say there is no bad blood between the two. But although six AusCERT employees have jumped over to the "rival" agency after it controversially called for jobs in Brisbane, there is no tension between staff. In fact, they meet for drinks at a mid-way pub. "We all meet up after work for beers," former AusCERT staffer, now CERT Australia engagement officer Mark McPherson said. "We are all good mates." All but one employee, Karl Hanmore, are based in Brisbane. Hanmore is an industry veteran who carried his title of operations manager at AusCERT to CERT Australia's Canberra office. The government agency has yet to release its capability and engagement documents, but it will focus on the top-end of town, including critical infrastructure and enterprise, while AusCERT will service SMBs and consumers. It has fully absorded the functions of the former GovCERT agency. It has established information exchanges with banks, telcos and orgnaisations dealing with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems such as energy and water utilities. The former AusCERT staff will bring their essential knowledge and relations with staff from other global CERTs to the new agency, which has joined the Asia-Pacific CERT community and is negotiating bilateral cooperative agreements. Attorney-General Robert McClelland said CERT Australia will "significantly enhance Australia's cyber security and computer response capability". "CERT works to improve the resilience of both our critical infrastructure and the broader digital economy." Earlier in the year, the government killed discussions to merge the entities after talks soured between the two. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 08:38:10 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Oh, puh-lease .... PTC's "bleep" counting Message-ID: <03C45096-1880-49E6-9CD9-A0A47431C39A@infowarrior.org> PTC: bleeped broadcast expletives on the rise By Matthew Lasar | Last updated about an hour ago The Parents Television Council has released a new report claiming that foul talk of every shape, size, and odor is all but taking over broadcast television. "These huge increases in harsh profanity should come as no surprise, given the Second Circuit Court's ruling last July?a ruling which overturned the FCC's authority to sanction broadcasters who air profanity on the airwaves the American people own!," the PTC declared in its press release accompanying the study. It's difficult to understand how that could be the sole reason for the alleged jump, since the survey compares the present to 2005?estimating that between that year and this dirty language on over-the-air TV has increased by 69.3 percent. We've been posting stories on the PTC's own troubles over the past few weeks, including claims that the organization is "beyond repair"?taking donor money but not following through on petition campaigns, among other charges. Some Ars readers have expressed hope that these allegations will lead to the group's downfall. As for us, we want the PTC to stick around. Why? Because what other organization would put out a chart like this. < -- > http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/11/ptc-broadcast-profanity-on-tv-out-of-control.ars From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 16:08:57 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:08:57 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Senate hearing on TSA Oversight 11/17 Message-ID: <4C98D891-0BCF-405A-BA1E-B64B7DCC7018@infowarrior.org> Gee, I wonder what they're going to talk about. ----rick Transportation Security Administration Oversight Hearing Jena Longo - Democratic Deputy Communications Director (202) 224-8374 Nov 17 2010 10:00 AM Russell Senate Office Building - 253 WASHINGTON, D.C.?The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announces the following full committee hearing on Transportation Security Administration oversight. Witness Panel 1 The Honorable John S. Pistole Administrator Transportation Security Administration http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=9ad9e372-c415-4758-805a-4b4a295ccb8b From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 15 19:14:27 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:14:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Rick OpEd: TSA and America's Culture of Zero-Risk Message-ID: <78488377-5DD5-4CC2-BEF0-820BCB1AFF53@infowarrior.org> TSA and America's Culture of Zero-Risk (c) 2010 Richard Forno. Permission granted to reproduce freely with credit. http://infowarrior.org/pubs/oped/tsa-zero-risk.html The lede on the DRUDGEREPORT most of Monday showed a Catholic nun being patted down at an airport security checkpoint, with the caption starkly declaring that "THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON." He's right. Ten years after 9/11, Americans who fly are facing a Faustian choice between subjecting themselves to a virtual (and potentially medically damaging) strip search conducted in questionable machines run by federal employees or a psychologically damaging pat-down of their bodies. Osama bin Ladin must be giggling himself silly this week. But what should we expect in a society that requires adults to wear bicycle helmets while pedaling in the park, provides disclaimers of liability on TV advertisements, or prints warnings on fast-food coffee cups? The name of the game is zero risk. Not risk mitigation, or accepting responsibility for one's actions, but risk aversion. It's a failure to acknowledge that we can't protect against everything bad that can happen to us, so we must protect against everything we think might -- might -- be harmful at some point. It's living in fear. TSA has established itself as the lead federal agency charged with perpetuating this risk-averse culture at airports around the country. The proof is evident over the past ten years: Because of the Shoebomber, we have to remove our shoes. Thanks to the Christmas Crotchbomber, we are subjected to invasive scanning or government-mandated molestation. Because there's a potential for explosives in liquid or gel form, we've got the "Three Ounces in A Baggie" rule. Wearing a sweater or bulky fleece hoodie? Take it off (along with your shoes and belt) so it can be examined. Or frisking Granny, or asking toddlers to drink from their Sippy-cups to make sure it's really Mommy's milk inside. And let's not forget the thankfully defunct prohibitions on knitting needles, insulin syringes, matches, lighters, or standing during the last 30 minutes of flights to Washington, DC. All in the name of protecting the homeland. Given this latest round of homeland hysteria, I must ask again -- what happens after the next 'new' attempt to smuggle something onto a plane? Actually, we know the answer: another item will go on the Prohibited Items List and additional screenings of passengers will be conducted, followed by more patronising security-speak from our Department of Homeland Insecurity asking law abiding folks to give up more of their privacy and personal "space" in the interest of Homeland (er, "State") Security. Big Brother, meet Big Sister. With all her homeland security lobbyists along for the ride. Where does it end? Due to this nationalised risk aversion and a docile public, we're now living in a country that subordinates law abiding travelers to quasi-law-enforcement employees of a government agency empowered to make up the rules as it goes along and arrest/fine those who question, challenge, or refuse to comply with their demands while impeding their travel within this great country. What does all of this do to our nation? Our way of life? Our way of thinking as citizens? Perhaps this is intentional, and we're being conditioned to accept the actions of TSA and embrace a zero-risk mentality on our society. What else can explain the statement made earlier today by TSA Director John Pistole that citizens who protest what they see as government transgressions into their privacy are being "irresponsible"? Calling us irresponsible when protesting this latest round of TSA actions is no different than our being labelled unpatriotic when protesting or questioning some of the provisions in the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. Same stuff, different Administration. The American public needs to recognise the nature of the terror threat and accept a certain level of risk in their lives and travels instead of kowtowing to every reactive security 'enhancement' proclaimed by TSA as necessary to protect the country. The tragedy of 9/11 wasn't necessarily the attacks of that fateful day, but what has happened to America in the years since. Which should make us wonder: who should we be afraid of, really -- "them" or "us?" From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 16 07:27:17 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA to investigate body scan resistor Message-ID: <24D29E32-B1F2-4BB7-BD85-F53FA0C2FB28@infowarrior.org> TSA to investigate body scan resister http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/ Rick Comment: So if you get to the security checkpoint and then decide you don't want to go through it, you can't just say "meh, I don't want to fly and leave the airport" -- but you'll be fined? And TSA has the gall to say this policy is to prevent terrorists from gaining information about the checkpoint and leaving the scene? What's to stop them from phoning their buddies once they're inside the terminal??? Do they really think terrorists are that dumb? (of course they do.....) Moreover, If indeed TSA believes that by purchasing an airline ticket we are "giving up some Constitutional rights" that is grounds for even stronger protests and legal actions against the organisation. But if true, airlines should be forced to print a warning on their tickets to that effect.......and the TSA needs to replace their recordings at the checkpoints with Admiral Ackbar warning passengers that "It's A Trap!" --- rick From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 16 07:33:53 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:33:53 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Clues Suggest Stuxnet Virus Was Built for Subtle Nuclear Sabotage Message-ID: Clues Suggest Stuxnet Virus Was Built for Subtle Nuclear Sabotage ? By Kim Zetter ? November 15, 2010 | ? 4:00 pm | ? Categories: Cybersecurity http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/stuxnet-clues/ New and important evidence found in the sophisticated ?Stuxnet? malware targeting industrial control systems provides strong hints that the code was designed to sabotage nuclear plants, and that it employs a subtle sabotage strategy that involves briefly speeding up and slowing down physical machinery at a plant over a span of weeks. ?It indicates that [Stuxnet's creators] wanted to get on the system and not be discovered and stay there for a long time and change the process subtly, but not break it,? says Liam O Murchu, researcher with Symantec Security Response, which published the new information in an updated paper (.pdf) on Friday. The Stuxnet worm was discovered in June in Iran, and has infected more than 100,000 computer systems worldwide. At first blush it appeared to be a standard, if unusually sophisticated, Windows virus designed to steal data, but experts quickly determined it contained targeted code designed to attack Siemens Simatic WinCC SCADA systems. SCADA systems, short for ?supervisory control and data acquisition,? are control systems that manage pipelines, nuclear plants, and various utility and manufacturing equipment. Researchers determined that Stuxnet was designed to intercept commands sent from the SCADA system to control a certain function at a facility, but until Symantec?s latest research it was not known what function was being targeted for sabotage. Symantec still has not determined what specific facility or type of facility Stuxnet targeted, but the new information lends weight to speculation that Stuxnet was targeting the Bushehr or Natanz nuclear facilities in Iran as a means to sabotage Iran?s nascent nuclear program. According to Symantec, Stuxnet targets specific frequency converter drives ? power supplies that are used to control the speed of a device, such as a motor. The malware intercepts commands sent to the drives from the Siemens SCADA software, and replaces them with malicious commands to control the speed of a device, varying it wildly, but intermittently. The malware, however, doesn?t just sabotage any frequency converter. It inventories a plant?s network and only springs to life if the plant has at least 33 frequency converter drives made by Fararo Paya in Teheran, Iran, or by the Finland-based Vacon. Even more specifically, Stuxnet targets only frequency drives from these two companies that are running at high speeds ? between 807Hz and 1210Hz. Such high speeds are used only for select applications. Symantec is careful not to say definitively that Stuxnet was targeting a nuclear facility, but notes that ?frequency converter drives that output over 600Hz are regulated for export in the United States by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as they can be used for uranium enrichment.? ?There?s only a limited number of circumstances where you would want something to spin that quickly -? such as in uranium enrichment,? said O Murchu. ?I imagine there are not too many countries outside of Iran that are using an Iranian device. I can?t imagine any facility in the U.S. using an Iranian device,? he added. The malware appears to have begun infecting systems in January 2009. In July of that year, the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks posted an announcement saying that an anonymous source had disclosed that a ?serious? nuclear incident had recently occurred at Natanz. Information published by the Federation of American Scientists in the United States indicates that something may indeed have occurred to Iran?s nuclear program. Statistics from 2009 show that the number of enriched centrifuges operational in Iran mysteriously declined from about 4,700 to about 3,900 beginning around the time the nuclear incident WikiLeaks mentioned would have occurred. Researchers who have spent months reverse-engineering the Stuxnet code say its level of sophistication suggests that a well-resourced nation-state is behind the attack. It was initially speculated that Stuxnet could cause a real-world explosion at a plant, but Symantec?s latest report makes it appear that the code was designed for subtle sabotage. Additionally, the worm?s pinpoint targeting indicates the malware writers had a specific facility or facilities in mind for their attack, and have extensive knowledge of the system they were targeting. The worm was publicly exposed after VirusBlokAda, an obscure Belarusian security company, found it on computers belonging to a customer in Iran ? the country where the majority of the infections occurred. German researcher Ralph Langner was the first to suggest that the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran was the Stuxnet target. Frank Rieger, chief technology officer at Berlin security firm GSMK, believes it?s more likely that the target in Iran was a nuclear facility in Natanz. The Bushehr reactor is designed to develop non-weapons-grade atomic energy, while the Natanz facility, a centrifuge plant, is designed to enrich uranium and presents a greater risk for producing nuclear weapons. The new information released by Symantec last week supports this speculation. As Symantec points out in its paper, frequency converter drives are used to control the speed of another device -? for example, a motor at a manufacturing facility or power plant. Increase the frequency, and the motor increases in speed. In the case of Stuxnet, the malware is searching for a process module made by Profibus and Profinet International that is communicating with at least 33 frequency converter drives made by either the Iranian firm or the Finnish firm. Stuxnet is very specific about what it does once it finds its target facility. If the number of drives from the Iranian firm exceeds the number from the Finnish firm, Stuxnet unleashes one sequence of events. If the Finnish drives outnumber the Iranian ones, a different sequence is initiated. Once Stuxnet determines it?s infected the targeted system or systems, it begins intercepting commands to the frequency drives, altering their operation. ?Stuxnet changes the output frequency for short periods of time to 1410Hz and then to 2Hz and then to 1064Hz,? writes Symantec?s Eric Chien on the company?s blog. ?Modification of the output frequency essentially sabotages the automation system from operating properly. Other parameter changes may also cause unexpected effects.? ?That?s another indicator that the amount of applications where this would be applicable are very limited,? O Murchu says. ?You would need a process running continuously for more than a month for this code to be able to get the desired effect. Using nuclear enrichment as an example, the centrifuges need to spin at a precise speed for long periods of time in order to extract the pure uranium. If those centrifuges stop to spin at that high speed, then it can disrupt the process of isolating the heavier isotopes in those centrifuges . . . and the final grade of uranium you would get out would be a lower quality.? O Murchu said that there is a long wait time between different stages of malicious processes initiated by the code ? in some cases more than three weeks ? indicating that the attackers were interested in sticking around undetected on the target system, rather than blowing something up in a manner that would get them noticed. ?It wanted to lie there and wait and continuously change how a process worked over a long period of time to change the end results,? O Murchu said. Stuxnet was designed to hide itself from detection so that even if administrators at a targeted facility noticed that something in the facility?s process had changed, they wouldn?t be able to see Stuxnet on their system intercepting and altering commands. Or at least they wouldn?t have seen this, if information about Stuxnet hadn?t been released last July. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 16 11:34:19 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:34:19 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Body Scan Photos Leaked Message-ID: <103C5D4A-536F-4B18-B59D-1BFCFD4712B3@infowarrior.org> One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans http://gizmodo.com/5690749/ At the heart of the controversy over "body scanners" is a promise: The images of our naked bodies will never be public. U.S. Marshals in a Florida Federal courthouse saved 35,000 images on their scanner. These are those images. < - > While the fidelity of the scans from this machine are of surprisingly low resolution, especially compared to the higher resolution "naked scanners" using the potentially harmful x-ray backscatter technology, the TSA and other government agencies have repeatedly touted the quality of "Advanced Imaging Technology" while simultaneously assuring customers that operators "cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image." According to the TSA?and of course other agencies?images from the scanners are "automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer." Whatever the stated policy, it's clear that it is trivial for operators to save images and remove them for distribution if they choose not to follow guidelines or that other employees could remove images that are inappropriately if accidentally stored. To the point, these sample images were removed from the machine in Orlando by the U.S. Marshals for distribution under the FOIA request before the machine was sent back to its manufacturer?images intact. We look forward to seeing your next vacation photos. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 16 11:42:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:42:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - GOP takes aim at airport screening Message-ID: <3EB90780-1CF8-4C27-80E5-D3089D446E9B@infowarrior.org> Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent November 15, 2010 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html TSA Transportation Security Officers, in blue uniforms, screen airline passenger as they check-in at Washington's Ronald Reagan National Airport, Monday, Nov. 15, 2010. U.S. officials are defending new anti-terrorism security procedures at the nation's airports that some travelers complain are overly invasive and intimate. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP) Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice. Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law." In addition to being large, impersonal, and top-heavy, what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what those critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," says Mica. "It's a big Kabuki dance." Now, the dance has gotten completely out of hand. And like lots of fliers -- I spoke to him as he waited for a flight at the Orlando airport -- Mica sees TSA's new "naked scanner" machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security. For example, many security experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT -- Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country. The problem is, they're doing it all wrong. A recent General Accountability Office study found that TSA "deployed SPOT nationwide without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment." They haven't settled on the standards needed to stop bad actors. "It's not an Israeli model, it's a TSA, screwed-up model," says Mica. "It should actually be the person who's looking at the ticket and talking to the individual. Instead, they've hired people to stand around and observe, which is a bastardization of what should be done." In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure. Mica and other critics in Congress want to see quick and meaningful changes in the way TSA works. They go back to the days just after Sept. 11, when there was a hot debate about whether the new passenger-screening force would be federal employees, as most Democrats wanted, or private contractors, as most Republicans wanted. Democrats won and TSA has been growing ever since. But the law did allow a test program in which five airports were allowed to use private contractors. A number of studies done since then have shown that contractors perform a bit better than federal screeners, and they're also more flexible and open to innovation. (The federal government pays the cost of screening whether performed by the TSA or by contractors, and contractors work under federal supervision.) TSA critics know a federal-to-private change won't solve all of the problems with airport security. But it might create the conditions under which some of those problems could indeed be fixed. With passenger anger overflowing and new leadership in the House, something might finally get done. Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork at washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 16 12:45:44 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:45:44 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?TSA_Now_Putting_Hands_Down_Flier?= =?windows-1252?q?s=92_Pants?= Message-ID: <81344D58-0939-4B68-B9A1-EDF9B457F246@infowarrior.org> TSA Now Putting Hands Down Fliers? Pants Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Infowars.com November 16, 2010 http://www.infowars.com/tsa-now-putting-hands-down-fliers-pants/ The TSA?s invasive new screening measures include officers literally putting their hands down people?s pants if they are wearing baggy clothing in a shocking new elevation of groping procedures that have stoked a nationwide revolt against privacy-busting airport security measures. Forget John Tyner?s ?don?t touch my junk? experience at the hands of TSA goons in San Diego recently, another victim of Big Sis was told by TSA officials that it was now policy to go even further when dealing with people wearing loose pants or shorts. Going through airport security this past weekend, radio host Owen JJ Stone, known as ?OhDoctah,? related how he was told that the rules had been changed and was offered a private screening. When he asked what the procedure entailed, the TSA agent responded, ?I have to go in your waistband, I have to put my hand down your pants,? after which he did precisely that. Stone chose to conduct the search in public in the fear that the TSA worker would be even more aggressive in a private room. ?If you?re wearing sweat pants or baggy clothing, I was wearing sweat pants they?re not baggy, they?re sweat pants,? said Stone, adding that the agent pulled out his waistband before patting his backside and his crotch. Even the TSA agent who put his hands down the man?s pants was embarrassed at what he had been told to do by his superiors, apologizing profusely to the victim. A 54-year-old Missouri City man experienced similar treatment when he was going through security at Fort Lauderdale Airport. Thomas Mollman was subject to a groping by a TSA officer that was tantamount to sexual molestation. ?I was wearing shorts at the time ? between the underwear, right on the skin, all the way around the back, all the way around my front, 360 degrees, touched inappropriately,? he said. ?This was an assault. This was no different than a sexual assault,? said KTRK Legal Analyst Joel Androphy. The level of abuse appears to be getting worse on an almost daily basis. First TSA agents use the back of their hands, then they outright grope you with the front, and now they are being trained to put their hands down traveler?s pants. What?s next? Mandatory bodily probes? Even as the resistance to airport oppression grows, Big Sis and the TSA are responding by making the pat down procedures more invasive. Napolitano has figuratively said to the American people ?let them eat cake? as she slaps them in the face. Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad) Given the fact that the TSA?s own woeful background checks for their own employees allows rapists and pedophiles to get jobs as pat down agents, will you allow TSA workers to put their hands down the pants of your daughter or wife? From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 16 15:00:27 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:00:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Security Haikus Message-ID: <5E756C88-0BE7-4C92-909C-98755BD27FFB@infowarrior.org> Schneier's blog is open for security-oriented haikus about TSA, fear, and so forth. Some of them are pretty good, albeit depressing. Security Haiku http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/security_haiku.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 16 16:59:53 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:59:53 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Contact info: TSA Hearing 11/17 Message-ID: http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2010/11/senate-tsa-oversight-hearing-wed-nov-17.html#tp November 16, 2010 Senate TSA Oversight Hearing -- Wed Nov 17 The Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security will hold a Transportation Security Administration Oversight Hearing tomorrow. For more info: Jena Longo - Democratic Deputy Communications Director, (202) 224-8374 Nov 17 2010 - 10 AM Russell Senate Office Building - 253 The committee chair is Sen Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) phone (202) 224-6472. The ranking member is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison 202-224-5922. The subcommittee chair is Sen Byron L. Dorgon (D-ND) phone (202) 224-2551. The ranking member is Sen Jim DeMint (R-SC) phone (202) 224-6121. Regardless of your home state, call the chairpersons to ask whether recent TSA abuses are on the agenda for the oversight hearing. Ask to speak with the staffer responsible for dealing with issues related to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Here's a list of committee members, their homepages, and phone numbers. If one of these people is your Senator, please also phone them, either at the number below or look online to find their nearest local office; or you can visit in person. A constituent who knows a senator's committee assignments and addresses issues for the agenda for a scheduled hearing gives him/herself an educated and powerful voice. If none of these people is your senator, contact the committee chairs. Also contact your own senators and representative . They still need to hear your opinion, it's just that they won't be at this hearing. D-AK Mark Begich (202) 224-3004 D-AR Mark Pryor (202) 224-2353 D-CA Barbara Boxer (202) 224-3553 D-FL Bill Nelson 202-224-5274 D-HI Daniel K. Inouye (202) 224.3934 D-MA John F. Kerry [(202) 224-2742 D-MN Amy Klobuchar 202-224-3244 D-MO Claire McCaskill 202-224-6154 D-ND Byron L. Dorgon phone (202) 224-2551 D-NJ Frank R. Lautenberg (973) 639-8700, (888) 398-1642 D-NM Tom Udall (202) 224-6621 D-VA Mark Warner 202-224-2023 D-WA Maria Cantwell 202-224-3441 D-WV Jay Rockefeller (202) 224-6472 R-FL George S. LeMieux (202) 224-3041 R-GA Johnny Isakson (202) 224-3643 R-KS Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521 R-LA David Vitter (202) 224-4623 R-ME Olympia J. Snowe (202) 224-5344, (800) 432-1599 R-MS Roger F. Wicker 202-224-6253 R-NE Mike Johanns (202) 224-4224 R-NV John Ensign (202) 224-6244 R-SC Jim DeMint phone (202) 224-6121 R-SD John Thune (202) 224-2321, 1-866-850-3855 R-TX Kay Bailey Hutchison 202-224-5922 This link has information on committee staff, as well. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 17 09:14:28 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:14:28 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA Hit With Lawsuits As Revolt Explodes Message-ID: TSA Hit With Lawsuits As Revolt Explodes http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-hit-with-lawsuits-as-revolt-explodes.html Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Wednesday, November 17, 2010 The TSA has been hit with a number of lawsuits as the revolt against Big Sis, naked body scanners, and invasive groping measures explodes, with one case involving a woman who had her blouse pulled down in full public view by TSA goons who then proceeded to laugh and joke about her exposed breasts. Nationwide outrage against the TSA is not only bringing to light new cases of airport abuse, it?s throwing fresh attention on previous incidents that have been going on for years. One of the most disturbing, which is subject to an ongoing lawsuit, involved a 21-year-old college student from Amarillo Texas. The woman was passing through security at Corpus Christi airport on May 29 2008 when she was subjected to ?extended search procedures? by the TSA. ?As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff?s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs? breasts to everyone in the area,? the lawsuit said. ?As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.? TSA workers continued to laugh and joke about the incident ?for an extended period of time,? leaving the woman distraught and needing to be consoled. After the woman re-entered the boarding area, TSA workers continued to humiliate her over the incident. ?One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that ?he would just have to watch the video,?? the suit said. The woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA but was forced to launch a full lawsuit after the agency failed to respond. The incident bears similarities to a 2002 case involving a pregnant woman who had her breasts exposed by TSA agents in public. Her husband was thrown in the airport jail for complaining about the treatment of his wife. Another lawsuit against the TSA involves Ron Corbett, a businessman and frequent traveler who is so infuriated by the plethora of cases where TSA workers have sexually groped passengers, squeezing breasts and genitals, that he has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami requesting an injunction against the TSA to prevent them from touching private areas without reasonable suspicion. Corbett writes about his lawsuit on a blog entitled TSA Out Of Our Pants. ?Having grown up in New York and personally seeing the smoke rise from the towers that morning in 2001, I know the threat of terrorism is real, and I know we must defend ourselves. This does not mean that the Constitution should be ignored, and indeed, the TSA has plenty of alternative screening procedures that are less invasive. Besides the privacy issue, there have been health issues raised as to the radiation produced by the imaging devices, as well as efficacy issues, with no good studies having been done to show that this imagery makes us any safer,? writes Corbett. Yet another lawsuit involves The Rutherford Institute, which is suing the feds on behalf of two pilots over the use of full body scanners. ?Those pilots recently refused to go through a controversial whole body imaging scanner, and also refused the alternative, the TSA?s new, more invasive pat downs,? reports CBS 6. The lawsuit, which personally names both TSA chief John Pistole and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, argues that the scanners violate the Constitution?s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment. The TSA could also be hit with a fourth lawsuit if they pursue an $11,000 claim against John Tyner, otherwise known as ?don?t touch my junk guy?. Speaking on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Tyner insisted he would file a counter lawsuit if the TSA continued to pursue him over his refusal to submit to an airport groping. Another victim, radio host Owen JJ Stone, who had a TSA agent put his hand inside his pants and touch his backside and genitalia, has not indicated he will pursue charges, but has vowed instead to use his treatment as an example of why the TSA needs to be stopped in its tracks or abolished altogether. Pistole faces another grilling from lawmakers today on Capitol Hill at a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 17 09:16:51 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - EDITORIAL: Big Sister's police state Message-ID: (Interesting - usually the WashingtonTimes is the bastion of pro-security rhetoric. Nice to see there's truly bipartisan outrage over this. Fingers crossed it leads to some major positive changes to the system for *everyone* and not just a lucky few. --- rick) EDITORIAL: Big Sister's police state TSA's tyrannical tactics threaten American freedoms By THE WASHINGTON TIMES 8:01 p.m., Tuesday, November 16, 2010 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/16/big-sisters-police-state/ The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has crossed the line. As if subjecting millions of Americans to X-rated x-ray scans and public groping sessions weren't bad enough, the agency now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport. Oceanside, Calif., resident John Tyner found this out after he posted on YouTube a video of his degrading encounter with TSA screeners. Mr. Tyner's catchy phrase, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," spread quickly, thanks to attention provided by the Drudge Report. TSA was not amused, and an official announced Monday that Mr. Tyner faces punishment for leaving the airport without submitting to the high-tech or low-tech molestation options. The term is not used lightly. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 2244, " 'sexual contact' means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade." It's no coincidence that TSA initiated sexual-contact pat-downs after fliers began to refuse the pornographic scanners. There can be no question that when threats of civil punishment are used to ensure compliance, those encounters with the TSA lose their status as a voluntary transaction. It's even more outrageous that these unnecessary searches are being conducted on children. There's also no doubt that some rogue TSA agents seek self-gratification at the expense of passengers. In January, a TSA agent planted white powder in the bags of passengers, according to documents posted on the Smoking Gun website. Apparently, scaring members of the public into thinking they were being busted for smuggling drugs made for a good "joke." The new screening rules open yet more opportunities for the worst elements at TSA. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists that anyone who has a problem with the state of affairs simply shouldn't fly. Unelected bureaucrats like Ms. Napolitano - known across the blogosphere as Big Sister - have no business making decisions that touch upon such a fundamental right as the ability of innocent citizens to travel freely. In Ms. Napolitano's view, Americans wishing to visit family and friends across the country exercise a privilege granted by the government. Air travel is no longer a free transaction between a member of the public and an airline. Once freedom at airports is "locked down," it's inevitable that TSA will next target buses, trains and the Metro. After all, al Qaeda has attacked each of these modes of transportation in other parts of the world. Strict controls on internal travel is the hallmark of a police state. No matter how invasive TSA searches become, there's no guarantee anything the agency does will prevent a terrorist attack. A balance must be struck between reasonable security measures and the maintenance of a free society. These decisions cannot be made by Obama administration officials without involving the public in the discussions. Many Tea Party candidates standing for election earlier this month promised they were going to "take our country back." Stopping TSA would be a good first step. ? Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 17 15:35:48 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:35:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - GOP lawmaker says naked body scanners violate Fourth Amendment Message-ID: GOP lawmaker says naked body scanners violate Fourth Amendment By David Edwards Wednesday, November 17th, 2010 -- 12:43 pm http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/gop-lawmaker-naked-body-scanners-violate-fourth-amendment/ The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is violating the Fourth Amendment by forcing travelers to submit to scans that produce images of the naked body, according to one Republican congressman from Texas. Speaking on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Ted Poe blasted former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for his links to one of the companies that makes the equipment, The Hill reported. Poe claimed President George W. Bush's former DHS secretary had given interviews advocating for the scanners while "getting paid" to sell them. "There is no evidence these new body scanners make us more secure. But there is evidence that former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made money hawking these full body scanners," Poe said. "[T]he populace is giving up more rights in the name of alleged security. These body scanners are a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures ... There must be a better way to have security at airports than taking pornographic photographs of our citizens, including children, and then giving apparent kickbacks to political hacks." Since the attempted bombing on Christmas Day of last year, Chertoff has given dozens of interviews promoting the technology. Chertoff admitted to CNN that one of the clients of his consulting agency, The Chertoff Group, is a company that manufactures the scanners. In January, an airport passengers' rights group took on Chertoff. "Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, told The Washington Post. Taking the floor after Poe, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) also went after Chertoff. "A nationwide revolt is developing over the body scanners at the airports and it should," Duncan said. "Hundreds of thousands of frequent fliers who fly each week are upset of getting these frequent doses of radiation. Parents are upset about being forced to have their children radiated or being touched inappropriately by an unrelated adult." "This is much more about money than it is about security. The former secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, represents Rapid Scan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department," Duncan continued. "The American people should not have to choose between having full body radiation or a very embarrassing intrusive pat-down every time they fly as if they were criminals. We need a little more balance and common sense on this," he said. Some travelers have also been outraged by the new security policies. On man trying to board a plane at San Diego International Airport threatened to have a screener arrested. "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested," the man, who blogs as Johnny Edge, said to agents. "I felt what they were doing was a sexual assault, and that if they were anyone but the government, the act would be illegal," Edge wrote. But travelers may have good reason to avoid the scanners. A group of scientists warned Friday that the scanning process may actually be dangerous. "They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP. "No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner," he said. A new CBS poll released Tuesday showed that a large majority of Americans agree with use of the technique. Only 15 percent of respondents said they were opposed to the use of body scanners, with four out of five saying they're in favor. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, which held a hearing on the issue, was quick to support the "difficult" and "sensitive" effort, maintaining "it is necessary" to ensure aviation safety. "This is unfortunately the world in which we live," Lieberman told the hearing on air cargo security, held in the wake of an attempted cargo plane bombing that originated from an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group in Yemen. John Pistole, administrator of the TSA, told lawmakers that he thought "everybody who gets on a flight wants to be sure the people around them have been properly screened." This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast Nov. 17, 2010. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 17 15:52:02 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Case Against COICA Message-ID: <855CF74B-5847-4214-A915-8FE151D18A95@infowarrior.org> November 16th, 2010 The Case Against COICA Legislative Analysis by Peter Eckersley https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/case-against-coica In September, digital rights advocates and Internet engineers helped to delay the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), a terrible bill that would have allowed the Attorney General to censor the Internet in the name of copyright enforcement. Now that the November elections are over, COICA is back on the Senate Judiciary Committee schedule for markup this Thursday and could pass out of committee during the "lame duck" session of Congress. To recap, COICA gives the government dramatic new copyright enforcement powers, in particular the ability to make entire websites disappear from the Internet if infringement, or even links to infringement, are deemed to be ?central? to the purpose of the site. Rather than just targeting files that actually infringe copyright law, COICA's "nuclear-option" design has the government blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system ? a reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech. Despite some amendments at the end of last session, COICA remains disastrously bad. Here are some of the reasons why: This bill won't help creators get paid when their work is distributed online. In fact, it will do the opposite. The best way to help artists of every stripe get compensated for their work is to make sure that there is a thriving marketplace of innovative digital businesses to pay them. We already have examples of businesses like Pandora, YouTube, and Amazon Music that are paying real money to artists. And new innovators are heatedly working to create new services that will allow artists to engage fans and raise revenue in new and exciting ways. (See: Kickstarter, Bandcamp, Topspin, CASH Music, Flattr, Choruss, and the list goes on.) But the next generation of these businesses is seriously threatened by this bill, which will be used by Hollywood and the music industry to kill websites that they regard as too unrestrictive. Had COICA been law five years ago, platforms like YouTube might not exist today. The YouTube of 2006 and 2007 offered a home to an unprecedented explosion of artistic creativity. But users also uploaded lots of unlicensed video, and a court could well have been persuaded that infringement was "central" to its purpose. YouTube would never have been able to grow to the point where it could strike deals with the big media companies if it had been blacklisted at the outset. Instead of passing dangerous anti-innovation bills like COICA, Congress should be working to clear the licensing roadblocks that make it hard for new businesses and new models to emerge, thrive, and pay creators. This is a censorship bill, with a blacklist and everything. Hollywood's previous adventures with blacklists were a dark period in American history. This time, it's not people suspected of being too communist, it's websites suspected of being too "piratical." Senator Leahy is leading the government into the swamp of trying to decide which websites should be blacklisted and which ones shouldn't, and they're going to discover that the line between copyright infringement and free political speech can be awfully murky. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) copyright enforcement provisions give copyright owners the relatively narrow power to remove just their copyrighted content from a website. Even then, there have been numerous mistakes, mishaps, and abuses of that narrow takedown system to censor legitimate speech online. Now imagine the mistakes, mishaps, and abuses we'll see with COICA's broader, government-initiated, domain-wide takedowns. The bill will undermine the Internet's Domain Name System and massively increase data traffic costs. As Internet engineers warned in an open letter in September, COICA will cause serious long-term problems for the Domain Name System (DNS), which translates names like "www.foxnews.com" into IP addresses like "216.35.221.76". Today, there is very little controversial censorship occurring in the global DNS, though countries like China and Iran are exceptions. If the United States government begins to use its control of critical DNS infrastructure to police alleged copyright infringement, it is very likely that a large percentage of the Internet will shift to alternative DNS mechanisms that are located outside the US. This will cause several indirect but serious problems: ? Inconsistencies between the current official DNS hierarchy and the new censorship-free alternatives. As new domains are added to the official hierarchy, propagation delay inconsistencies will inevitably cause non-blacklisted websites to be unreachable at various times. ? Currently, almost all high-traffic websites use content delivery networks like Akamai, Limelight, EdgeCast and AmazonAWS to ensure that data never has to travel long physical distances over the network before it gets to your web browser. Because COICA will lead to the widespread adoption of encrypted offshore DNS and other tunneling systems, it will get harder for CDNs to send clients to the right server. Instead of connecting to a data center in their own US city, people will be just as likely to connect to one in Europe or Asia. While modeling is urgently required to establish the precise consequences, this effect could easily result in an increase of 20% or more in the cost of Internet backbone infrastructure. ? Cybersecurity problems will grow.Currently, ISPs are in a position to keep DNS servers well-maintained and secure, to the benefit of their users. As a large percentage of the population moves to encrypted offshore DNS -- to escape the censoring effects of the procedures outlined in COICA -- those alternative DNS systems will become targets for security attacks. COICA will also complicate the urgently needed process of DNSSEC deployment. The bill is an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech and a threat to innovation. When a domain is taken offline, everything on that domain is taken offline, including non-infringing speech and valuable innovation. Under current law, Hollywood already has powerful tools to police online infringement, such as the DMCA takedown process, that were the result of years of negotiation and include protections against abuse. COICA, by contrast, is being pushed though without adequate review or attention to its dangerous effects. This bill does not merit passage to the full Senate. Neither the Judiciary Committee nor the entertainment industry should be standing behind legislation that meddles so deeply with the Internet's architecture and is so broadly hostile to freedom of speech and innovation. Instead, we need to focus on clearing the licensing roadblocks that are preventing businesses, new and old alike, from offering any paid, legal services that are as comprehensive as the allegedly infringing ones. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 08:52:52 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:52:52 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Anti-Piracy Lawyers Knew They Targeted Innocent Victims Message-ID: Anti-Piracy Lawyers Knew They Targeted Innocent Victims Written by enigmax on November 18, 2010 http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-lawyers-knew-they-targeted-innocent-victims-101118/ Davenport Lyons, the law firm which pioneered the lucrative file-sharing pay-up-or-else scheme in the UK, will head off to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings next year. According to details just made available, among other things Davenport Lyons partners were responsible for knowingly targeting the innocent and relied on unreliable evidence in doing so. Back in 2007 when law firm Davenport Lyons went to the press with news of their ?landmark? court victory against a woman they accused of illicit file-sharing, they had high hopes of great things to follow. The case, which turned out to be something of a damp squib, was the metaphorical head-on-a-pike the company needed to kick-start a new scheme. The plan was simple enough. Capture IP-addresses of alleged file-sharers, discover their identities through the courts and send them letters demanding money to make non-existent court cases and huge fines go away. Profit. However, with the help of online forums and consumer groups like Which? and BeingThreatened.com, letter recipients mounted an impressive fight back. Instead of continuing ahead unhindered, Davenport Lyons found themselves the subject of a Solicitors Regulatory Authority investigation. The SRA later referred the case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. That hearing will go ahead in May next year, but thanks to papers seen by the Solicitors Journal, today we have a sneak preview of the claims being made against partners David Gore and Brian Miller. According to the SRA, Gore and Miller ? who have since left the company ? were responsible for litigating against thousands of Internet users they claim were illegal file-sharers, even though they were aware that they had no reliable evidence to support their claims. ?Each of the respondents knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach,? says the SRA?s statement. Interestingly, although Davenport Lyons and their copyright-holding partners in this business such as Topware, DigiProtect, CodeMasters, Reality Pump, Techland and Atari were all in these schemes together and knew precisely how they operate, the SRA has decided that Gore and Miller put the interests of Davenport Lyons before the interests of their clients. By sending out letters to people they knew could be innocent, Gore and Miller disregarded the harm their actions could have on their clients? reputations. This constituted a breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct say the SRA. For those familiar with how these schemes operate, the irony here is overwhelming. Furthermore, as has become apparent in recent months through various leaked documents, around 20 to 35% of letter recipients paid Davenport Lyons the money they asked for. The SRA claims that Gore and Miller encouraged litigation in order to secure revenue for their company. Referring to a letter Davenport Lyons sent to one of its clients where it was discussed how money would be shared, the SRA statement says: ?The reference to ?revenue share? indicates that the respondents were regarding the scheme which they were operating as a revenue generating scheme.? The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing will go ahead in May 2011 and will last for 7 days. ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley will be watching more closely than most ? the date when he has to face the Tribunal is yet to be decided. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 08:53:42 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:53:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DA promises to prosecute overly touchy pat downs Message-ID: <0365DFFD-352A-43B7-98CF-1414C0A7365D@infowarrior.org> (c/o anonymous) http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=7793386 SAN MATEO COUNTY, Calif. (KGO) -- The San Mateo district attorney's office has a warning for all TSA personnel at SFO -- anyone inappropriately touching a passenger during a security pat down will be prosecuted. Incoming San Mateo DA Steve Wagstaffe says any complaints of inappropriate touching during an airport security pat down will land on his desk. "The case would be reviewed and if we could prove the elements of it, that it was inappropriately done with a sexual or lewd intent, that person would be prosecuted," he said. The charge -- sexual battery. "If it is skin to skin, if someone were to take their hand and put it underneath somebody's blouse and touch someone inappropriately and go skin to skin, that's a felony, and if it's done simply over the clothing, according to California law, that's a misdemeanor," Wagstaffe said. More pat down searches are expected because some passengers are refusing to go through the image scanning device. Homeland Security announced more scanners are on the way as part of the enhanced security measures at all airports. Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano has said a passenger's privacy is protected. "We built privacy concerns into the procedures when they were deployed," she said. Not all travelers are buying Napolitano's claim. "It's ridiculous and it's not safer, they are just doing it to have us more fearful and there is no reason for it," passenger Cathlyn Daley But many passengers at SFO do not mind the enhanced security. "I would much rather go through a little uncomfortableness and know that I will be safe or a least know that everything was done to protect me," passenger Suzanne Beaty said. A few however, do. "A stranger groping you basically," passenger David Barth said. Passengers should know once they go through security, a TSA officer can ask them to submit to a pat down. "At that point somewhere in that process you get to a point where you can't withdraw and you will be searched whether you like it or not," ABC7 legal analyst Dean Johnson said. Wagstaffe has yet to receive a complaint. SFO security screeners work for a company contracted by the TSA but undergo the same training and comply with the same regulations as TSA employees. As for the assurance that the images from body scanners are never saved, tech blog Gizmodo obtained 100 saved photos after filing a request through the Freedom of Information Act, just a few of the 35,000 photos that were stored on a machine at the federal courthouse in Miami. Gizmodo eliminated identifying features before posting them, but the pictures demonstrate the security issues still being worked out with the machines. (Copyright ?2010 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.) From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 08:55:45 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:55:45 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA violates US code? Message-ID: <2D3FC3B3-D945-414A-9D19-4E899D61B556@infowarrior.org> (c/o anonymous) --- though I gather the TSA defense will be "this is necessary for state security" and their actions are "more important" than pesky legal protections. -- rick People are scared to fly with their kids ?. But US code protects us. 18 USC Sec. 2244 or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person's permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. I decided to look up the exact US code for sexual abuse. I remembered a earlier arrest of a New Jersey man for sexually assaulting 2 women on a flight. Here is the link http://wireupdate.com/wires/2218/new-jersey-man-charged-for-alleged-sexual-assault-aboard-continental-flight/ The charge alleged in the complaint, ?knowingly engaging in and causing sexual contact with another person without the person?s permission, while in the maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, including the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, a violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2244 (b) and Title 49, U.S. Code, Section 46506 (1), carries a statutory maximum penalty of 2 years in federal prison per count. He was last sent to federal custody Here is the laws concerning Sexual Contact 18 USC Sec. 2244 STATUTE (a) Sexual Conduct in Circumstances Where Sexual Acts Are Punished by This Chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (1) subsection (a) or (b) of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection (a) of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; (4) subsection (b) of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; or (5) subsection (c) of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person's permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (c) Offenses Involving Young Children. - If the sexual contact that violates this section (other than subsection (a)(5)) is with an individual who has not attained the age of 12 years, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for the offense shall be twice that otherwise provided in this section. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 09:46:24 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:46:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Orlando Airport opts out of TSA screening Message-ID: Sanford Airport to opt out of TSA screening Marva Hinton @ November 18, 2010 6:25 AM Permalink | Comments (253) Reporter: Ken Tyndall http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html The backlash continues over those new TSA screening measures, and now one Central Florida airport has decided to go with a private security screening firm. Orlando Sanford International Airport has decided to opt out from TSA screening. "All of our due diligence shows it's the way to go," said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. "You're going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service." Dale says he will be sending a letter requesting to opt out from TSA screening, and instead the airport will choose one of the five approved private screening companies to take over. Congressman John Mica, who's expected to lead the powerful Transportation Committee next year, says the TSA is crying out for reform. "I think TSA is overstepping its bounds," said Mica. Dale says, if all goes as planned, the private security firm could take over in about 12 months. The TSA points out that even if an airport decides to use a private firm for security, the screeners still must follow TSA guidelines. That would include using the full body scanners if they are installed at the airport. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 09:51:12 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:51:12 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - A First For Infowarrior-L Message-ID: <875AABA4-9AF2-4C8E-ADE0-AA699CAB1C15@infowarrior.org> I believe this is the first column I have reposted by Ann Coulter, and the first time that I've pretty much agreed with her tone and content. (as a result, the rapture will begin once you open this message...the end is nigh!!!) --- rick Napolitano: The Ball's In My Court Now by Ann Coulter 11/17/2010 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40058 After the 9/11 attacks, when 19 Muslim terrorists -- 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon, 14 with "al" in their names -- took over commercial aircraft with box-cutters, the government banned sharp objects from planes. Airport security began confiscating little old ladies' knitting needles and breaking the mouse-sized nail files off of passengers' nail clippers. Surprisingly, no decrease in the number of hijacking attempts by little old ladies and manicurists was noted. After another Muslim terrorist, Richard Reid, AKA Tariq Raja, AKA Abdel Rahim, AKA Abdul Raheem, AKA Abu Ibrahim, AKA Sammy Cohen (which was only his eHarmony alias), tried to blow up a commercial aircraft with explosive-laden sneakers, the government prohibited more than 3 ounces of liquid from being carried on airplanes. All passengers were required to take off their shoes for special security screening, which did not thwart a single terrorist attack, but made airport security checkpoints a lot smellier. After Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate explosive material in his underwear over Detroit last Christmas, the government began requiring nude body scans at airports. The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, no hijackers were stopped, but being able to see passengers in the nude boosted the morale of airport security personnel by 22 percent. After explosives were inserted in two ink cartridges and placed on a plane headed to the United States from the Muslim nation of Yemen, the government banned printer cartridges from all domestic flights, resulting in no improvement in airport security, while requiring ink cartridges who traveled to take Amtrak. So when the next Muslim terrorist, probably named Abdul Ahmed al Shehri, places explosives in his anal cavity, what is the government going to require then? (If you're looking for a good investment opportunity, might I suggest rubber gloves?) Last year, a Muslim attempting to murder Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of Saudi Arabia blew himself up with a bomb stuck up his anus. Fortunately, this didn't happen near an airport, or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would now be requiring full body cavity searches to fly. You can't stop a terrorist attack by searching for the explosives any more than you can stop crime by taking away everyone's guns. In the 1970s, liberal ideas on crime swept the country. Gun owners were treated like criminals while actual criminals were coddled and released. If only we treated criminals with dignity and respect and showed them the system was fair, liberals told us, criminals would reward us with good behavior. As is now well known, crime exploded in the '70s. It took decades of conservative law-and-order policies to get crime back to near-1950s levels. It's similarly pointless to treat all Americans as if they're potential terrorists while trying to find and confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon. We can't search all passengers for explosives because Muslims stick explosives up their anuses. (Talk about jobs Americans just won't do.) You have to search for the terrorists. Fortunately, that's the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists are swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males. (Think: "Guys Madonna would date.") This would give us a major leg up -- if only the country weren't insane. Is there any question that we'd be looking for Swedes if the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber and the printer cartridge bomber had all been Swedish? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn't we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance? Only because the terrorists are Muslims do we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes. It would be harder to find Swedes or Irish boarding commercial airliners in the U.S. than Muslims. Swarthy foreigners stand out like a sore thumb in an airport. The American domestic flying population is remarkably homogenous. An airport is not a Sears department store. Only about a third of all Americans flew even once in the last year, and only 7 percent took more than four round trips. The majority of airline passengers are middle-aged, middle-class, white businessmen with about a million frequent flier miles. I'd wager that more than 90 percent of domestic air travelers were born in the U.S. If the government did nothing more than have a five-minute conversation with the one passenger per flight born outside the U.S., you'd need 90 percent fewer Transportation Security Administration agents and airlines would be far safer than they are now. Instead, Napolitano just keeps ordering more invasive searches of all passengers, without exception -- except members of Congress and government officials, who get VIP treatment, so they never know what she's doing to the rest of us. Two weeks ago, Napolitano ordered TSA agents to start groping women's breasts and all passengers' genitalia -- children, nuns and rape victims, everyone except government officials and members of Congress. (Which is weird because Dennis Kucinich would like it.) "Please have your genitalia out and ready to be fondled when you approach the security checkpoint." This is the punishment for refusing the nude body scan for passengers who don't want to appear nude on live video or are worried about the skin cancer risk of the machines -- risks acknowledged by the very Johns Hopkins study touted by the government. It is becoming increasingly obvious that we need to keep the government as far away from airport security as possible, and not only because Janet Napolitano did her graduate work in North Korea. # # # # # Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 18:24:23 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:24:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ron Paul's TSA speech ... he gets it right Message-ID: <541A0C07-D93F-4969-97EE-791DDAC0BB82@infowarrior.org> http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-11-17/ron-paul-to-tsa-stop-radiating-our-bodies-and-fondling-our-children/ Ron Paul introduced the ?American Traveler Dignity Act? (HR 6416) with the following words. (This is a transcript of his actual speech.) Ron Paul: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise this evening to announce that I introduced some legislation today dealing with the calamity that we have found at our airports with TSA. Something has to be done. Everybody is fed up. The people are fed up, the pilots are fed up, I?m fed up. You know, I?ve come to this floor many times over the past many years and complained about the terrible foreign policy we?ve had, the terrible monetary policy we?ve had, the excessive spending and the debt and also the tax policy. But what we?re doing and what we?re accepting in putting up with at this airport is so symbolic of us just not standing up and saying, ?Enough is enough?. I know the American people are starting to wake up, but our government, those in charge ? Congress as well as the executive branch ? are doing nothing. Yes, they?re talking about maybe backing off and allowing the pilots to go through. But can you think how silly the whole thing is? The pilot has a gun in the cockpit, and he?s managing this aircraft, which is a missile, and we make him go through this groping x-ray exercise, having people feeling their underwear. It?s absurd, and it?s time we wake up. The bill I?ve introduced will take care of this. But we have to realize that the real problem is that the American people have been too submissive, we have been too submissive. It?s been going on for a long time, and this was to be expected even from the beginning of the TSA and it?s deeply flawed. Private property should be protected by private individuals, not bureaucrats. But the bill that I?ve introduced will take care of it. It?s very simple, it?s one paragraph long. It removes the immunity from anybody in the federal government that does anything that you or I can?t do. If you can?t grope another person and if you can?t x-ray people and endanger them with possible x-rays, you can?t take nude photographs of individuals, why do we allow the government to do it? We would go to jail. He?d be immediately arrested if an individual citizen went out and did these things, and yet we just sit there calmly and say, ?Oh, they?re making us safe?. And, besides, the argument from the executive branch is that when you buy a ticket, you have sacrificed your rights, and it is the duty of the government to make us safe. That isn?t the case. You never have to sacrifice your rights. The duty of the government is to protect our rights, not to abuse them and do what they have been doing to us. The pilots hopefully will be exempted from this. But another suggestion I have that might help us: let?s make sure that every member of Congress goes through this. Get the x-ray and make them look at the pictures, and then go through one of those groping pat downs. And then I think there will be a difference. Have everybody in the executive branch, anybody who is a cabinet member, make them go through it and look at it. Maybe they would pay more attention. But this doesn?t work, this is not what makes us safer, this is preposterous to think that the TSA has made us safer. You know, when you think about it, if you look at what?s happened over the past 10 years, during this last decade, we lost 3000 on a terrible, terrible day for America. But since that time in this last decade, we have also lost 6,000 of our military personnel going over there and trying to rectify this problem. We have lost 400,000 people on our government-run highways. We have lost 150,000 individuals from homicides. So I think there?s reason to be concerned, reason to deal with this problem. We?re not dealing with it the right way, we?re doing the wrong thing, and groping people at the airport doesn?t solve our problems. What has solved our problems, basically, has been that they put a good lock on the door and they put a gun inside the cockpit. That?s been the greatest boon to our safety. Safety should be the responsibility of the individual and the private property owner. But right now, we assume the government?s always going to take care of us and we?re supposed to sacrifice our liberties. I say that is wrong, we are not safer and we also know there are individuals who are making money of this. Michael Chertoff; I mean, here?s a guy who was the head of the TSA ? selling the equipment. And the equipment is questionable; we don?t even know if it works, and it may well be dangerous to our health. You know, the way I see this; if this doesn?t change, I see what has happened to the American people is we have accepted the notion that we should be treated like cattle. ?Make us safe, make us secure, put us into barbed wire, feed us, fatten us up?, and then they?ll eat us. And we?re a bunch of cattle if we have to wait and say, ?We?ve had it?. I think this whole idea of an opt-out day is just great. We ought to opt-out and make the point, get somebody to watch it and take a camera, it?s time for the American people to stand up, shrug off the shackles of our government and TSA at the airport. These are Ron Paul?s prepared remarks: Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation?s airports. We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled. We do not know the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines. In one recent well-publicized case, a TSA official is recorded during an attempted body search saying, ?By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.? I strongly disagree and am sure I am not alone in believing that we Americans should never give up our rights in order to travel. As our Declaration of Independence states, our rights are inalienable. This TSA version of our rights looks more like the ?rights? granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens ? right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms. The incident of the so-called ?underwear bomber? last Christmas is given as justification for the billions of dollars the federal government is spending on the new full-body imaging machines, but a Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane. Additionally, there have been recent press reports calling into question the accuracy and adequacy of these potentially dangerous machines. My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries. I warned at the time of the creation of the TSA that an unaccountable government entity in control of airport security would provide neither security nor defend our basic freedom to travel. Yet the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats then in Congress willingly voted to create another unaccountable, bullying agency? in a simple-minded and unprincipled attempt to appease public passion in the wake of 9-11. Sadly, as we see with the steady TSA encroachment on our freedom and dignity, my fears in 2001 were justified. The solution to the need for security at US airports is not a government bureaucracy. The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property. As a recent article in Forbes magazine eloquently stated, ?The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.? In the meantime, I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 18:28:31 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:28:31 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - News flash: Deadly terrorism existed before 9/11 Message-ID: Wednesday, Nov 10, 2010 20:20 ET News flash: Deadly terrorism existed before 9/11 We've been dealing with the same threats for decades. But we used to be a lot calmer about it, less self-defeating By Patrick Smith (Patrick Smith is an airline pilot) http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/11/10/airport_security/index.html A hijacker points his pistol from the cockpit of TWA Flight 847 as an ABC news crew approaches the jet for an interview at Beirut International Airport on June 19, 1985. Here's a scenario: Middle Eastern terrorists hijack a U.S. jetliner bound for Italy. A two-week drama ensues in which the plane's occupants are split into groups and held hostage in secret locations in Lebanon and Syria. While this drama is unfolding, another group of terrorists detonates a bomb in the luggage hold of a 747 over the North Atlantic, killing more than 300 people. Not long afterward, terrorists kill 19 people and wound more than a hundred others in coordinated attacks at European airport ticket counters. A few months later, a U.S. airliner is bombed over Greece, killing four passengers. Five months after that, another U.S. airliner is stormed by heavily armed terrorists at the airport in Karachi, Pakistan, killing at least 20 people and wounding 150 more. Things are quiet for a while, until two years later when a 747 bound for New York is blown up over Europe killing 270 passengers and crew. Nine months from then, a French airliner en route to Paris is bombed over Africa, killing 170 people from 17 countries. That's a pretty macabre fantasy, no? A worst-case war-game scenario for the CIA? A script for the End Times? Except, of course, that everything above actually happened, in a four-year span between 1985 and 1989. The culprits were the al-Qaidas of their time: groups like the Abu Nidal Organization and the Arab Revolutionary Cells, and even the government of Libya. First on that list was the spectacular saga of TWA Flight 847, a Boeing 727 commandeered by Shiite militiamen in June of '85. Even before that crisis ended, Sikh extremists would blow up Air India Flight 182 off the coast of Ireland -- the deadliest civil aviation bombing in history. The Abu Nidal group then murdered 20 people at the airports in Rome and Vienna, followed in short order by the bombing of TWA Flight 840 as it descended toward Athens. Abu Nidal struck again in Karachi, attacking a Pan Am 747 with machine guns and grenades. Then, in December 1988, Libyan operatives planted the luggage bomb that brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in what would stand until 2001 as the worst-ever terror attack against a U.S. target. The Libyans later used another luggage bomb to take out UTA Flight 772 over Niger in September 1989. Also occurring in that same span were the non-terrorist bombing of a Korean Air Lines 707 and the downing of a San Francisco-bound Pacific Southwest Airlines flight by a recently fired employee who burst into the cockpit and shot both pilots. I bring all of this up for a couple of reasons. If nothing else, it demonstrates how quickly we forget the past. Our memories are short, and growing shorter, it seems, all the time. Our collective consciousness seems to reinvent itself daily, cobbled from a media blitz of short-order blurbs and 30-second segments. There will be a heavy price to pay, potentially, for having developed such a shallow and fragile mind-set. With respect to airport security, it is remarkable how we have come to place Sept. 11, 2001, as the fulcrum upon which we balance almost all of our decisions. As if deadly terrorism didn't exist prior to that day, when really we've been dealing with the same old threats for decades. What have we learned? What have we done? Well, have a look at the debased state of airport security today. We continue enacting the wrong policies, wasting our security resources and manpower. We have implemented many important changes since Lockerbie, it's true (actually, many of the new protocols are post-9/11), but much of our approach remains incoherent. Cargo and packages go uninspected while passengers are groped and harassed over umbrellas and harmless hobby knives. Uniformed pilots are forced to remove their belts and endure embarrassing pat-downs. And what of our rights as citizens? Body scanners are in the news this week. If a decade ago people were told that a day was coming when passengers would need to be looked at naked before getting on a plane, nobody would have believed it. Yet here we are, and what might be next? Yes, I remember the underwear bomber. But where do we draw the line? Do we turn our airports into fortresses and surrender our freedoms and privacy, in the name of something that is ultimately impossible: total safety? "What have we done?" is a chilling enough question. But here's a scarier and more important one: What will we do when they strike again? Because they will, and I shudder to imagine our response. Look again at that list above. All of those tragedies, in a four-year span, with some of the attacks actually overlapping. Try to imagine a similar spell today. Could we handle even a fraction of such disaster? In the 1980s we did not overreact. We did not stage ill-fated invasions of distant countries. People did not cease traveling and the airline industry did not fall into chaos. We were lazy in enacting better security, perhaps, but as a country our psychological reaction, much to our credit, was calm, measured and not yet self-defeating. This time, thanks to the wholly unhealthy changes in our national and cultural mind-set, I fear it will be different. As an airline employee I worry greatly about this. If 2001 was any indication, we are doomed to overreaction that will ground planes and send Americans scurrying into their hidey-holes. Along with many thousands, or even millions, of others, I am liable to find myself once again unemployed. Unemployed not for any good or practical reason, but because we, as a nation, have grown weak and prone to panic. "The terrorists have won" is a refrain I don't like using. It's sensationalist and ignores inherent complexities. But for the moment, I can't think of a better way of putting it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 18:37:57 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:37:57 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet Message-ID: <937AB3C1-09F8-4285-8666-E2D72B4FE775@infowarrior.org> The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet from the free-speech-isn't-free dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning: ? Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont ? Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin ? Jeff Sessions -- Alabama ? Dianne Feinstein -- California ? Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah ? Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin ? Chuck Grassley -- Iowa ? Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania ? Jon Kyl -- Arizona ? Chuck Schumer -- New York ? Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina ? Dick Durbin -- Illinois ? John Cornyn -- Texas ? Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland ? Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma ? Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island ? Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota ? Al Franken -- Minnesota ? Chris Coons -- Delaware This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 18:39:01 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:39:01 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google charges feds $25 a head for user surveillance Message-ID: Google charges feds $25 a head for user surveillance http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/18/microsoft_does_not_charge_for_government_surveillance/ By Cade Metz in San Francisco ? Get more from this author Posted in ID, 18th November 2010 23:22 GMT Microsoft does not charge for government surveillance of its users, whereas Google charges $25 per user, according to a US Drug Enforcement Admission document turned up by security and privacy guru Christopher Soghoian. With a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Soghoian has exposed four years of DEA spending on wiretaps and pen registers. A wiretap grabs actual telephone or Internet conversations, whereas a pen register merely grabs numbers and addresses that show who's doing the communicating. In 2010, the document shows, the DEA paid ISPs, telcos, and other communication providers $6.7 million for pen registers and $6.5 million for wiretaps. Pen register payments more than tripled over the past three years and nearly doubled over the past two. Wiretap payments stayed roughly the same. The documents confirm that Microsoft does not charge for surveillance. "There are no current costs for information requested with subpoenas, search warrants, pen registers, or Title II collection [wiretaps] for Microsoft Corporation," they say. But they show that Google charges $25 and Yahoo! $29. As Soghoain points out, Google and Yahoo! may make more money from surveillance than they get directly from their email users. Basic Google and Yahoo! email accounts are free. Department of Justice documents (PDF) show that telcos may charge as much as $2,000 for a pen register. On the one hand, Microsoft could be commended for choosing not to make a single penny from government surveillance. But on the other, Soghoian says, the company should at least charge that penny, as that would create a paper trail. "You don't like companies to make money spying on their customers, they should charge something," Soghoian tells us. "You can't FOIA Microsoft's invoices, because they don't send any invoices." Most wiretap orders in the US involve narcotics cases, so DEA spending likely accounts for a majority of wiretap spending. ? From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 18:40:33 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:40:33 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - As US Insists ACTA Is Not A Treaty, EU Trade Commissioner Admits It's A Treaty Message-ID: As US Insists ACTA Is Not A Treaty, EU Trade Commissioner Admits It's A Treaty from the ooooops dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/12403111915/as-us-insists-acta-is-not-a-treaty-eu-trade-commissioner-admits-it-s-a-treaty.shtml We've already posted about David Kappos' non-response to legality questions about ACTA, but at the bottom of KEI's coverage of this story there's another interesting point. ACTA supporters in the US have been bending over backwards to insist that ACTA is not a treaty. Any time anyone mentions it as a treaty in the comments here, one of the ACTA supporters among our readership will quickly admonish them for being clueless about the law and will insist that this is nothing more than an "executive agreement," which does not need Senate approval. It's one of ACTA supporters' favorite talking points. Of course, there are some serious constitutional questions about that. However, much more telling is that many ACTA supporters will outright admit it's a treaty. We already noted that the Business Software Alliance (BSA) did just that a few weeks ago (and also falsely claimed it had already been signed by 37 countries). However, much more telling is that the EU's Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, has also admitted that the document is really a treaty. Apparently in a communication to the EU Parliament, De Gucht specifically and formally noted three times that ACTA is, in fact, a treaty. I can't wait for the responses in our comments about how it's not a treaty now. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 18:54:27 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:54:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Senate panel approves website shut-down bill Message-ID: Senate panel approves website shut-down bill The legislation would allow the DOJ to seek to shut down sites infringing copyright http://www.itworld.com/internet/128208/senate-panel-approves-website-shut-down-bill November 18, 2010, 04:01 PM ? IDG News Service ? The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a controversial bill that would allow the government to seek court orders to shut down websites offering materials believed to infringe copyright. The committee's 19-0 vote Thursday to send the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act to the full Senate earned it praise from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The bill would allow the Department of Justice to seek court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through a court order, to order U.S. Internet service providers to redirect customer traffic away from infringing websites not based in the U.S. "Rogue websites are essentially digital stores selling illegal and sometimes dangerous products," Senator Patrick Leahy, the main sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. "If they existed in the physical world, the store would be shuttered immediately and the proprietors would be arrested. We cannot excuse the behavior because it happens online and the owners operate overseas. The Internet needs to be free -- not lawless." Critics of the legislation have said it would censor free speech online and damage the Internet. "We are disappointed that the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning chose to disregard the concerns of public-interest groups, Internet engineers, Internet companies, human-rights groups and law professors in approving a bill that could do great harm to the public and to the Internet," Gigi Sohn, president of digital rights group Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "We look forward to working with the committee next year to craft a more narrowly tailored bill that deals with the question of rogue websites." The bill, with 17 Senate co-sponsors, is unlikely to pass through the House of Representatives this year, with only a few working days left in the congressional session. After the newly elected Congress meets in January, Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and Judiciary Committee chairman, would have to reintroduce it in the Senate. The bill would allow the DOJ to seek court orders targeting websites that are "primarily designed" for or have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose" other than copyright infringement. Critics, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, have said the bill would block free speech and could lead to a fragmentation of the Internet, as other countries attempt to enforce their censorship and other laws on foreign websites. But several other groups, including the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild, praised the committee's action. The bill would target the "worst of the worst" copyright infringing websites, said Bob Pisano, president and interim CEO at the MPAA. "These rogue sites exist for one purpose only: to make a profit using the Internet to distribute the stolen and counterfeited goods and ideas of others," Pisano said in a statement. "The economic impact of these activities -- millions of lost jobs and dollars -- is profound." Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 21:24:56 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:24:56 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - When Rights Get Squeezed Message-ID: When Rights Get Squeezed By ERIC FELTEN http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622651744906116.html If you want to understand the spontaneous outrage that combusted this week at the introduction of new airport security procedures?an electronic undressing for those who go through the fancy X-ray machines and a groping for those who "opt out"?just look at the pictures of our fellow citizens passing through the scanners. They stand, dishearteningly, with their hands above their heads in the universal pose of defeat and surrender. Yet the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are, frankly, annoyed at the "traveling public" for making such a fuss. A senior Homeland Security official (who would not allow his name to be used) told CNN this week that "the mood at DHS and TSA is anger." The official griped to CNN that the real outrage was how TSA agents were being treated. In San Diego, one such agent "was accosted and verbally abused by a member of the traveling public," said the official. "The fact that some in the media would hail the traveler as some kind of folk hero is shameful." He was talking about John Tyner, the young man from Oceanside, Calif., who surreptitiously recorded his run-in with the TSA and posted it online. Mr. Tyner chose not to subject himself to radiation from the X-ray machine and was taken aside for a "standard pat-down." The TSA agent explained to him how the "groin check" part of the pat-down would be executed. It was then that Mr. Tyner "accosted" the poor TSA agent by saying the immortal words, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested." For shame, all of you who cheered. For shame. Shame on those of you who have bought the "Don't Touch My Junk" T-shirts that entrepreneurs made available this week. Shame too on the Tea Party types who mocked the inviolable authority of the TSA by replacing the Gadsden Flag's "Don't Tread On Me" with Mr. Tyner's impertinent slogan. And treble shame on the blogger Iowahawk who demeaned not only the TSA but Frank Sinatra by recasting "Come Fly With Me" as "Comply With Me." (The lyric "Once I get you up there" became "Once I get all up there.") You should all be aware that the TSA is not amused. "If you touch my junk..." may have garnered all the attention, but it is not the most important thing on Mr. Tyner's recording. A TSA supervisor told him that if he was uncomfortable, he could be escorted out "and you don't have to fly today." Mr. Tyner asked how "sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying." After a bit of back and forth, the TSA supervisor played the trump card: "By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights." Do we really want to make a practice of giving up "a lot of rights" (and without the advice of counsel, at that), especially when the TSA makes it clear it will use its authority to punish those who inconvenience or embarrass it? The agency's San Diego office chief announced that he is pursuing charges and an $11,000 fine against Mr. Tyner for leaving the airport without allowing his naughty-bits to be inspected. Such blatant payback hardly inspires confidence in the TSA as a steward of our surrendered rights. But it's all in keeping with the "love pats" (Sen. Claire McCaskill's unfortunate euphemism). The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg has flown several times since the new procedures went into effect Nov. 1. He has refused the X-ray machine every time and found that the TSA agents inspecting his "crotchal area" (as one of them said in a newly coined bit of bureaucratese) admit the procedure is meant to be so unpleasant that fliers will choose the naked-picture machine instead. I'm gratified that enough Americans are still jealous guardians of their rights to have made this an uncomfortable week for the TSA. And I admire the impulse behind making Wednesday?one of the heaviest travel days of the year?"Opt-Out Day." The idea is for everyone to gum up the works by refusing the X-ray. If the TSA has to give its lengthy semimolestations to everyone, the thinking goes, they won't be able to do it to anyone. Alas, security gridlock isn't likely to discomfit the TSA much. It is Thanksgiving travelers who will bear the brunt of the nightmare?hardly the best way to build popular support for a protest movement. Instead, perhaps we should make 2011 "Opt-Out of Flying" year. Since buying a ticket means giving up "a lot of rights," the best way to protect those rights is not to fly unless you absolutely have to. It will help if you let the airlines know why they haven't had the pleasure of your company. The old saw is that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. Tom Wolfe riffed that "a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested." We might add one more variation: A libertarian is anyone whose wife and children have had their groins groped by the TSA. ?Write me at EricFelten@ wsjpostmodern.com From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Nov 18 21:45:45 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:45:45 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Does the TSA Ever Catch Terrorists? Message-ID: <10D0659A-D60A-4380-A3BB-C82E0E64A866@infowarrior.org> Does the TSA Ever Catch Terrorists? If they do, for some reason they won't admit it. By Juliet Lapidos Posted Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010, at 6:12 PM ET http://www.slate.com/id/2275448/ Writing in Slate on Thursday, political reporter David Weigel identified a "full-blown revolt against the TSA." On Saturday, would-be passenger John Tyner refused an airport security pat-down with the now-famous phrase "if you touch my junk I'm going to have you arrested"; Texas congressman Ron Paul introduced the American Traveler Dignity Act to establish "that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law"; and several groups have designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 (the day before Thanksgiving), National Opt-Out Day against invasive body scanners. According to the TSA's Web site, new security measures like full-body scanners are just part of its mission "to prevent any terrorist or criminal activity"?but have TSA screeners ever actually prevented a terrorist attack? It's hard to say. The TSA was unable to provide any comprehensive data covering all nine years of its existence on short notice, but it does publicize incidents on a weekly basis: From Nov. 8 to Nov. 14, for example, agents found six "artfully concealed prohibited items" and 11 firearms at checkpoints, and they arrested six passengers after investigations of suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents. (Those figures are close to the weekly average.) It's not clear, however, whether any of these incidents represent attempted acts of terrorism or whether they were honest accidents. (Whoops, forgot I had that meat cleaver on me! Or, I had no idea flares weren't allowed!) Citing national-security concerns, the TSA will not point to any specific cases in which a screener stopped a would-be terrorist at a checkpoint. Nonaffiliated security experts, such as Bruce Schneier (who coined the term "security theater") argue that that's because this has never happened. It's true the TSA doesn't make a habit of keeping success stories a secret. In April 2008, the TSA touted the arrest of U.S. Army veteran Kevin Brown at Orlando International Airport as a victory for its behavioral detection program. Brown was arrested after trying to check luggage containing pipe-bomb-making materials. Airline officials insisted passengers were never in danger, since Brown didn't intend to assemble the bomb on the plane. Moreover, he did not have ties to organized terrorism, and it's not apparent what he wanted to do with the hazardous materials after arriving at his destination. Brown fits into the category of troublemakers that Schneier says the TSA does catch: random nut jobs. (Not professional terrorists with thought-out plans.) The aforementioned "behavioral detection program," also known as SPOT (Screening of Passengers by Observational Techniques), has been one of the TSA's most roundly criticized initiatives. In May, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that SPOT's annual cost is more than $200 million and that as of March 2010 some 3,000 behavior detection officers were deployed at 161 airports but had not apprehended a single terrorist. (Hundreds of illegal aliens and drug smugglers, however, were arrested due to the program between 2004 and 2008.) What's more, the GAO noted that at least 16 individuals later accused of involvement in terrorist plots flew 23 different times through U.S. airports since 2004, but TSA behavior-detection officers didn't sniff out any of them. What these numbers don't get at is whether the TSA airport screeners prevent terrorist attacks through their very existence?deterring plots by hanging around. This is quite probably the case, but it's not obvious that they prevent any more attacks than the private contractors who handled checkpoints before the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 went into effect. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 06:12:11 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:12:11 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Security researcher: I keep getting detained by feds Message-ID: <0A702D29-6A60-4A39-85D7-09D1D2A6E9AB@infowarrior.org> Security researcher: I keep getting detained by feds by Elinor Mills http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20023341-245.html#ixzz15iM3GiuW A security researcher who specializes in online privacy had his laptop and cell phones temporarily seized after returning to the U.S. on an international flight last night. Moxie Marlinspike told CNET in an interview today that he had been detained and questioned after an international flight last week and appears to be on a federal "watch list" for domestic flights too but doesn't know why. Asked if he is a volunteer with WikiLeaks, a whistleblower Web site that the U.S. government is seeking to shut down for publishing classified Afghan war files, Marlinspike said: "Definitely not. If anything, I'm slightly critical of WikiLeaks. I question the efficacy of that project." A WikiLeaks volunteer and security researcher, Jacob Appelbaum, was detained by U.S. agents after arriving in the U.S. on an international flight in July, as first reported by CNET. His laptop was searched and his cell phones were confiscated permanently. "I'm friends with Jake, and his equipment was seized," said Marlinspike, who uses that name as an alias and does not divulge his legal name. "My name was in his contacts on his phone." Other people who appeared in the address book of Appelbaum's seized cell phones also have encountered trouble at borders or in airports, Appelbaum told CNET today, declining to elaborate. (An MIT researcher friend of an Army Intelligence analyst arrested and charged with leaking classified files to WikiLeaks was detained and had equipment searched by border officials at Chicago's airport two weeks ago.) "I'm very sorry he was in my phone book," Appelbaum said, referring to Marlinspike. Another connection between the two that might have sparked official interest: Appelbaum mentioned Marlinspike during a speech about WikiLeaks at the Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York in July. "I quoted him because I admire him, not because he's done something wrong," Appelbaum said. Marlinspike said his troubles started a few months ago. Before taking domestic flights, he found he was unable to print out his boarding pass and was locked out of the self check-in kiosks until an airline representative made a phone call to get approval to override the lock, he said. He also said he is subject to secondary screenings. Last week, while he had fallen asleep waiting at an airport gate in Frankfurt airport on a layover, a man who said he was from the U.S. consulate and who had a photo of Marlinspike on his cell phone approached him and asked him where he had been, Marlinspike said. Marlinspike told him that he had given a presentation at the Black Hat security show in Abu Dhabi and the man said he had to make a phone call to Washington, D.C. and then let him go a few minutes later, according to Marlinspike. On Monday, Marlinspike had gone through the security check point and secondary screening and was seated on a plane at John F. Kennedy International Airport for the flight to the Dominican Republic, he said. As airline workers were preparing to shut the plane door, a TSA agent ran onto the plane and escorted Marlinspike off, he said. In the walkway that leads to the plane, two agents patted him down before allowing him to get back on the plane, he said. Returning from that trip yesterday, Marlinspike said he was met by two Customs and Border Patrol agents at JFK. With a photo of him in hand, they escorted him into a detention area and took his computer and phones away for inspection before returning them and letting him go nearly five hours later, he said. His laptop is encrypted and the text messages and call history on his phones are encrypted. He declined to provide his password when agents asked him for it. The agents did not say what they were looking for or why he was being detained, according to Marlinspike, who writes encryption apps for mobile devices at his San Francisco-based company Whisper Systems. "I have no idea what's going on, why this is happening to me," Marlinspike said. "From the questions I've had to field it seems like this is part of some larger fishing expedition. There is someone somewhere who wants access to something on my laptop or my phone and they can't just come and ask me for it. And they can't get a warrant without suspicion. So, they wait for me to travel internationally because at the border they can do anything they want." He said he has talked to a TSA supervisor who gave him a phone number to call to inquire about his case and find out how to appeal it, but the number led to a voice mail box that was full. A TSA spokesman said he could not access records in the computer system late today in order to comment on the matter. Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Jaime Ruiz told CNET that he could not comment on any specific case, citing the Privacy Act that protects federal government records related to individuals. "We have the authority to search on a case-by-case basis," he said, before referring the reporter to the policy information on the agency Web site. Such border seizures of electronic equipment have been going on for years. Famed hacker Kevin Mitnick, who served five years in prison for wire and computer fraud charges, was subjected to it after a trip to Colombia two years ago. "At this point, the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has almost destroyed my ability to run a business with international customers," Marlinspike said. "It's impossible to travel internationally frequently when this is going to be your experience because every time you may miss your connection because you're detained, and you might lose your laptop." Marlinspike also can't trust his equipment now that it has been in the hands of the agents, because it might have keyloggers on it or be otherwise compromised, he said. He has already replaced the working cell phone he had (the other was a test device for his application development), and he said he plans to get rid of the netbook that was inspected. The severity of the situation was acknowledged by one of the Customs and Border Patrol agents who detained him for about an hour and a half in San Francisco after a flight last week. Marlinspike asked the agent if he knew why he was being targeted. Marlinspike said the agent said no and added: "We're the equivalent of postal agents with guns...When my boss' boss tells me to pick someone up then I know something big is going on." CNET's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report. Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20023341-245.html#ixzz15jIZWgKE From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 06:35:46 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:35:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Humour: TSA Announces Facebook Integration For Full Body Scanners Message-ID: <19FF0729-10BE-481C-B31D-20EC3E7A607E@infowarrior.org> TSA Announces Facebook Integration For Full Body Scanners http://wondertonic.tumblr.com/post/1600226419/tsa-announces-facebook-integration-for-full-body John Pistole, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, announced yesterday that full body scanners at airports across the nation will be seamlessly integrated with Facebook next month, allowing travelers to save, tag, and share their near-naked security photos with friends, family, and co-workers through the popular social networking site. Immediately after being subjected to a scan, the traveler?s photo will be automatically uploaded to a public album on Facebook and tagged accordingly. According to Pistole, this cutting-edge integration will allow travelers to stay more connected than ever with their social networks, letting Facebook users know when their friends have made it through airport security and if they are smuggling weapons in their rectums in real time. Foursquare integration is rumored to be rolled out in 2011. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 08:15:24 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:15:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee Message-ID: <4BC1D9FC-8FCA-4A7A-B8EB-55E2BFD70790@infowarrior.org> Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee ? By Sam Gustin ? November 18, 2010 | ? 2:50 pm | ? Categories: Intellectual Property, Politics http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/coica-web-censorship-bill/all/1 Who says Congress never gets anything done? On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed ?central to the activity? of the site ? regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the ?nuclear option,? which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites ?off.? COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade. The content companies have tried suing college students. They?ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank. Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law?s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea. COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law. A vote is unlikely before the new year. Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be ?central to the activity? of the site, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that opposes the bill. There need not even be illegal content on a site ? links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group. In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process. The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet?s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring internet service providers to pull the plug on suspected websites. Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it ?dangerous.? (pdf.) The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have ?grave repercussions for global human rights.? (pdf.) Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country ? many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet ? said the bill will ?create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.? (pdf.) Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this ?serious threat to the Internet.? And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, ?Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.? He added: ?In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.? Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: ?The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,? the 49 law professors wrote. ?The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General?s allegations of unlawful content.? (original emphasis.) Because it is so ill-conceived and poorly written, the law professors wrote, ?the Act, if enacted into law, will not survive judicial scrutiny, and will, therefore, never be used to address the problem (online copyright and trademark infringement) that it is designed to address. Its significance, therefore, is entirely symbolic ? and the symbolism it presents is ugly and insidious. For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.? The law professors noted that the bill would actually undermine United States policy, enunciated forcefully by Secretary of State Clinton, which calls for global internet freedom and opposes web censorship. ?Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere,? Clinton said in her landmark speech on global internet freedom earlier this year. She was referring to China. Apparently some of Mrs. Clinton?s former colleagues in the U.S. Senate approve of internet censorship in the United States. To be fair, COICA does have some supporters in addition to sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) and his 17 co-sponsors including Schumer, Specter, Grassley, Gillibrand, Hatch, Klobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse. Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote Thursday on The Daily Caller: ?The Internet is not at risk of being censored. But without robust protections that match technological advances making online theft easy, the creators of American products will continue to suffer.? ?Counterfeiting and online theft of intellectual property is having devastating effects on industries where millions of Americans make a living,? wrote Corallo, who now runs a Virginia-based public relations firm and freely admits that he has ?represented copyright and patent-based businesses for years.? ?Their futures are at risk due to Internet-based theft.? The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, praised Leahy for his work, ?to insure [sic] that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish.? Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Photo: Brocco Lee/Flickr Follow us for disruptive tech news: Sam Gustin and Epicenter on Twitter. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 08:59:45 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:59:45 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - House bill would give DHS authority over private sector networks Message-ID: House bill would give DHS authority over private sector networks By Gautham Nagesh - 11/18/10 02:12 AM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/129879-house-bill-would-give-dhs-authority-over-private-sector-networks A new bill unveiled Wednesday by House Homeland Security chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to enforce federal cybersecurity standards on private sector companies deemed critical to national security. The Homeland Security Cyber and Physical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 authorizes DHS to establish and enforce risk and performance-based cybersecurity standards on federal agencies and private sector companies consider part of the country's critical infrastructure. Such firms include utilities, communications providers and financial institutions. The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.). It will also create a new Cybersecurity Compliance Division within DHS that would make sure organizations comply with the new security regulations. The lawmakers argue DHS has not had sufficient authority or resources to fulfill its mission as the lead federal agency for cyversecurity. ?From a security and good-government standpoint, the way to deliver better cybersecurity is to leverage, modify, and enhance existing structures and efforts, rather than make wholesale bureaucratic changes," Thompson said in a statement. "This bill will make our Nation more secure and better positions DHS ? the ?focal point for the security of cyberspace? ? to fulfill its critical homeland security mission.? Unlike the cybersecurity bill that passed the Senate Homeland Security Committee earlier this year, the House bill does not include any provision for a cybersecurity office within the White House. Instead it concentrates authority to prevent and respond to cyber attacks within DHS, where it would be subject to Congressional oversight. "This bill will provide the DHS with the authority and resources needed to adequately protect our Nation?s cyberspace and infrastructure," Clarke said in a statement. "I believe the security of our cyber infrastructure is connected to our national security. This bill will protect our country from a growing risk of ?hacks? and better allow the Department to fulfill its duties of protecting our nation.? Cybersecurity legislation is likely to be a tough sell during the lame duck session, particularly in the Senate where there is opposition to concentrating more authority in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. However, Thompson's bill is close enough to the Senate Homeland Security bill in its intent that some sort of compromise may be possible if Senate Majority leader Harry Reid elects to bring the matter to the floor before adjourning next week. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 11:15:37 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:15:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - M-16, yes. Nail clippers, no. (Idiocy, yep!) Message-ID: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/ As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following: When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards. Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That?s where the stupid started. First, everyone was forced to get off the plane?even though the plane wasn?t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine. It?s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren?t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs. The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo?just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN. This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols. So we?re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they?re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this: < --- > http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 11:27:03 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:27:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA: Airline Pilots to Get Faster Screening Message-ID: <09EDADF8-DF3C-4679-968C-C55AF3E72B64@infowarrior.org> TSA Chief Says Airline Pilots to Get Faster Screening By John Hughes - Nov 19, 2010 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-11-19/u-s-airline-pilots-will-be-exempted-from-physical-checks-tsa-chief-says.html U.S. airline pilots will be exempted from physical checks at airport security checkpoints so federal screeners can better focus on passengers, the Transportation Security Administration chief said. Pilots starting next year will be able to move through checkpoints with proof of identity, said John Pistole, who leads the agency, in an interview today at Bloomberg?s office in Washington. He said he is in talks with flight attendants about similar exemptions. ?This one seemed to jump out as a common-sense issue,? Pistole said. ?Why don?t we trust pilots who are literally in charge of the aircraft?? The plan, which Pistole said will be rolled out in next year?s first quarter, may help ease checkpoint congestion, which has become a concern as consumers prepare to travel for next week?s Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. Pilots have sought faster checks for years and intensified efforts in recent weeks after the agency had said they would be subject to body scans and pat-downs as part of new security procedures at airports. Spokesmen for pilot unions and the Air Transport Association, the Washington-based trade group for large U.S. carriers, didn?t immediately respond to requests for comment today. ?Screening airline pilots for the possession of threat objects does not enhance security,? the Air Line Pilots Association, the world?s largest crew union with 53,000 members, said Nov. 12. ?Pilots have the safety of their passengers and aircraft in their hands on every flight.? Pilots Object Other unions representing 14,800 pilots at AMR Corp.?s American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. urged members to avoid body scanners, which would force the workers to get pat- downs and potentially add to logjams at security lanes. Pistole and executives at his agency have been meeting with pilot unions and airlines in recent weeks in anticipation of today?s announcement. With the change, ?we save limited resources in terms of who we are physically screening,? Pistole said in the interview. The approach will ?allow us to pay more attention to those potential terrorists.? Pilots initially would not face biometric checks. They would use airline-issued passes and have identities confirmed by a computer system that has yet to be chosen, Pistole said. David Bates, president of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines? 9,600 active pilots, told members in a Nov. 1 e-mail that body scanners ?could be harmful to your health? by exposing them to radiation beyond what they receive from flying aircraft. The union recommended that pilots use designated crew lines for screening where available, and otherwise decline scanner exposure and request an alternative in a private area. The US Airline Pilots Association, which represents pilots at US Airways, gave similar advice to its members and urged pilots to make sure they have a witness to any pat-down search. To contact the reporter for this story: John Hughes in Washington jhughes5 at bloomberg.net. To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bernie Kohn at bkohn2 at bloomberg.net. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 11:36:40 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:36:40 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FDA pulls Darvon and Darvocet Message-ID: <5D655610-E026-4275-8ACA-21FC88812C67@infowarrior.org> FDA pulls common pain med off the market By the CNN Wire Staff November 19, 2010 12:11 p.m. EST http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/19/fda.removes.drug/ Washington (CNN) -- The pharmaceutical company that makes the prescription pain medications Darvon and Darvocet has agreed to withdraw the drugs from the U.S. market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the FDA said Friday. The FDA says the drug, propoxyphene, puts patients at risk of potentially serious or fatal heart rhythm abnormalities. Since 2009, 10 million people have been prescribed some form of the drug. "We recommend to physicians stop prescribing the drugs. As for patients, do not stop taking it, but we urge you to contact your health care professional. Do not delay," said Gerald Dal Pan, director of the FDA's Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc. manufactures Darvon and Darvocet, two brand name versions of propoxyphene. The FDA also asked generic makers of the pain medicine to voluntarily remove their products. The decision to remove the drug came after the FDA reviewed a new trial study that looked at the drug's impact on heart rhythms. "The drug's effectiveness in reducing pain is no longer enough to outweigh the drug's serious potential heart risks," the FDA said in a statement released Friday. Propoxyphene, first approved by the FDA in 1957, is an opioid used to treat mild to moderate pain. It is sold under various names both alone, such as Darvon, or in combination with acetaminophen, such as Darvocet. Since 1978, the FDA has received two requests to remove propoxyphene from the market, but concluded that the benefits of propoxyphene for pain relief at recommended doses outweighed the safety risks. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 17:54:26 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:54:26 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Tech firms, meet your new cybersecurity boss: DHS Message-ID: November 19, 2010 3:08 PM PST Tech firms, meet your new cybersecurity boss: DHS by Declan McCullagh http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023464-38.html Democratic politicians are proposing a novel approach to cybersecurity: fine technology companies $100,000 a day unless they comply with directives imposed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Legislation introduced this week would allow DHS secretary Janet Napolitano to levy those and other civil penalties on non-compliant companies that the government deems "critical," a broad term that could sweep in Web firms, broadband providers, and even software companies and search engines. "This bill will make our nation more secure and better positions DHS -- the 'focal point for the security of cyberspace' -- to fulfill its critical homeland security mission," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the influential chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Thompson's proposal comes after a decade of heated, sometimes classified discussions in Washington centering on how much authority the federal government should have to regulate network and computer security, and which agency should be in charge. In a series of reports, three successive presidential administrations have taken strikingly similar approaches that favor self-regulation. Skeptics say it's not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit DHS's 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. (American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.) "Congress is stepping forward to regulate something it has no idea how to regulate," says Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute. "It's a level of bureaucracy that actually adds nothing at all." DHS's own cybersecurity record is far from perfect. In 2005, government auditors concluded that DHS failed to live up to its cybersecurity responsibilities and may be "unprepared" for emergencies; as recently as 2008, the head of the DHS said the agency still needed to develop a plan to respond to a "cybercrisis." Besides Thompson, the new bill, called the Homeland Security Cyber and Physical Infrastructure Protection Act (HSCPIPA), has other high-profile backers. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairman of the intelligence subcommittee, and Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee, are also co-sponsors. No Republicans have signed on. "Cyber attacks, whether originated by other countries or sub-national groups, are a grave and growing threat to our government and the private sector," Harman said. "This bill provides new tools to DHS to confront them effectively and make certain that civil liberties are protected."" Section 224 of HSCPIPA hands DHS explicit legal "authorities for securing private sector" computers. A cybersecurity chief to be appointed by Napolitano would be given the power to "establish and enforce" cybersecurity requirements. HSCPIPA's process works like this: DHS draws up a list of regulated "critical" companies by evaluating the likelihood of a "cyber incident," existing vulnerabilities, and the consequences of an attack. DHS is supposed to consult with the NSA, other federal agencies, and the private sector to the "maximum extent practicable," but the other groups don't get a veto over the final list. Any "system or asset" that is a "component of the national information infrastructure" -- read broadly, that could be any major Web site or provider -- is fair game for DHS regulation. Companies can appeal if they don't want to be on the "critical" list, but it means asking DHS to reconsider its original decision (no neutral party considers the appeal). "With a little bit of imagination, you can pretty much pull anything into that," says Lauren Weinstein of People for Internet Responsibility. "Does Google represent critical infrastructure now? It's hard to see how any major Internet service or property could be assured of the fact that it would not be covered." Once the list is complete, DHS has the authority to require those regulated tech companies to "comply with the requirements" that it has levied. Those requirements include presenting "cybersecurity plans" to the agency, which has the power to "approve or disapprove" each of them. DHS "may conduct announced or unannounced audits and inspections" to ensure "compliance." "In the case of noncompliance," the legislation says, DHS "may levy civil penalties, not to exceed $100,000 per day, for each instance of noncompliance." Harper, from the Cato Institute, says that private firms already have the right incentives on cybersecurity. HSCPIPA imposes "a layer of bureaucracy that seeks to replicate the incentive structure that technology firms already face," he says. Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023464-38.html#ixzz15m9VgZW0 From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 19:03:38 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:03:38 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Small business TSA decisions : Thought you guys should see this from an anonomous small business owner. the writer is not asking to be identified nor asking for credit References: <00cf01cb882d$7e165610$7a430230$@Hernoud@SecureNetworkSystems.com> Message-ID: Pardon the formatting ... but I think this person raises some interesting concerns as a small business owner in regard to the whole TSA Gropegate situation. I consider these concerns as part of the 'hidden costs' of our post-911 airport security, most of all, the recent 'enhancements' to passenger screening. --- rick Begin forwarded message: > Subject: FW: Small business TSA decisions : Thought you guys should see this from an anonomous small business owner. the writer is not asking to be identified nor asking for credit > > I am a owner of a small business. > > This morning I had to have the most unpleasant discussions with my staff concerning my company buying their plane tickets and thus causing them to lose their privacy rights. > > As a busness owner wonder what my liability is when I require my employees to fly thus subject to TSA?s gross neglience, and lack of cleanliness (not changing gloves between touching/groping other passengers personal ?junk/ personal parts? ) I wonder what soft of sexually transmitted disease can be transferred to them in this mannor and where my insurance rates will hike to in cost due to this heath concern. I remember the ?bird flu? travel advisories and the mad cow and AIDS, besides being irradiated by mass quanities of radation, that has been proven to cause cancer. > Afterall we stopped smoking indoors to aleviate the ?second hand smoke issues? as it has been proven to cause cancer. Doesn?t this fall under the same concerns? > The story I read about a young women who had her breast shown to everyone in the area, then TSA joked about it. See this story. http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-hit-with-lawsuits-as-revolt-explodes.html > One of the most disturbing, which is subject to an ongoing lawsuit, involved a 21-year-old college student from Amarillo Texas. The woman was passing through security at Corpus Christi airport on May 29 2008 when she was subjected to ?extended search procedures? by the TSA. > ?As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff?s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs? breasts to everyone in the area,? the lawsuit said. ?As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.? > TSA workers continued to laugh and joke about the incident ?for an extended period of time,? leaving the woman distraught and needing to be consoled. After the woman re-entered the boarding area, TSA workers continued to humiliate her over the incident. > ?One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that ?he would just have to watch the video,?? the suit said. > > Or this story about rape victims experiences. http://wildhunt.org/blog/2010/11/pnc-minnesota-rape-survivor-devastated-by-tsa-enhanced-pat-down.html > > > Can I really require my employees to be subject to this? Legally? > > I also have several women in my company , one of who has been raped in the past. Who now does Not want to travel, but is in a sales role, and her job requires it. (see this story)http://pncminnesota.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/rape-survivor-devasted-by-tsa-enhanced-pat-down/ > > One of my employees is pregnant and she feels she cant subject her unborn child to possible birth defects due to this radation. Again I am not a doctor. > But really is TSA ? possibly condoning that women who don?t know their pregnant, have an airport TSA abortion? Or halfway thru the pregnancy kill the IQ of a child? > http://www.perinatology.com/exposures/Physical/Xray.htm > Prior to 2 weeks gestation an exposure of 100 mGy (10 rads) may lead to death of the embryo. The dose necessary to kill 100% of human embryos or fetuses before 18 weeks? gestation is about 5000 mGy (500 rads). Radiation-induced noncancer health effects are unlikely at this stage of development no matter what the radiation dose. [2]. > For fetuses exposed between 8-15 weeks' gestation atomic bomb survivor data indicate that the decline in IQ score is approximately 25?31 points per 1000 mGy above 100 mGy ( 40% risk for severe mental retardation) [9]. > > From 16- to 25 weeks' gestation the average IQ loss is approximately 13?21 points per 1000 mGy (per 100 rads) at doses above 700 mGy (70 rads) [2] After 26 weeks, doses above 1000 mGy (100 rads) the risks for stillbirth and neonatal death (i.e., infant death within 28 days after birth, including stillbirth) increases [2]. > > I am a parent and I have to protect my small children from any person touching them inappropratley See this story.http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/video-child-getting-tsa-patdown-nov-19-2010 > > Under this I am also stopping their facebook accounts due to TSA now allowing uploading of naked passenger pictures from travelers. (see this story now they have changed their story of not storing pictures to allowing them to be uploaded to facebook).http://wondertonic.tumblr.com/post/1600226419/tsa-announces-facebook-integration-for-full-body , > > Lastly , I am an American citizen and thus am protected under several laws, I touch on these few I can bring up readily. Found this really fast on the internet. > 18 USC Sec. 2244 > or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or > agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person's permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both > (c) Offenses Involving Young Children. - If the sexual contact that violates this section (other than subsection (a)(5)) is with an individual who has not attained the age of 12 years, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for the offense shall be twice that otherwise provided in this section. > > GOP lawmaker says naked body scanners violate Fourth Amendment > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/gop-lawmaker-naked-body-scanners-violate-fourth-amendment/ > > > Under these dealt to me conditions, I / We are making the decisions to the following. > > 1) I will NOT fly with my family to any trips requiring flying. (sad as we finally had the tickets to Hawaii we had planned on for 5 years) > 2) I will give my immediate family an early Christmas present , and NOT ask them to fly in either afterall I want to protect their privacy rights as well. > 3) I choose to vacation locally or not go at all. I will not be groped and fondled or have a naked picture taken of me. that priviledge is only my wifes or husbands in Gods eyes. > 4) We are making the hard choice to purchase more company vehicles , so my employees can drive to their destinations. > 5) We are asking our employees to address this BEFORE we purchase their tickets / thus causing them to lose their privacy rights per TSA > 6) I will NOT be voting for ANY person who condones this activity. (please join me in this ) We need to get rid of those individuals who think this is not a problem to lose our constitutional and privacy rights in the name of security that does not make us more secure. > 7) We will not be hiring more persons to fill positions we had actively been trying to fill. We will instead use contractors who can deal with their companies policy on these things. Leaving less liability to our company. > 8) Due to the cost of fuel and extra travel expenses due to driving or taking the train. We will choose to use to use virtual tools to have meetings rather than fly to them. > 9) We are not in the porn business, and therefore we do not have the right to require these things forced upon our employees. We are also not in the heath care industry and are not nurses or doctors who are trained to look out for medical risks. We will make these choices in our good consience and ethics that we were taught and believe in. > 10) We will speak to our attorneys about potential liability to our company. I suggest each of you do this. > > I feel sorry for those in the business of tourism, the airlines, the hotels, the rental car companies, Has anyone even bothered to realise that in our bad economy , This will only make things worse. I will not judge you afterall unemployment is at an all time high and everyone needs to work. > > What are YOU willing to do ? > What is this new policy by TSA doing to affect your business? > What are your legal liabilities under this? > Have you addressed this with your employees ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 19 19:47:43 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Jesse Ventura: No longer flying due to TSA policy Message-ID: <529873A4-A0C2-40C4-8DA6-F4ACF4AB4749@infowarrior.org> Breaking: Former Gov. Ventura Will No Longer Fly Due to Abuse He?s Endured at Hands of TSA Posted By kurtnimmoadmin On November 19, 2010 @ 1:22 pm In Featured Stories | 110 Comments Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com November 19, 2010 Jesse said he will no longer be forced by the TSA to prove he is not a criminal or terrorist. Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, the former governor of Minnesota and host of the popular TruTV show, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, announced he will no longer use commercial airlines due to the egregious abuses of the TSA and the government. Ventura said he made the decision to avoid public aircraft after he found himself becoming too comfortable with being routinely searched. He said he was subjected to pat down and search three or four times a week when he traveled for his television show. Ventura had hip surgery and the metal in his body invariably sets off airport metal detectors. Jesse said he will no longer be forced by the TSA to prove he is not a criminal or terrorist. He refuses to be considered guilty until proven innocent by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also admitted the decision not to fly may put an end to his career. http://www.infowars.com/breaking-former-gov-ventura-will-no-longer-fly-due-to-abuse-hes-endured-at-hands-of-tsa/print/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 20 11:41:43 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - New York, Orlando join anti-TSA rebellion, TSA mounts PR effort Message-ID: New York, Orlando join anti-TSA rebellion, TSA mounts PR effort By Jon Stokes | Last updated a day ago http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/new-york-orlando-join-anti-tsa-rebellion-while-tsa-mounts-pr-effort.ars New York and Orlando aren't taking the TSA scanner/pat-down controversy lying down. Instead, officials in both places are fighting back. In Orlando, the Sanford airport is reportedly planning to take advantage of a little-known clause that allows airports to opt-out of TSA protection and instead use a federally approved private screening company. "You're going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service," a Sanford Airport Authority official told a local Orlando news outlet. The airport is moving ahead with the opt-out, and says it will take about a year to complete. Further north, in New York, Democratic city council officials are plotting to ban the TSA's nude scanners entirely, Wired reports. No airport or other facility would be allowed to operate a backscatter scanner inside New York city limits. "We're not opting out of screening altogether," Greenfield told Wired's Threat Level blog. "We're simply banning one type of screening that hasn't proven effective." Greenfeld and his fellow councilmembers are hoping to spark a chain reaction that leads to other cities banning the scanners. He invited the TSA to sue the city if they didn't like the ban. The TSA's counteroffensive The TSA, for its part, is countering the backlash with a PR offensive. The agency has a new blog post up that claims to rebut alleged myths about the backscatter scanners and pat-downs with facts. Some of the rebuttals work better than others. For instance, take the TSA's response to allegations that the pat-downs are invasive: Myth: The TSA pat-down is invasive Fact: Only passengers who alarm a walk through metal detector or AIT machine or opt out of the AIT receive a pat-down. For this reason, it is designed to be thorough in order to detect any potential threats and keep the traveling public safe. Pat-downs are performed by same-gender officers and all passengers have the right to a private screening with a travel companion at any time. Nowhere in the "Fact" response does the TSA directly answer the allegation of invasiveness, probably because the pat-downs are invasive. The agency does better in responding to the backscatter scanner controversy, rebutting the idea that the scanners are unpopular by citing a CBS News poll that finds 4 out of 5 Americans favor the machines. The blog post also takes a stab at addressing the opt-out approach that the Orlando airport mentioned above is pursuing. To the "myth" that airports can opt out of TSA screening, the agency replies, "All commercial airports are regulated by TSA whether the actual screening is performed by TSA or private companies. So TSA's policies?including advanced imaging technology and pat downs?are in place at all domestic airports." In other words, the TSA apparently intends to force Sanford Airport to serve up the same scanner/pat-down combo as the rest of the TSA-operated system. It's looking more and more like the traveling public's only options for escaping the piercing gaze and intimate touch of gloved TSA agents are ground-based modes of transportation, like rail and automobile. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Nov 20 21:01:11 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - UN vote: Sexual orientation ok grounds for execution Message-ID: U.N. panel cuts gay reference from violence measure Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:46am GMT Print | Single Page [-] Text [+] By Louis Charbonneau http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE6AG0BM20101117 UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Arab and African nations succeeded Tuesday in getting a U.N. General Assembly panel to delete from a resolution condemning unjustified executions a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation. Western delegations expressed disappointment in the human rights committee's vote to remove the reference to slayings due to sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. "The subject of this amendment -- the need for prompt and thorough investigations of all killing, including those committed for ... sexual orientation -- exists in this resolution simply because it is a continuing cause for concern," a British statement to the committee said. The General Assembly passes a resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings every two years. The 2008 declaration included an explicit reference to killings committed because of the victims' sexual preferences. But this year, Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words "sexual orientation" and replacing them with "discriminatory reasons on any basis." That amendment narrowly passed 79-70. The resolution then was approved by the committee, which includes all 192 U.N. member states, with 165 in favour, 10 abstentions and no votes against. The U.S. delegation voted against the deletion but abstained from the vote on the final resolution. Diplomats said the U.S. delegation also voiced disappointment at the decision to remove the reference to sexual orientation. The resolution, which is expected to be formally adopted by the General Assembly in December, specifies many other types of violence, including killings for racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic reasons and killings of refugees, indigenous people and other groups. "It's a step backwards and it's extremely disappointing that some countries felt the need to remove the reference to sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is the very reason why so many people around the world have been subjected to violence," said Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch. (Editing by Xavier Briand) ? Thomson Reuters 2010 All rights reserved From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 21 00:02:38 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:02:38 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - P2P Litigation Crippled In DC District Court Ruling Message-ID: <6B20BC1C-302B-4A5B-B069-850A2B10A280@infowarrior.org> John Does Win Big In Far Cry Case November 19, 2010 Thomas Mennecke http://www.slyck.com/story2132_John_Does_Win_Big_In_Far_Cry_Case_US_Copyright_Group_Lawsuit_Campaign_Potentially_Crippled The copyright trolling campaign in the United States may not be coming to a grinding halt, but it looks like it may come to a sluggish crawl. In an order issued today in the Achte/Neunte (aka Far Cry) vs Does 1-4,577 case - Judge Rosemary Collyer granted and denied in part the US Copyright Group's request for an extension to serve all defendants to five years. As you'll recall, Time Warner and the USCG agreed to identify only 28 IP addresses a month (between this case and the West Bay One case) - a time consuming process that could take almost 5 years. So, not only does the USCG want to sue all the Does in one location, they'll like to sit on all those IP addresses for five years as well, and deal with them at their convenience. From yesterday's motion from the USCG: "...Plaintiff requests that the court extend the time by which Plaintiff must name and serve the Defendants in this case to a reasonable time after Plaintiff has received all of the identifying information for all Defendants." Judge Collyer wasn't going to have anything to do with it. In today's order, the first real defeat was handed to the USCG: "The request is patently unfair and prejudicial to all John Does who have been identified by an ISP, and good cause is not shown as to these identified Does. Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint and will serve it, no later than December 6, 2010, identifying by name and address Defendants over whom it reasonably believes the Court has personal jurisdiction and whom it wants to sue. It will also file a notice with the Court naming those Interested Parties, John Does, and their Internet Protocol addresses, over whom Plaintiff concedes the Court lacks personal jurisdiction or otherwise should be dismissed; and setting forth the Internet Protocol address of those John Does for whom Plaintiff has no identifying information, but over whom Plaintiff reasonably believes the Court has personal jurisdiction and whom it wants to sue." So what does this ruling mean? It's actually a partial victory for the USCG, since Judge Collyer is saying they can sue some Does that have already been identified by Time Warner - but ONLY those that are actually in that Court's jurisdiction. How many could that possibly be? Not many - so while some of their request is granted, the much bigger picture is not in the USCG's favor. This ruling seems to avoid the direct issue of ruling on jurisdiction - and we're wondering if Judge Collyer will simply use this order in place of ruling on jurisdiction. Since it appears she's making the USCG only sue those under her court's direct jurisdiction, this could mean a much longer - and costlier - process, and perhaps may force copyright holders to rethink the cost/time/public relations benefit of this type of campaign. Let's see if the USCG considers a Doe from Wisconsin under the jurisdiction of the DC District Court. You can read the full ruling here. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 21 08:06:13 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:06:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA has met the enemy and they are us Message-ID: <53D11433-D794-4DFE-91D6-34935E6F4312@infowarrior.org> TSA has met the enemy _ and they are us (AP) ? 58 minutes ago http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJOHVt1tulwzq5K5_pyF-i_VSXxA How did an agency created to protect the public become the target of so much public scorn? After nine years of funneling travelers into ever longer lines with orders to have shoes off, sippy cups empty and laptops out for inspection, the most surprising thing about increasingly heated frustration with the federal Transportation Security Administration may be that it took so long to boil over. The agency, a marvel of nearly instant government when it was launched in the fearful months following the 9/11 terror attacks, started out with a strong measure of public goodwill. Americans wanted the assurance of safety when they boarded planes and entrusted the government with the responsibility. But in episode after episode since then, the TSA has demonstrated a knack for ignoring the basics of customer relations, while struggling with what experts say is an all but impossible task. It must stand as the last line against unknown terror, yet somehow do so without treating everyone from frequent business travelers to the family heading home to visit grandma as a potential terrorist. The TSA "is not a flier-centered system. It's a terrorist-centered system and the travelers get caught in it," said Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University who has tracked the agency's effectiveness since it's creation. That built-in conflict is at the heart of a growing backlash against the TSA for ordering travelers to step before a full-body scanner that sees through their clothing, undergo a potentially invasive pat-down or not fly at all. "After 9/11 people were scared and when people are scared they'll do anything for someone who will make them less scared," said Bruce Schneier, a Minneapolis security technology expert who has long been critical of the TSA. "But ... this is particularly invasive. It's strip-searching. It's body groping. As abhorrent goes, this pegs it." A traveler in San Diego, John Tyner, has become an Internet hero after resisting both the scan and the pat-down, telling a TSA screener: "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested." That has helped ignite a campaign urging people to refuse such searches on Nov. 24, which immediately precedes Thanksgiving and is one of the year's busiest travel days. The outcry, though, "is symptomatic of a bigger issue," said Geoff Freeman, executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, an industry group that says it has received nearly 1,000 calls and e-mails from consumers about the new policy in the last week. "It's almost as if it's a tipping point," Freeman said. "What we've heard from travelers time and again is that there must be a better way." Indeed, TSA has a history of stirring public irritation. There was the time in 2004 when Sen. Ted Kennedy complained after being stopped five times while trying to board planes because a name similar to his appeared on the agency's no-fly list. And the time in 2006 when a Maine woman went public with her tale of being ordered by a TSA agent to dump the gel packs she was using to cool bags of breast milk. And the time in 2007, when a Washington, D.C. woman charged that another TSA agent threatened to have her arrested for spilling water out of her child's sippy cup. TSA denied the last, releasing security camera footage to try and prove its point. But that did little to offset the agency's longtime struggle to explain itself and win traveler cooperation. It wasn't supposed to be this way. After Congress approved creation of the agency in late 2001, the TSA grew quickly from just 13 employees in January 2002 to 65,000 a year later. In the first year, agency workers confiscated more than 4.8 million firearms, knives and other prohibited items, according to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. But even as the new agency mushroomed, officials at the top, pressured by airlines worried that tighter security would discourage people from flying, looked to the business world for lessons on systems, efficiency and service. TSA set up "go teams" pairing government employees with executives from companies including Marriott International Inc., The Walt Disney Co., and Intel Corp., to figure out how to move lines of people through checkpoints efficiently and how to deal with angry travelers. But the agency was working under what Freeman calls "an unachievable mandate." Congress demanded an agency that eliminated risk. But the risks are always changing, as terrorists devise new methods and government parries. That has led to an agency that is always in crisis mode, constantly adding new policies designed to respond to the last terror plot. President Barack Obama says he has pushed the TSA to make sure that it is always reviewing screening processes with actual people in mind. "You have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety," Obama said Saturday. "And you also have to think through, are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive." TSA operates on the belief that a key to foiling terrorists is to keep them guessing, agency watchers say. But it has never really explained that to a flying public that sees never-ending changes in policies covering carry-on liquids, shoes, and printer cartridges as maddening and pointless inconsistency. "If you ask what its procedures are, how you screen people, its 'I can't tell you that because if the bad guys find out they'll be able to work around the system'," said Christopher Elliott, an Orlando, Fla.-based consumer advocate specializing in travel. "That's why a lot of what they've done has not really gone over well with air travelers. They perceive it as being heavy-handed and often the screeners come across as being very authoritarian." Over time, TSA has settled into a pattern of issuing directives with little explanation and expecting they be followed. But increasingly fed-up travelers don't understand the agency's sense of urgency and aren't buying it. "I don't think the law enforcement approach is going to work with the American public. You've got to explain yourself and reassure people. And they're not doing it," Light said. That goes beyond public relations, experts say. As more and more layers are added to air travel security efforts, it creates difficult and potentially unpopular choices. But the TSA has been unwilling to openly discuss how it arrives at policies or to justify the trade-offs, highlighted by its insistence over the need for the scanners. "They're very expensive and what they (TSA officials) should be able to do is answer if it does reduce the risk, how much does it reduce the risk and is it worth it?" said John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State, who has researched the way society reacts to terrorism. The pushback against the body scanners and pat-downs shows the agency at its worst, Elliott said, issuing a policy that wasn't properly vetted or explained, but determined to defend it. Growing dissatisfaction with TSA has even led some airports to consider replacing the agency with private screeners. Such a change is allowed by law, but contractor must follow all the security procedures mandated by the TSA, including body scans and pat-downs. But frustration with the TSA was building even before the latest furor. In a December 2007 Associated Press-Ipsos poll asking Americans to rank government agencies, it was as unpopular as the Internal Revenue Service. Even so, a poll earlier this month by CBS News found 81 percent of Americans support the TSA's use of full-body scanners at airports. The poll, conducted Nov. 7-10, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Elliott said that better communication would probably win the TSA more cooperation. But the pushback suggests that a growing number of consumers, particularly frequent travelers, are questioning the premise at the heart of the agency's existence. "I think at some point Americans said to themselves, maybe in their collective subconscious...there's a line here where it's not just worth it anymore," he said. "There's a growing sense that that line has been crossed." Copyright ? 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 21 09:10:04 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Clarification on the CBS poll ref: TSA screening Message-ID: The oft-cited CBS poll cited by TSA, DHS, and Obama that says "81% of flyers approve the scanners" is somewhat misleading. The poll headlines the question as "Should Airports Use Full-Body X-Ray Machines" --- while the actual question reads "Some airports are now using 'full-body' digital x-ray machines to electronically screen passengers in airport security lines. Do you think these new x-ray machines should or should not be used at airports?" (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/15/politics/main7057902.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody) While one can argue that "people know what is being asked" there is also a fair amount of ignorance about the issue on all sides, not to mention a thing called methodological accuracy. As phrased, the term "X-Ray" connodates a generic X-Ray like image akin to a doctor's office and not the virtually revealing image that these TSA contraptions provide. Reading the question, note the absence of "naked" or "revealing" or "highly-detailed images of a passenger's body" that would frame the question more accurately in relation to the devices being used at airports. I posit this oft-cited survey statistic is a misleading indicator of public sentiment --- yet nobody's really challenging the context of the questions behind the generation of that statistic. -- rick My thoughts on the matter: TSA and America's Zero Risk Culture (16 Nov) http://www.counterpunch.org/forno11162010.html TSA and the New "Americanism" (21 Nov) http://infowarrior.org/pubs/oped/tsa-americanism.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 21 09:14:26 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:14:26 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Rick OpEd: TSA and the New "Americanism" Message-ID: TSA and the New "Americanism" (c) 2010 Richard Forno. Permission granted to reproduce freely with credit. http://infowarrior.org/pubs/oped/tsa-americanism.html There is a vocal segment of the American political fringe that throws around words like "communism", "socialism", or "fascism" in describing the economic or social policies of the current Administration. Right or wrong, they're entitled to their opinion, and this is not the place for a primer on these different political philosophies. (Disclaimer: I am an independent voter.) However, to my knowledge, nobody from those fringe elements has drawn similar "-ism" comparisons about how the federal government, through the TSA, is mandating that American citizens give up some of their constitutional rights to support the "greater good" of the State when traveling by air. Consider that, as Americans, we have the constitutional right to free speech but aren't allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. If we do, we get arrested for causing a panic, and the courts have upheld that restriction on free speech. We citizens accept that. However, the government does not have legions of federal guards deployed at fixed checkpoints outside movie theaters taping patrons' mouths shut to prevent someone from shouting "fire" or "bomb" once inside or issue billion-dollar orders for controversial machines that can probe the minds of theatergoers for references to "bomb" or "fire" or "boom!" before they hit the concession stand. Much to the dismay of the MPAA, there is no Pre-Crime Police at movie theaters. But that's just what TSA is becoming -- albeit somewhat less melodramatically -- in how it handles passenger screening. I, and I suspect many others, have no problem with TSA searching for "bad stuff" on airline passengers -- up to a point, for the world truly is a dangerous place. However, as I wrote on Monday, Americans need to accept a certain degree of risk in their lives, and not subject themselves to the misguided belief that everything "bad" can be discovered and prevented through the ongoing relinquishing of a few more individual rights to the State. Such practices transform a routine two hour business flight into a stressful all-day psychologically draining ordeal for passengers and present an image to the world not reflecting the America of opportunity and tolerance but rather an America of fear and angst. I believe that the "wealth" of Americans is not found merely in money, goods, or services but also within our individual rights as its citizens. As such, can we not interpret TSA's current policies as another "redistribution of private wealth" away from individuals to the State under the justification of being necessary for the public welfare? At least that was how the recent bailouts of the American auto and banking industries were justified, weren't they? Reflecting over the past decade, the redistribution of our individual wealth in the name of homeland security continues to be a truly bipartisan affair. Many people complain about the "redistribution of wealth" in situations where generally they are powerless to do anything about it -- but will they remain silent about the "redistribution of rights" in areas where they can do something about it? I don't mean ranting in the convenient forums of the blogosphere, YouTube, by the water cooler, but rather in public and made-for-television displays of widespread protests that show American citizen-travellers taking a public stand against this arbitrary, unaccountable, and unnecessary redistribution of their constitutionally-provided wealth. The world should stand in awe as public cries of "Keep Your Hands off My Health Care" pale in comparison to the cries of "Don't Touch (or Scan) My Junk." Since 9/11, we've seen the rise of a new political and social philosophy that favors the redistribution of increasing percentages of a citizen's wealth -- in the form of personal rights and hidden costs, both financial and psychological -- to a national government for protecting the homeland. Looking back on the past ten years and seeing how the homeland security establishment requires increasing "redistributions" of our wealth to the government as it flails about trying to protect us against every possible new danger, I respectfully suggest that this emerging philosophy of nationalised fear isn't "communism" or "socialism" but rather a modern, and unfortunate, definition of Americanism. Clearly this will be a matter for the courts, or perhaps Congress, to decide. Unfortunately, I worry that these institutions will declare that submitting to invasive scanning, screening, and molestation procedures are another necessary redistribution of our individual American wealth to the State as it continues a futile attempt to protect its citizens from Anything Bad(tm). But absent significant and visible public outcry, this fear-based philosophy of the New Americanism will be ensconced and embedded further into law....until the next redistribution is required of us. In that case, as with the past ten years, the only folks who will lose are We The People. Someone told me yesterday that the one good thing about TSA isn't that it's making America safer -- rather, it's reminding Americans that we have rights. It's time we exercised them. OPT OUT ON NOVEMBER 24. ##### Previous Comment: (15 Nov): TSA and America's Culture of Zero-Risk (c) 2010 Richard Forno. Permission granted to reproduce freely with credit. http://infowarrior.org/pubs/oped/tsa-zero-risk.html From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 21 11:21:38 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Air travel: One step behind terrorists Message-ID: Air travel: One step behind terrorists By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist / November 21, 2010 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/11/21/air_travel_one_step_behind_terrorists/ NOT EVERYONE has reacted the same way to the Transportation Security Administration?s aggressively intimate new frisking technique. Air traveler John Tyner created a minor sensation when he recorded himself warning a TSA screener in San Diego: ?If you touch my junk, I?m gonna have you arrested.?? Journalist Emmett Tyrrell, on the other hand, says he would ?welcome a soothing pat-down. . . especially if the patter-downer is a cute little number on the order of, say, Sarah Palin.?? It takes all types to fill a passenger plane. But what are we to make of TSA Administrator John Pistole, who told a congressional committee last week that he has no intention of relaxing his agency?s intrusive new screenings? These include both the hands-on body search (which at least one pilot has compared to ?sexual molestation??), and ? for those who would rather be ogled electronically ? full-body X-ray scanners that leave nothing to the imagination. ?I?m not going to change those policies,?? Pistole testified, brushing aside a flood of recent passenger complaints as the price to be paid for security. Why, TSA?s current methods are so effective, he insisted, that had they been in effect last December they would have thwarted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the al-Qaeda terrorist who tried to blow up a jetliner on Christmas Day with a bomb sewn into his underwear. That would have been quite an achievement, considering that Abdulmutallab was flying into the United States from Europe, and was never screened by TSA. ?There is an ever-evolving nature to terrorist plots,?? Pistole told the Senate Homeland Security Committee. ?It is clear we have to be one step ahead of the terrorists.?? One step ahead? That isn?t how TSA operates. Knives and sharp objects were banned from carry-on luggage after 9/11, so Richard Reid boarded American Airlines Flight 63 with a bomb built into his shoe. Passengers ever since have had to take off their shoes, so the 2006 Heathrow terrorists came up with a plan to use liquid explosives. TSA responded by confining liquids to tiny containers sealed in baggies, so Abdulmutallab smuggled explosive powder in his underwear. Now TSA scans or feels even air travelers? nether regions, so terrorists based in Yemen hid two bombs inside printer cartridges and shipped them to addresses in Chicago. TSA promptly responded by announcing that ?toner and ink cartridges over 16 ounces will be prohibited on passenger aircraft in both carry-on bags and checked bags.?? Just who has been staying a step ahead of whom? Precisely because terrorist plots are ?ever-evolving,?? it is fruitless to keep trying to prevent the last terror attack. Yet that is just what TSA keeps doing. What?s worse, it treats every airline passenger as a potential terrorist who must be searched for weapons ? any imaginable weapons ? before being allowed to board. That is a crazy system ? crazy in its ineffectiveness, in its breathtaking cost, and in the staggering degree of inconvenience and invaded privacy it imposes on innocent passengers. In security expert Bruce Schneier?s cogent term, TSA provides not security, but security theater ? ?measures that make people feel more secure without doing anything to actually improve their security.?? Anyone who has traveled through Israel?s Ben Gurion airport or on El Al, the Israeli airline, has experienced what is widely considered the finest aviation security system in the world. That system doesn?t involve taking off shoes, confiscating water bottles, patting down toddlers, or conducting nude X-ray scans. Nor does it involve shutting down an entire terminal because a passenger inadvertently walked through the wrong door. It does, however, involve careful attention to behavior, individual conversations with every traveler, and a lack of politically-correct inhibitions about profiling. Unlike TSA, the Israelis focus not on intercepting dangerous things, but on stopping dangerous people. It is hard to argue with their results. The federalization of airline security after 9/11 was a grave mistake. Instead of creating a vast new bureaucracy, Congress should have made the airlines themselves primarily responsible for guaranteeing their customers? safety, with clear legal liability if they failed. With their bottom lines riding on it, the airlines would have been far more likely than any government agency to figure out how to get security right. Instead we ended up with groin gropes, naked X-rays, and ?security?? procedures that irritate everyone while keeping nobody safe. The time has come to rethink air-travel safety from the ground up. Eliminating TSA might make a good start. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby at globe.com. ? Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 08:19:55 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:19:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Passenger Chooses Strip-Down Over Pat-Down Message-ID: (A female sex worker did the same thing at SEATAC this weekend, but I won't include that video link. --- rick) Passenger Chooses Strip-Down Over Pat-Down By R. STICKNEY Updated 6:10 AM PST, Mon, Nov 22, 2010 http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Passenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html?dr When a San Diego man opted out of security screening using the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) at Lindbergh Field Friday, he stripped down to his underwear in an attempt to avoid the pat-down procedures. Samuel Wolanyk took the protest started Nov. 13 by Oceanside's John Tyner to a whole new level. While Tyner videotaped his refusal to be patted down, telling the agent "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," Wolanyk decided to give TSA a look at his body down to his Calvin Klein's. Through a statement released by his attorney Sunday night, Wolanyk said "TSA needs to see that I'm not carrying any weapons, explosives, or other prohibited substances, I refuse to have images of my naked body viewed by perfect strangers, and having been felt up for the first time by TSA the week prior (I travel frequently) I was not willing to be molested again." Wolanyk's attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly but his client refused to put his clothes back on. He never refused a pat down, according to his attorney. Wolanyk was arrested for refusing to complete the security process and for recording the incident on his iPhone, according to his attorney. San Diego has played a role in the controversy. From Tyner's videotape and U.S. Rep. Bob Filner's call for a Congressional hearing, to the parody song penned by Poway musician and Grammy-winner Steve Vaus. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 08:23:07 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:23:07 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Analyst: TSA methods 'will kill more Americans on highway' Message-ID: Analyst: TSA methods 'will kill more Americans on highway' By Jordy Yager - 11/21/10 09:09 AM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130243-analyst-new-tsa-procedures-will-kill-more-americans-on-the-highway The recent public ire toward the TSA?s new pat-down and body imaging screening methods is likely to cause more people to drive automobiles and forego airline travel, say two transportation economists who have studied the issue. As the nation readies for one of the busiest traveling holidays, Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University, told The Hill that the probable spike in road travel, caused by adverse feelings towards the Transportation Security Administration?s (TSA) new screening procedures, could also lead to more car-related deaths. ?Driving is much more dangerous than flying, as you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident mile-for-mile than you are in an airplane,? said Horwitz. ?The result will be that the new TSA procedures will kill more Americans on the highway.? Clifford Winston, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institute, stopped short of saying that more people could die as a result of the TSA policies, but said that the airline industry will definitely see a decline in passengers if the public?s contempt for the pat-downs and advanced-imaging technology systems continues. ?They added another wrinkle to airline travel by saying they?re going to screen you more thoroughly,? said Winston. ?Demand for transportation takes into account the price, but also the time, and if you add on top of that the disutility or annoyance of having to be groped, then for some people that?ll also have an effect.? Under new TSA rules, passengers are required to go through advanced imaging technology units. But because some people believe that the technology is too invasive, TSA officials give people the option of passing through a metal detector or receiving a pat-down, which some have said makes them feel like they?re being groped. The public outcry over these methods caused the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) to write a letter to TSA head John Pistole on Friday asking for him to ?reconsider? using the methods. RELATED ARTICLES ? Perry: Put TSA patters on border security ? GOP rep: 'TSA could screw up a two-car funeral' Thompson also said that the TSA should have told people about the techniques and ?had a conversation with the American people about the need for these changes? while making sure to conduct and publicize privacy and civil liberties evaluations. ?By not issuing these assessments, the traveling public has no assurance that these procedures have been thoroughly evaluated for constitutionality,? said Thompson in the letter, which was also signed by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, the chairwoman of the Homeland Security subcommittee on Transportation, Security, and Infrastructure Protection. Pistole has been at the center of growing public concern about the new pat-down techniques, which he described to senators earlier this week as ?clearly more invasive? than the traditional screening airline passengers have received in the past. But, he said, the invasiveness is justified by the level and types of threats to the airline industry to which he is privy. Pistole told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee this week that the pat-down technique was so thorough that, had it been used, it would have thwarted the suspected Christmas Day bomber, who allegedly hid an explosive device in his underwear. The TSA was not planning to alter the newly imposed security measures for passengers, Pistole said. But on Friday the TSA revised its initial screening policies in response to objections from a growing chorus of pilots so that now they will be exempt from being scanned or patted down. And earlier this week in protest of the screening measure a group began organizing a ?National Opt-Out Day? for next Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving and one of the heaviest sky trafficked days of the year. The airline industry has gradually bounced back since the Sept. 11, 2001, plane attacks when it saw its profits drastically dip for many months as passengers opted for other travel means or not to travel altogether. But the recent controversy over the screening methods could cause that uptick in profits to be short-lived, said Horwitz and Winston. ?It probably won?t be as big as the original effect of post 9/11, but it will be a chunk of airline travel,? said Winston. ?And it will make it that much harder to move back to a more user-friendly environment.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 10:34:53 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:34:53 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Novell to Be Bought by Attachmate for $2.2 Billion Message-ID: Novell to Be Bought by Attachmate for $2.2 Billion By Amy Thomson - Nov 22, 2010 10:28 AM ET Mon Nov 22 15:28:21 GMT 2010 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-22/novell-will-be-acquired-by-attachmate-for-2-2-billion-or-6-10-a-share.html Novell Inc., the maker of Linux operating-system software, agreed to be bought by Attachmate Corp. for $2.2 billion in cash, ending at least eight months of bidding. Novell investors will get $6.10 a share, Attachmate, a software company owned by private-equity firms including Golden Gate Capital Corp., said today in a statement. That?s 9.1 percent more than Novell?s closing price on Nov. 19. Novell will also sell some intellectual-property assets to a group of technology companies led by Microsoft Corp. for $450 million. The company started looking at strategic alternatives including a sale after rejecting a $2 billion takeover offer in March from shareholder Elliot Associates LP as inadequate. Attachmate, whose owners also include Francisco Partners and Thoma Bravo, said Novell products will complement a portfolio that includes other technology assets. ?Management had struggled over the last few years to grow the new businesses and that created an opportunity given all of the cash from the balance sheet for financial bidders," said Rich Williams, an analyst at Cross Research in Livingston, New Jersey, who rates Novell shares "hold" and doesn?t own any. "The financially oriented buyers are going to hold the company, reshape it to a degree and then in a few years, in a more attractive environment, bring the company public." Novell has reported eight quarters of revenue declines and the company, which competes with Oracle Corp. and BMC Software Inc., has said last year?s recession hurt customer orders. The company, based in Waltham, Massachusetts, had $1.04 billion in cash and short-term investments at the end of the third quarter. Average Premium Novell rose 36 cents, or 6.4 percent, to $5.95 in Nasdaq Stock Market trading at 10:26 a.m. New York time. It had gained 35 percent this year before today. Besides Linux, Novell?s business units include identity and security management, systems and resource management, and workload-management products and its GroupWise e-mail system. As part of the deal, Elliott will become a shareholder in Attachmate. Elliott was one of several parties in a 2006 buyout of Metrologic Instruments Inc., a maker of bar-code scanners. Elliott helped fund the 2009 acquisition of MSC.Software Corp. by private-equity firm Symphony Technology Group LLC. The purchase price for Novell is 28 percent higher than the company?s stock price before Elliott?s March bid. The average premium acquirers offered for software companies in the past 12 months was 21 percent, with businesses that make software for enterprises the most popular targets, according to Bloomberg analysis of more than 1,000 deals. The companies said they expect to close in the first quarter. Credit Suisse and RBC Capital Markets are acting as the financial advisers for Attachmate. JPMorgan Chase & Co. advised Novell. To contact the reporters on this story: Ville Heiskanen at vheiskanen at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Elstrom at pelstrom at bloomberg.net From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 10:53:32 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:53:32 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Wyden effectively kills Internet censorship bill Message-ID: <4CFFCB90-C99E-4262-85FC-2246C4FA2E8E@infowarrior.org> Oregon Senator Wyden effectively kills Internet censorship bill By Stephen C. Webster Friday, November 19th, 2010 -- 4:27 pm http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oregon-senator-vows-block-internet-censorship-bill/ It's too early to say for sure, but Oregon Senator Ron Wyden could very well go down in the history books as the man who saved the Internet. A bill that critics say would have given the government power to censor the Internet will not pass this year thanks to the Oregon Democrat, who announced his opposition during a recent committee hearing. Individual Senators can place holds on pending legislation, in this case meaning proponents of the bill will be forced to reintroduce the measure and will not be able to proceed until the next Congress convenes. Even then, its passage is not certain. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) would have permitted a blanket takedown of any domain alleged to be assisting activities that violate copyright law, based upon the judgment of state attorneys general. "Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile," Wyden said. The act was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. "Few things are more important to the future of the American economy and job creation than protecting our intellectual property," said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who co-sponsored the bill. "That is why the legislation is supported by both labor and industry, and Democrats and Republicans are standing together." Opponents of the bill insist that many sites which contain allegedly infringing materials also traffic in legitimate data that's constitutionally protected. There's also a fear that whatever action the US takes, other countries will seek to emulate, and some to a much more zealous degree. Activist group DemandProgress, which is running a petition against the bill, argued the powers in the bill could be used for political purposes. If the whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks is found to be hosting copyrighted material, for instance, access to WikiLeaks could be blocked for all US Internet users, they suggested. A group of academics, led by Temple University law professor David Post, have signed a petition opposing COICA. "The Act, if enacted into law, would fundamentally alter U.S. policy towards Internet speech, and would set a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences for free expression and global Internet freedom," Post wrote in the petition letter (PDF). "Blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system," explained the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), a privacy and digital rights advocate group, is a "reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech." The EFF has published a list of Web sites it believes are at highest risk of being shut down under the proposed law. Included in the list are file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Mediafire, music mash-up sites like SoundCloud and MashupTown, as well as "sites that discuss and advocate for P2P technology or for piracy," such as pirate-party.us and P2PNet. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, often cited as the father of the world wide web, has called Internet disconnection laws in the name of copyright protection a "blight" on the net. With prior reporting by Daniel Tencer A prior version of this report cited Sir Tim Berners-Lee as "the creator of the Internet." He is in actuality the creator of technologies central to the world wide web, namely hyper-text markup language (HTML). From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 12:07:49 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:07:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA chief admits he withheld information on pat-downs Message-ID: TSA chief admits he withheld information on pat-downs By Tony Pugh McClatchy Newspapers http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/22/1938067/tsa-chief-admits-he-withheld-information.html WASHINGTON ? Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole said on Monday that he disregarded internal advice to the contrary and decided not tell the public in advance about aggressive new screening and pat-down procedures for airline passengers, fearing terrorists could try to exploit the information. In an hour-long discussion with reporters, Pistole said media officials at the Department of Homeland Security had urged him to ?get out ahead? of the potential controversy by formally announcing plans for enhanced body searches and the use of new x-ray and radio-wave imaging devices at 70 airports beginning in November. But doing so would have provided a ?roadmap or blueprint for terrorists? to avoid detection by using other airports where the new technology wasn?t in place, Pistole said. Rather than publicize the changes, Pistole said he made a ?risk-based? decision to roll it out first and ?try to educate the public after we did that.? The result has been a firestorm of criticism from lawmakers and passengers who claim the technology and aggressive searches are unnecessary, intrusive and a violation of their privacy rights. With the Thanksgiving travel crush beginning on Wednesday, several groups are urging fliers to boycott the new procedures on that day, when millions of people will jam airports to travel for the holiday weekend. The controversy prompted Pistole on Sunday to pledge to make security checks ?as minimally invasive as possible.? But today, Pistole noted any modifications would come over the long-term and not in time to affect holiday travelers this week. On the prospect of a protest Wednesday, Pistole said he doesn?t know what to expect of the protest, but that he worries for passengers who could ?miss a flight because a group of people are blocking access or because they?re taking extended periods of time,? with the protest. ?I feel bad for those people who would not be protesting and just want to get home to have time with loved ones for the holidays,? Pistole said. Because many passengers haven?t yet experienced the new measures, TSA will air public service announcements at the airports that explain the new procedures. They?ve also posted a new website video that outlines the security measures and options for passengers who chose a pat-down search instead of the screening devices. While the busiest travel day of the year could be ?potentially complicated by the protest,? Pistole said the TSA would be fully staffed and prepared to handle all complaints. ?We?ll see what happens,? Pistole added. Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/22/1938067/tsa-chief-admits-he-withheld-information.html#ixzz162HgoNZK From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 12:13:42 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:13:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI Raids Two Hedge Funds Amid Insider-Trading Case Message-ID: <46AF829D-A804-4C3F-B4E4-07529BF05E0C@infowarrior.org> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704243904575630693960704872.html NOVEMBER 22, 2010, 12:59 P.M. ET FBI Raids Two Hedge Funds Amid Insider-Trading Case By SUSAN PULLIAM, JENNY STRASBURG And MICHAEL ROTHFELD Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided the Connecticut offices of hedge funds Diamondback Capital Management LLC and Level Global Investors LP amid a far-reaching insider-trading investigation. "The FBI is executing court-authorized search warrants in an ongoing investigation," said Richard Kolko, an FBI spokesman, who declined to comment further. Both hedge funds are run by former managers of Steve Cohen's SAC Capital Advisors. Level Global Investors LP is a Greenwich, Conn., hedge-fund firm run by David Ganek, a former SAC Capital trader and art collector. He started Level Global in 2003 and earlier this year reported managing about $4 billion in assets. Diamondback Capital Management LLC is based in Stamford, Conn., and was started in 2005. It oversees more than $5 billion in assets, according to SEC filings. The move by the FBI follows an article by The Wall Street Journal describing an insider-trading investigation that is expected to encompass consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders. The investigation is said by people close to the situation to eclipse in size and magnitude past insider-trading probes. Messages left with Richard Schimel, Diamondback's co-chief investment officer, and Diamondback's general counsel, Joel Harary, on their office phones weren't immediately returned. A spokesman for Level Global said, "We can confirm that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations visited our offices this morning as part of what we believe to be a broader investigation of the financial services industry discussed in media reports over the weekend. We are cooperating fully with the authorities and, at the same time, we are fully operational and continue to work diligently for the benefit of our investors." Write to Susan Pulliam at susan.pulliam at wsj.com and Jenny Strasburg at jenny.strasburg at wsj.com From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 12:27:13 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:27:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Pistole gets it wrong. Message-ID: <99AA37B8-EBC9-4C7C-8203-BAADF262CC68@infowarrior.org> TSA's Pistole: "We all wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary but that just isn't the case."" (Source: http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/112110_right_balance.shtm) ... John-buddy, nobody is saying we don't think airport screening is a bad idea. However, we ARE saying you're taking it to extremes based on the last known threat, and worry that this approach, when projected forward into the future, only means more controversial screenings based on the next 'last known threat' and places the citizenry at even greater inconvenience and sacrifices their rights and mobility as Americans for the illusion of effective security. Nice way to split hairs, though. - rick From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 12:35:23 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:35:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Apologies to the list ... Message-ID: While nobody's complained (yet) .... please note that it is not my intention to turn infowarrior-l into the "All TSA, All The Time" list. However, few things really get my Sicilian ire up as the levels of insanity forced upon our citizens in the name of protecting the homeland, with this recent TSA fiasco as one such example. Believe me when I say that I have NOT reposted the tons of stuff flooding my inbox these days from list readers who are equally concerned, distresste (or enraged) about this latest round of homeland hijinks. Rest assured, I am trying to be a bit selective in what I do put out both in terms of volume and content. Have a great holiday week. -- rick From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 13:02:41 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Analysis of the Qantas A380 jet Message-ID: <84EB59B1-EB10-4DF8-8A22-379C39F5950F@infowarrior.org> (c/o Anonymous) The pictures and diagrams in the slides seem to come from Airbus. The implication - nay the statement that Rolls knew about the bad engines but didn't tell Airbus or Qantas - is a serious charge of malicious negligence. About Ben Sandilands A reporter since November 30, 1960, Ben looks at what really matters up in the sky: public administration of air transport and its safety, the accountability of the carriers, and space for everyone?s knees. [image 01] The Airbus presentation to accident investigators of the damage done to QF32 on November 4 gives new technical insights into this near disaster involving a Qantas A380 with 466 persons on board. The examination of the damage is far from complete, as the presentation makes clear. It doesn?t deal with the other dimensions of this serious incident, which are the loss or impairment of various systems on the giant airliner, and the emerging difficulties the crew faced from fuel load imbalance caused by some of those failures. [image 02] [image 03] [image 04] One thing needs to be kept firmly in mind. Rolls-Royce the maker of the Trent 900 engine which disintegrated knew about the faults that the current airworthiness directive concerning these engines says are likely to have caused an intense oil fire in a structural cavity in the intermediate pressure turbine area of the engine. Rolls-Royce had designed and was introducing a fix for the oil leak issues for this into the engines at its own speed. Qantas was left in the dark. It is fair to suggest that Qantas needs to review relationships with engine manufacturers in which it pays for power by-the-hour and leaves much of the maintenance and oversight of those engines to the designer and manufacturer. To emphasise the obvious. The interests of the engine maker and holder of the service agreements are not the same as those of the airline. A carrier might want to correct and replace inadequate design features to a different, more urgent timetable that the party that benefits from the support contract, and has its own brand image to protect. [image 05] [image 06] [image 07] [image 08] The set of graphics shown above were accompanied by a brief written and photographic overview of the damage as currently assessed. [image 09] [image 10] [image 11] [image 12] [image 13] [image 14] Reviewing these images makes it clear why Qantas was quick, and correct, in grounding its A380 fleet. The wing of the jet shows remarkable structural strength in sustaining damage that might have destroyed the airliners of earlier decades, but the questions as to whether control system revisions are necessary to deal with some of the consequences in terms of failed hydraulics and fuel imbalance are said to be very actively under consideration. And the questions concerning the timeliness of the Rolls-Royce responses to a known problem, and its capacity and willingness to share them with the airlines concerned will not go away. If the engine maker doesn?t address them its customers will. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 13:14:37 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - MS Windows Turns 25 Message-ID: (Wow....25 years of the Blue Screen of Death, too!! --- rick) Congrats, Windows, You're a Quarter Century Old 12:40 PM - November 22, 2010 by Marcus Yam - source: Tom's Hardware US This is vintage Windows along with some vintage Ballmer. Believe it or not, Windows has been with us for more than a quarter century now, since being released on November 20th, 1985. While it may not have been with you for 25 years, there's no doubt that Microsoft's operating system has radically affected and influenced the computing world that we're in today. It was announced by Bill Gates in New York City in grand fashion. Sure, it wasn't exactly pretty for many years, and it was originally supposed to be called "Interface Manager," but today it's still Windows and it stands on its own as the most popular piece of software on the planet. Many of us at that time may have stuck with DOS (at least until Windows 3.1 rolled along, in my case ? though DOS was still required, of course), but eventually PCs were gradually moved from the command line interface to the graphical styles of Windows. Microsoft has come a long way to reach today's Windows 7. Let's have a look back at how things were in the initial release: < -- > http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-interface-manager-steve-ballmer,11682.html#xtor=RSS-181 From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 14:41:46 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Like Duh: Body-scanner makers spent millions on lobbying Message-ID: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-22-scanner-lobby_N.htm Body-scanner makers spent millions on lobbying By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY WASHINGTON ? The companies with multimillion-dollar contracts to supply American airports with body-scanning machines more than doubled their spending on lobbying in the last five years and hired several high-profile former government officials to advance their causes in Washington, records show. L-3 Communications, which has sold $39.7 million worth of the machines to the federal government, spent $4.3 million to influence Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of this year, up from $2.1 million in 2005, lobbying data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. Last year, the company spent $5.5 million on lobbying. Its lobbyists include Linda Daschle, a prominent Democratic figure in Washington, who is a former Federal Aviation Administration official. Rapiscan Systems, meanwhile, has spent $271,500 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. It has faced criticism for hiring Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, who has been a prominent proponent of using scanners to foil terrorism. Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology. It spent $440,000 on lobbying in 2009. The government has spent $41.2 million so far on Rapiscan's machines. "This is how business gets done in Washington," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The revolving door provides corporations like these with a short cut to lawmakers" and other decision-makers. The use of body-scanning machines, which will be installed at most of the nation's 450 commercial passenger airports by the end of 2011, has ignited controversy in recent weeks with passenger groups filing lawsuits to block their use, citing privacy and health concerns. Others are urging passengers to refuse to be scanned during a national "opt out" day on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. In a statement, Transportation Security Administration officials said the agency awards contracts on a competitive basis and selects products "through a comprehensive research, testing and deployment process." The lobbying by both firms has covered a broad array of topics. This year alone, L-3 Communications, a major defense contractor, reported lobbying on nearly two dozen bills, ranging from homeland security appropriations to legislation governing military construction. Among the bills targeted by L-3 lobbyists: Legislation proposed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, that would limit the use of the scanners at airports. Under his plan, the full-body imaging scanners would be used only as a backup screening measure. "I'm concerned that these machines are too invasive," he said. "With 2.2 million air passengers, 450 airports, 50,000 TSA agents and a machine that looks at you naked, that's a formula for disaster." Chaffetz's measure passed the House by wide margin last year, but it stalled in the Senate in the wake of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's alleged attempt in December 2009 to ignite an explosive powder on a Northwest flight to Detroit. At the time, Chertoff heavily promoted the use of full-body scanners at airports. The attempted Christmas Day bombing contributed to the bill's demise, Chaffetz said, "But I also routinely heard that 'Secretary Chertoff believes this is the right thing to do. Who are you to challenge him?' " Earlier this year, Flyersrights.org, a non-profit passengers' rights group, slammed Chertoff's work for Rapiscan. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, revived the issue last week when he took the House floor to criticize his role in promoting the scanners. Chertoff, who served in the Bush administration, provided advice to Rapiscan for a four-month period on "non-aviation security issues," said Peter Kant, a Rapiscan executive vice president. He is no longer a consultant to the company, Kant said. Chertoff spokeswoman Katy Montgomery said Chertoff's firm "played no role in the sale of whole-body imaging technology" to the government, and he was "in no way compensated for his public statements." Montgomery said Chertoff "has consistently expressed long-held beliefs in the deployment of effective technologies and techniques that eliminate security vulnerabilities, such as those illustrated last year during the terrorist attempt on Christmas Day." Daschle, meanwhile, lobbied against Chaffetz's bill on behalf of L-3 Communications. Daschle, the wife of former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, has represented the company since 1997. Daschle said explosive devices that cannot be detected by traditional X-ray machines represent a real threat to aviation security, and government officials with access to classified information understand that. "I don't think it was Linda Daschle that made the difference" in L-3 Communications' success, she said. "I think it was people understanding what the threat is and seeing these capable solutions." Rapiscan's lobbying spending has grown as the company has grown from a company that once focused on providing X-ray machines at courthouses and schools to a firm engaged in border security, whole-body scanning at airports and detecting improvised-explosive devices on the battlefield, Kant said. The company also has been required to report more of its in-house lobbying to Congress in recent years, he said. Among Rapiscan's lobbyists: Beth Spivey, a former aide to ex-Senate majority leader Trent Lott, records show. Hiring lobbyists with Capitol Hill experience does not grant the company special access to lawmakers, Kant said. "It has nothing to do with access," he said. "It has to do with understanding how the business of legislation works. You want someone who knows how legislation is done and what's important in Congress." From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 14:50:02 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:50:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Dangerous Facebook precedent..... Message-ID: So what happens if FB decides it doesn't like folks linking to ..... oh, MySpace or the "next" Facebook? Going to block those links too? ---- rick Another chapter in the Facebook vs. Lamebook, errmm, book: the social networking giant has confirmed to us that it has moved to diligently block all outgoing links to Lamebook.com, shut down the two-person company?s Facebook Page (previously at facebook.com/thelamebook), and blocks visitors of the funny site from ?liking? posts to boot. For your background: Facebook wants the Austin startup to quit using the name Lamebook, deeming its activities under that name an ?improper attempt to build a brand that trades off Facebook?s popularity and fame?, and filed a trademark infringement lawsuit last week. Lamebook had previously filed for declaratory judgment on its non-infringement of Facebook?s trademark, saying it operates a parody website and as such is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. < -- > But if Facebook won?t be prevailing in court, that doesn?t mean they can?t just try and proverbially choke Lamebook to death. (Source: http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-blocks-lamebook/) From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 14:51:47 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Whether Or Not The TSA Has Ever Caught A Terrorist Is Apparently A State Secret Message-ID: <380D7DA5-BC77-4265-B840-5BA25DC50355@infowarrior.org> Whether Or Not The TSA Has Ever Caught A Terrorist Is Apparently A State Secret from the which-means-no dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/18284511954/whether-not-tsa-has-ever-caught-terrorist-is-apparently-state-secret.shtml We asked recently if there was any evidence, ever, that the TSA's security procedures prevented an attack on an airplane. Last week the TSA claimed, without any details, that its procedures had stopped 130 "prohibited, illegal or dangerous items" from getting on airplanes in the last year. But it provides no details. And, in a day when a bottle of water and nail clippers are considered "prohibited," it's difficult to judge if this actually means anything. Over at Slate, Juliet Lapidos tries to dig into the question, but the TSA won't point out a single specific case claiming it's a "national security" issue. Huh? Actually telling us whether or not the naked scans and crotch grabs catch anyone is a state secret? That seems likely to mean that the answer is, no, they have not caught anyone or stopped any attempted attack, and they're just too embarrassed to say so. In fact, Lapidos points out that, in years past, the TSA has publicly announced when it "caught" someone -- as in the one time, nearly three years ago, it found a guy who had enough materials in his (checked) suitcase to make a pipe-bomb. Of course, there wasn't an actual pipe bomb in the suitcase, so it wasn't going to blow up the plane or anything. So, in effect, it seems pretty clear that the security screening process isn't catching anyone. Of course, supporters might claim that terrorists are too scared off by the screenings, so that's why we're safe. But that makes little sense. As Jeffrey Goldberg showed a few years back, it's quite easy to get things past the security screenings if you really want to. This is security theater, plain and simple. And the TSA must know that. Which is why it's a "state secret." From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 14:52:24 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:52:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Rupert_Murdoch_=97_Still_at_War_?= =?windows-1252?q?With_the_Internet?= Message-ID: Rupert Murdoch ? Still at War With the Internet By Mathew Ingram Nov. 22, 2010, 10:30am PDT 2 Comments http://gigaom.com/2010/11/22/rupert-murdoch-still-at-war-with-the-internet/ If News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch and the Internet were friends on Facebook, their relationship status would say ?it?s complicated.? While the billionaire media mogul no doubt realizes that the Internet has huge potential as a medium, he has spent the past few years failing repeatedly to take advantage of that potential, misunderstanding how the Internet works, railing against its most powerful features and doing everything he can to avoid using it properly. The latest in this parade of bad ideas is the iPad newspaper he is supposedly working on called ?The Daily.? The idea of a newspaper ? or rather, a paperless news service ? that is designed from the ground up for a device like the iPad is a good one. Instead of taking the existing structure of a newspaper, with its printing plants and rigid publishing schedules, and trying to adapt that to a digital medium, creating something that is designed specifically for that medium and for a great interactive device like the iPad makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that?s not what Rupert Murdoch is doing, or at least not according to the reports we?ve heard so far. One major flaw is telegraphed by the name of this new creature: ?The Daily.? According to New York Times media writer David Carr, the staff that Murdoch has put together at a cost of about $30 million or so will be creating content that will mostly be published once a day, just like traditional print newspapers are. Why? Good question. One of the most obvious features of Internet-based news is that it is happening at all times, and from dozens of different sources, every minute of the day and night. Maybe stepping back from that has a certain value ? but publishing once a day seems almost hopelessly antiquated, like a monthly newsmagazine. Another major flaw, as Salon founder Scott Rosenberg and others have noted, is that because it is solely a for-pay service, The Daily?s news will not really be part of the Internet at all ? there will be no links to its content from outside the News Corp. venture because it will live behind a paywall (although the new publication will apparently have a website that ?mirrors? some content to give readers a peek at what is available). No sharing via Twitter, no posting links to Facebook, no blogging about the content ? nothing that creates the kind of buzz and connections that a modern Internet media entity should be taking advantage of. Contrast Rupert?s vision with the one put forward by Information Architects, the Swiss design firm that created a new iPad version of Zeit Online, a German news site. It isn?t an app at all, but a website redesigned specifically for the iPad, using HTML5 to give the site an app-style look and feel, while still using the Internet as its delivery system instead of Apple?s app platform. Since it is freely available, links and sharing of content are built right in. Will some readers subscribe to Murdoch?s iPad paper anyway? Undoubtedly. But whether it will be enough to make it a viable business remains to be seen. If all that wasn?t enough to make you pessimistic about The Daily?s chances, there?s Rupert Murdoch?s track record in digital ventures: after years of railing against Google ?stealing? his news content for Google News, for example, the media mogul spent over a year and more than $30 million trying to build a competitor before finally killing it. He is also said to be close to putting a bullet in Myspace, which has been both losing traffic and hemorrhaging money over the past year, thanks to Facebook. And a paywall attempt at News Corp. flagship The Times in London is either a gigantic failure or a small, qualified success, depending on whom you choose to believe. The bottom line? Rupert Murdoch keeps fighting the Internet, and the Internet keeps on winning. The Daily may have some powerful friends in Steve Jobs and the iPad as a platform, but it sounds like the Internet is probably going to win this one too. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 17:07:19 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:07:19 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Graphic: History of Airport Security Message-ID: <1F9B7FB5-23F8-4942-8F51-6D325805270E@infowarrior.org> Graphic: History of Airport Security http://gizmodo.com/5696276/the-history-of-airport-security-visualized From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 22 17:08:07 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FAA gives SpaceX the first-ever commercial license for spacecraft reentry Message-ID: http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/22/faa-gives-spacex-the-first-ever-commercial-license-for-spacecraf/ FAA gives SpaceX the first-ever commercial license for spacecraft reentry By Paul Miller posted Nov 22nd 2010 5:26PM Well, SpaceX just scored a huge milestone in space travel for the proletariat: we get to come back now. The FAA just gave SpaceX's Dragon capsule a reentry license, paving the way for it to make round trips to the International Space Station and eventually even take people up there. NASA, who already has some hefty contracts with SpaceX for launches, has congratulated SpaceX over Twitter on the good news, though we're sure the few billion dollars in future business speaks volumes already. Engadget's own Chad Mumm, resident Space Destiny Enthusiast, had this to say about the momentous occasion: "We're standing on the shoulders of our ancestors, reaching out a small, child-like hand at the stars. And then returning safely to earth thanks to FAA certification. We're on the verge of the impossible." Sorry, there's something in our eye... Show full PR text NASA Statements on FAA Granting Reentry License to SpaceX WASHINGTON Nov. 22, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- NASA issued the following statements Monday after the Federal Aviation Administration issued SpaceX a license for spacecraft reentry: "Congratulations to the SpaceX team for receiving the Federal Aviation Administration's first-ever commercial license to reenter a spacecraft from Earth orbit," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said. "With this license in hand, SpaceX can proceed with its launch of the Dragon capsule. The flight of Dragon will be an important step toward commercial cargo delivery to the International Space Station. NASA wishes SpaceX every success with the launch." "Milestones are an important part of space exploration and SpaceX achieved a very important one today," said Doug Cooke, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. "I congratulate SpaceX on this landmark achievement and wish them the best with their launch of the Dragon capsule." From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 23 18:28:57 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:28:57 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Big Sis: Next step for body scanners could be trains, boats, metro Message-ID: <4FEC8F3F-EBC6-48AD-A9D4-92CA618533F2@infowarrior.org> ext step for body scanners could be trains, boats, metro By Jordy Yager - 11/23/10 02:09 PM ET http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro- The next step in tightened security could be on U.S. public transportation, trains and boats. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for U.S. vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary. ?[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,? Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on "Charlie Rose." ?I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?? Napolitano?s comments, made a day before one of the nation?s busiest travel days, come in the wake of a public outcry over newly implemented airport screening measures that have been criticized for being too invasive. The secretary has defended the new screening methods, which include advanced imaging systems and pat-downs, as necessary to stopping terrorists. During the interview with Rose, Napolitano said her agency is now looking into ways to make other popular means of travel safer for passengers and commuters. Napolitano isn?t the only one who?s suggested that advanced scanning machines could be used in places beyond airports. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, introduced legislation this past September that would authorize testing of body scanners at some federal buildings. Napolitano?s comments were in response to the question: ?What will they [terrorists] be thinking in the future?? She gave no details about how soon the public could see changes in security or about what additional safety measures the DHS was entertaining. The recently implemented airport screening methods have made John Pistole, who heads the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the focus of growing public ire. On Monday, Pistole said he understood peoples? privacy concerns and that the TSA would consider modifying its screening policies to make them ?as minimally invasive as possible,? but he indicated the advanced-imaging body scans and pat-down methods would remain in place in the short term, including during the high-volume Thanksgiving period of travel. Lawmakers from both parties have received hundreds of complaints about the new methods ? some have likened the pat-downs to groping ? and have called on Pistole to address the privacy concerns of their constituents, who were not informed about changes ahead of time. Many lawmakers say the public should have been informed before the pat-downs and body-imaging techniques were put into practice. As a result, any move to implement new security screening measures for rail or water passengers is likely to be met with tough levels of scrutiny from lawmakers. Pistole, who spent 26 years with the FBI, told reporters Monday that he rejected the advice of media aides who advised him to publicize the revised security measures before they took effect. Terrorist groups have been known to study the TSA?s screening methods in an attempt to circumvent them, he said. Napolitano said she hoped the U.S. could get to a place in the future where Americans would not have to be as guarded against terrorist attacks as they are and that she was actively promoting research into the psychology of how a terrorist becomes radicalized. ?The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?? she said. ?I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful." DHS and intelligence officials are not as far along in understanding that process as they would like, Napolitano said, adding that until that goal is reached, steps need to be put in place to ensure the public?s safety. ?We don?t know much,? she said. ?If you were to try and devise a template about what connects this terrorist to this terrorist and how they were raised and what schools they went to and their socioeconomic status, or this or that, it?s all over the map. ?I think there?s some important work that?s being done on that but ? the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot wait for that.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 23 18:45:27 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:45:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped Message-ID: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped from the myth-of-security dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/01435311982/newspapers-say-shut-up-get-scanned-groped.shtml Matt Welch has a nice post over at Reason, highlighting numerous editorials from some big time newspapers mocking people who are concerned about the TSA's naked scans and/or groping procedures, beginning with the LA Times' perfectly obnoxious shut up and be scanned. Most of the editorials take on the typical apologists' line that "this is what we need to do to be secure." This can be summarized by the claim in the Spokesman-Review, entitled "Discomfort a small price for security on airplanes." Note the implicit assumption: that being scanned or groped somehow makes the planes safer. The problem here is that no one has presented any evidence to back this up. Instead, TSA head John Pistole says "trust us." Yet, when people ask for evidence, they're told it's a state secret. This country (last we checked) has a 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, which tends to have a high bar on what is a reasonable search. "Trust us" without any proof doesn't cut it. No one is arguing that we should make planes less secure, as these editorials suggest. We're arguing that security theater without evidence that it does anything valuable does not help anyone. Similarly, random appeals that we should be scanned and groped for patriotic purposes, rings hollow as well. The Baltimore Sun mocks those who are protesting the procedures by calling those people "short-sighted" and arguing: Whatever happened to the notion that we need to stick together to overcome extremists? U.S. soldiers are still dying for that cause in Iraq and Afghanistan on a regular basis. Under the circumstances, it seems a small sacrifice for the citizens back home to keep a stiff upper lip and voluntarily agree to measures that experts believe are needed -- at least until better technology and security techniques are developed. Similarly, the Springfield Republican claims that this is just the cost of war, like rationing food during World War II: For nearly 10 years the U.S. and its allies have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan to defeat the terrorists. But Americans at home haven't been asked to forego an ounce of sugar in this fight. Let's consider these searches the 21st-century equivalent of a WWII rationing card. Without even getting into the reasons why the US has soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's incredibly deceitful and disingenuous to claim that because we're fighting a war, we should automatically give up on the basic 4th Amendment principles in the Constitution. Does this mean if we weren't fighting over there we could keep our Constitution as is? And if it's okay to obliterate the 4th Amendment without providing any evidence (beyond "trust us") that it actually helps, why stop with the 4th Amendment? Why not toss out the First. Our soldiers are dying, so the government should ban free speech. After all, speaking up might encourage terrorism. Blind subservience based on vague "trust us" claims, that don't seem to have much basis in reality, is hardly a reason to give up basic freedoms. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 23 18:49:39 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:49:39 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Hedge funds and mutual funds get subpoenas Message-ID: <77B577A9-3115-494B-8A7A-79F6C818BD3C@infowarrior.org> Hedge funds and mutual funds get subpoenas 6:02pm EST By Svea Herbst-Bayliss and Ross Kerber http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM6YP20101123 BOSTON (Reuters) - Hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors and mutual fund firm Janus Capital Inc said on Tuesday they were among money managers asked to provide documents to U.S. securities regulators as part of a widening probe by federal authorities into insider trading on Wall Street. SAC, the $12 billion Greenwich, Connecticut, firm run by Steven A. Cohen, told investors in a letter on Tuesday that it and many other firms had received the requests for information from the Securities and Exchange Commission. A spokesman for the firm declined to comment. Janus, which oversees $161 billion and is located in Denver, said it received an inquiry for general information and it intends to cooperate fully. Trading in Janus' stock was briefly halted after the company released its statement. Bloomberg News reported that Boston-based Wellington Management with $598 billion also received a request. The firm declined to comment. Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel declined to comment on whether it received a request for information. People familiar with the requests said they were broad in nature. The investigation, according to lawyers and other familiar with the situation, is looking into allegations that hedge funds traded on nonpublic information about corporate buyouts and tips from industry consultants. No one at any of the firms receiving the requests for information from the SEC has been accused of wrongdoing. A spokesman for the SEC declined to comment. But the news further rattled nerves on Wall Street and came a day after federal agents raided three hedge funds and carted away boxes of documents. Indeed, jittery investors have been placing calls to prominent hedge funds across the country asking whether they too had received any subpoenas and asking managers to update them by email if anything should arrive in the mail. What investors have not done so far is pull money out broadly, but this might be a next step if people become sufficiently worried that the investigation will reach into the highest echelons of the $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry. "This probe is creating a high level of nervousness," said Stewart Massey, who invests with hedge funds at Massey, Quick & Co. "People want as much information as they can get and they want but at the moment this is not affecting hedge fund industry flows." Trading firm First New York Securities, meanwhile, recently told employees in an email that it had conducted an internal review after receiving a subpoena from the SEC last year. It said it discovered no evidence of wrongdoing. On Monday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation entered the offices of Diamondback Capital Management, which had gotten a subpoena some time ago, and of Level Global Investors. Both were launched by alumni of Cohen's fund. The other fund searched was Loch Capital Management in Boston, where the managers had been friendly with a person charged in last year's big Galleon Management insider trading case. Investors familiar with these funds have said people who had money with them were now asking for it back. (Additional reporting by Matthew Goldstein and Elinor Comlay in New York; Editing by Gary Hill) From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 23 18:52:35 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:52:35 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - SAP Ordered to Pay Oracle $1.3 Billion Message-ID: November 23, 2010 SAP Ordered to Pay Oracle $1.3 Billion http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/24oracle.html?hp=&pagewanted=print By VERNE G. KOPYTOFF SAN FRANCISCO ? A federal jury on Tuesday awarded Oracle $1.3 billion in damages in its copyright infringement case against rival SAP. The decision in Federal District Court in Oakland, Calif., was a victory for Oracle, which had asked for $2 billion from SAP for making thousands of copies of its software and manuals as part of an effort to lure away customers. SAP admitted liability in the case just before the trial began, so the question for the jury was not whether SAP was guilty, but rather how much it should pay. During the three-week trial, the two sides argued over how much Oracle would have charged SAP to legally license the software and other items it stole. The divide between the two sides was great. Oracle claimed that a license would have been in the billions of dollars because it would mean handing its secrets to a rival intent on stealing its customers. SAP said that the damages were closer to $40 million because it had persuaded only a few hundred of Oracle?s customers to defect. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 24 13:06:09 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Color-coded terror alerts may end Message-ID: AP Exclusive: Color-coded terror alerts may end By EILEEN SULLIVAN The Associated Press Wednesday, November 24, 2010; 7:30 AM https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112401239_pf.html WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department is proposing to discontinue the color-coded terror alert system that became a symbol of the country's post-9/11 jitters and the butt of late-night talk show jokes. The 8-year-old system, with its rainbow of five colors - from green, signifying a low threat, to red, meaning severe - became a fixture in airports, government buildings and on newscasts. Over the past four years, millions of travelers have begun and ended their trips to the sound of airport recordings warning that the threat level is orange. The system's demise would not be the end of terror alerts; instead, the alerts would become more descriptive and not as colorful. In the past two years, Obama administration officials have changed security protocols without changing the color of the threat, such as introducing new airport security measures after a terrorist tried to bring down a Detroit-bound jetliner last Christmas. By scrapping the colors, President Barack Obama would abandon a system that critics long have said was too vague to be useful and that Democrats criticized as a political scare tactic. And it would represent a formal undoing of one of the George W. Bush administration's most visible legacies. Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that he believes the aim of the administration's plan is to help people better understand concepts about danger that may be too vague when conveyed through the color-coded system. "I think it's something that is under review to make it meaningful and relevant to the American people," he said. "I'm just not sure how relevant it is." He called Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's internal review "just a commonsense approach" and said she should be credited with "making some judgments going forward." Officials confirmed the recommendation and the draft proposal was described to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because other federal agencies are privately weighing in on the idea, and no final decision has been made. Napolitano ordered a review of the system in July 2009. Earlier this year, the department decided the best way forward would be to scrap the colors and use more descriptive language to talk about terror threats. The recommendation is not related to the recent furor over airport security pat-downs and body scans. The details of the new alert system - including the words that would be used to describe the threats - are still being worked out internally by multiple government agencies and the White House. The Homeland Security Department would not discuss the recommendations and did not know when a new system would be rolled out. The current colored system remains in place. "We are committed to providing specific, actionable information based on the latest intelligence," department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said. One of the recommended names for the new system is the National Terrorist Advisory System, replacing the current Homeland Security Advisory System. An option under consideration is to go from five threat tiers to two: elevated and imminent. Under that model, when the threat level changes to imminent, government officials would be expected to be as specific as possible in describing the threat without jeopardizing national security. And an imminent threat would not last longer than a week, meaning the public wouldn't see a consistently high and ambiguous threat level. There also would be an understanding with the public that there is a baseline level of vigilance needed in the U.S., but when the government gets information that suggests the threat is more specific, the new system would be used to communicate those details. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said the use of colors emerged from a desire to clarify the nonspecific threat information that intelligence officials were receiving after the 2001 terrorist attacks. The goal was to put the threat in terms the public could understand. "And most importantly, it empowers government and citizens to take actions to address the threat," Ridge said in March 2002 when, as Bush's homeland security adviser, he announced the birth of the system. Each color signaled specific security measures to be taken at airports and other public places. From the beginning, Ridge said, officials knew the system would become the target of critics. Late-night TV host Conan O'Brien chimed in just days after the announcement. "Earlier this week, Homeland Security Adviser Tom Ridge announced a new color-coded warning system. A color-coded system to keep the public informed about disasters. Seems like a good idea," O'Brien said. "Yeah, apparently red is the highest alert, and it means Dick Cheney is about to eat a mozzarella stick." As part of her review in 2009, Napolitano solicited comments from the public about the current system. Some of those commentators likened the color-coded system to the boy who cried wolf. Others criticized it for not following the natural color spectrum. Others wanted the system to be based on numbers as opposed to colors and to mirror the weather alerts familiar to communities across the country. Under the current system, green, at the bottom, signals a low danger of attack; blue signals a general risk; yellow, a significant risk; orange, a high risk; and red, at the top, warns of a severe threat. The nation has never been below the third threat level, yellow - an elevated or significant risk of terrorist attack. While the colored descriptors haven't changed in eight years, the government has modified how it uses them. The government departed from blanket warnings in 2004 when it raised the threat level for the financial sector in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Previously, warnings would have applied across the country. The terror threat to the U.S. continues to change, but the color of the threat is the same as it was in 2006: yellow for the country as a whole and orange for the aviation sector. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 24 13:08:49 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:08:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Tick, Tick, Tick of the Times Message-ID: <47847AFF-7846-438C-8473-28CBED7E3B02@infowarrior.org> The Tick, Tick, Tick of the Times By James Poniewozik Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2010 http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2032304_2032745_2032850,00.html The morning of Sept. 11, 2001, there was more news than the country could bear and more than a TV screen could fit. Beyond the plane crashes and burning buildings, reports and rumors abounded of other attacks, explosions, evacuations. There was chaos, fear and both literal and figurative smoke clouding the situation. There was too much to process and too much to transmit; the news was on overload. Enter the ticker: the steady stream of headlines that glided along the bottom of the screen while anchors did interviews, while leaders addressed the public, while the towers fell. Fox News, which in so many ways set the tone, volume and attitude of cable news in the '00s, was first to deploy the ticker that morning, followed by CNN and MSNBC. It was an improvisational call ? a simple, old-fashioned solution (harkening back to the "zipper" installed on the New York Times building in 1928) to a modern problem. (See pictures of the evolution of Ground Zero.) After the shock wore off and the smoke cleared, the ticker remained. It became not just a tool but a symbol. It was a message in itself, a constant prod, an emblem of a media era of constant crisis mode and steady overstimulation. At first, the ticker was like a relief valve, a way for millions of anxious viewers to tune in and quickly get updated: white house evacuated ... faa has shut down all domestic flights ... red cross appeal ? blood donations ... 2 aircraft carriers have been deployed ... Then it became a kind of anxious Greek chorus of constant low-level chatter: anthrax scare ... shoe bomb ... The emergency receded, but the signifier of emergency never did. Crawls were used on TV before 9/11 ? but temporarily, for major breaking news, weather emergencies, elections, national crises. They asked for heightened alertness, gave your pulse reason to quicken just a little. And now, the data stream onscreen seemed to say, the emergency was permanent; the warning lights were always flashing. Like the multiple windows open on our computer screens, like the simultaneous pictures on an episode of 24 ? the other visual hallmark of the War on Terror years ? the ticker said there was simply too much information to send through one channel alone. Big news day or slow news day, the urgency ? alert alert alert ? never stopped. (See TIME covers on television news.) To remove the ticker, after all, would be to say life had gone back to normal, to reject the national shibboleth that everything had changed. Who wanted to be the first to do that? (It would be months before news networks even began to gradually remove the American flags they had posted in their screen corners.) In more practical terms, a sense of crisis is good business for TV news. And producers found the ticker to be useful, a way to give viewers a sense that they were getting the most info in the least time and a place to shunt the headlines during the opinion shows that increasingly dominated cable post-9/11. But it always had to be filled: the ticker never sleeps. It opened up to sports scores and people news. It became a thing of accidental terror (dirty bomb attack ... might scroll on before a commercial that prevented it from finishing ... simulation exercise under way ...) or accidental bathos (rolling on under a news report about Israeli-Palestinian peace talks: iphone 4 in short supply for china launch ... Lindsay Lohan could enter rehab this week ...). Right after 9/11, in other words, the ticker was a way of offering raw news; in the years afterward, it became a symbol of the refusal to filter that news. Like a stuck car alarm, it stopped being an alert to any particular urgency and became a source of constant, low-level unease. And it was a microcosm of the hyperagitated news culture in general. The nine years that followed 9/11 were years of genuinely big headlines: Iraq, Katrina, Lehman Brothers. Yet it was sometimes hard to distinguish truly monumental events from ordinary news amplified by monumental technology. Every natural disaster, it seemed, was the worst ever, every potential pandemic the most deadly, every financial crisis the most dire, every terrorism alert the scariest, every political division the deepest and most acrimonious. Of course, just as you occasionally make a vow to turn off your ringer and stop taking text messages at dinner, the networks have tried lately to set up ticker-free zones. It now disappears during some news specials and opinion shows. In 2008, CNN substituted a more genteel "flipper," which turns over lazily like a line on an old arrivals-departures board. But nine years later, our news screens remain cluttered with data. Once the media's volume level goes up, it's hard to take it back down. It just keeps tic Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2032304,00.html #ixzz16EEGSOy3 From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 24 13:23:00 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:23:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Gloves: TSA infecting U.S.? Message-ID: <536B518B-740E-449A-BD5A-1DDBE0F94675@infowarrior.org> Spreadin' the glove: TSA infecting U.S.? Latex coverings 'have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill' Posted: November 22, 2010 11:04 pm Eastern http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=231733 By Bob Unruh ? 2010 WorldNetDaily Those latex gloves Transportation Security Administration agents wear while giving airline passengers those infamous full-body pat-downs apparently aren't there for the safety and security of passengers ? only the TSA agents. That's the word being discussed on dozens of online forums and postings after it was noted that the agents wear the same gloves to pat down dozens, perhaps hundreds, of passengers, not changing them even though the Centers for Disease Control in its online writings has emphasized the important of clean hands to prevent the exchange of loathsome afflictions. "Herpes via latex glove ... ewwww," wrote one participant on the independence-minded AR15 website forum. Responding to the question, "Does the TSA change latex gloves after each sexual assault?" another wrote on the same forum, "I seriously doubt it. Gloves are for their protection, not yours." Join tens of thousands of Americans in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue. In fact, TSA officials in both national and regional offices declined to respond to WND inquiries about the policy for changing gloves to prevent an infection that may be on the clothes or body of one passenger during a pat-down by TSA agents from being transmitted to other passengers, including children, in line. (Story continues below) Martha Donahue in a commentary at Resistnet said she'd spent 30 years in the medical industry. "For those of you who fly and opt for the 'pat down,' you need to demand the TSA thugs change their gloves. I've been watching on the news how they operate. People are being searched [with] dirty gloves ... gloves that have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill, people who pick their noses. Do you want those gloves touching you? "These thugs are protecting themselves from you. You need to be protected from them," she wrote. "In a hospital, nursing home, in-home care, or even labs, that would never even be considered an option." ABC reported one of its news employees documented how a TSA worker reached inside her underwear. "The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," the ABC employee said in the network's report. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate." Asked today about the possibility of contamination being spread from one passenger to another on the gloves of TSA agents, a spokesman for the CDC bailed. "Please contact the Dept of Homeland Security and/or TSA on this issue," the spokesman told WND. But in its online writings, the CDC repeatedly makes clear the importance of maintaining clean hands to avoid such transmission of communicable and contagious afflictions. Dr. Julie Gerberding, at the time the chief of the CDC, said during a special presentation on hand cleanliness, "We know that hand hygiene is a critical component of safe and healthy health care." At the same time, Dr. John Boyce, lead author of the organization's hand-washing guidelines and the chairman of the Hand Hygiene Task Force, said, "There's a large study that was conducted at the University of Geneva Hospital in Switzerland where they demonstrated significant improvement in the adherence of health care workers to hand hygiene practices and they also showed that the incidence of antibiotic resistance to staph infections went down and that the overall prevalence of health care-acquired infections went down ... ." Suggested Gerberding in the context of health care, "Hand hygiene saves lives. We're recommending a comprehensive evidence-based approach in hospitals that consists of handwashing with soap and water when the goal is to remove unsightly debris; hand alcohol preps for enhancing appearance and reducing bacterial counts; and gloving when people have contact with blood or other body fluids in accordance with universal precautions." She said even in a "community setting," "washing with soap and water remains a very sensible strategy for hand hygiene." Other health standards across the country routinely warn against hand contact with sores, lesions or other sources of viruses or contamination. The Lincoln, Neb., health site notes, "This includes hand contact." Officials at the Canadian Center for Occupational Health noted that "hand washing is the single most effective way to prevent the spread of infections. "You can spread certain 'germs' (a general term for microbes like viruses and bacteria) casually by touching another person. You can also catch germs when you touch contaminated objects or surfaces and then you touch your face (mouth, eyes, and nose)," it said. In a forum on The Hill, writer Carol Felsenthal said agents should, simply in the course of their work, change gloves between passengers. "Anyone who has visited a fast food joint, a doctor's office or a hospital has watched as workers change gloves between servings or exams. And if they don't, the customer/patient would surely say something," she wrote. "How often do the TSA agents doing the 'enhanced pat-downs' change gloves?" She wrote that she was wondering "about the possibility of screeners passing everything from bedbugs to skin infections from one passenger to another." She continued, "Latex glove issues might seem minor, but there ought to be procedures to require TSA screeners to don fresh gloves each time they encounter a new passenger." On a TSA blog promoting the agency's actions and policies, one screener explained, "Changing gloves is fairly simple ... . When I gate screen I carry about 10-12 pairs in my pockets." Respondents to the comment were outraged, "That's just plain disgusting and most certainly not acceptable ... procedures as set forth by the CDC for usage of gloves for protection," said one. "Reasoning being is that the bacteria count in your pockets is about the same is your mouth or armpit." Wrote another forum participant, "Those gloves are soiled if they come out of your pockets and before handling my stuff you will be expected to obtain a clean, from the original container, pair. ... Who knows what filth inhabits your pockets!" Officials at the city-owned Denver International Airport, some 20 miles northeast of downtown, said they had no participation in making any health policy regarding the gloves used by TSA screeners on Denver passengers, and, in fact, did not know if there was a policy. On the Above Top Secret blog, the author was trying to provide a public service. "Those gloves are worn for the protection of the agent," wrote the commentator. "You must request that they change the gloves in your presence or you risk acquiring venereal disease resulting from a fondle/molest search." From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 24 13:24:00 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:24:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA using pizza boxes to recruit new workers Message-ID: TSA using pizza boxes to recruit new workers By Ed O'Keefe http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/tsa_using_pizza_boxes_to_recru.html Federal agencies often head to college campuses, job fairs or buy newspaper classified ads to announce new job openings. But the Transportation Security Administration is reaching out with pepperoni and cheese. "A Career Where X-Ray Vision and Federal Benefits Come Standard," reads a TSA ad appearing on pizza boxes across the Washington region. "Washington Reagan National Airport and Washington-Dulles International Airport are now hiring Transportation Security Officers," the ad said. "See yourself in a vital role for Homeland Security. Be part of a dynamic security team protecting airports and skies as you proudly secure your future." (A hungry and intrepid WTOP radio reporter noticed the ads last week when she ordered a pizza.) The boxed ad campaign was developed last year in an effort to reach a broader applicant pool, according to TSA spokesman Greg Soule. The agency routinely uses ad space on Metro trains, at gas stations and in newspapers or buys ad time during movie previews. But no word on the cost of the pizza box campaign or which restaurants are using the boxes. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 24 13:26:57 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:26:57 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Hurt_Locker_Makers_Sue_Lawyer_Wh?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Helped_=91BitTorrent=92_Defendants?= Message-ID: <037E2B5C-A1F4-40EF-84D2-FB619340FCC8@infowarrior.org> Hurt Locker Makers Sue Lawyer Who Helped ?BitTorrent? Defendants Written by Ernesto on November 24, 2010 http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-sue-lawyer-who-helped-bittorrent-defendants-101124/ Graham Syfert, the lawyer who offered self-help to alleged BitTorrent downloaders of films such as Far Cry and The Hurt Locker, has been sued by the makers of the latter movie. On behalf of Voltage Pictures, the US Copyright Group (USCG) is seeking sanctions against Syfert and demand $5000 for the ?work? the self-help forms have caused them. in reponse, Syfert has requested sanctions against the plaintiffs because their filing is ?completely insane.? In August, we reported on the self-help documents lawyer Graham Syfert was selling which enabled individuals sued by USCG to defend themselves. The documents were sold for $9.99 (now $19.95) which is a bargain compared to hiring paid legal advisors. ?One of the major problems that people encounter when trying to hire me on these cases, is that a settlement is approximately what an attorney would need to even begin a defense,? Syfert told TorrentFreak at the time. The forms for pro se (self help) representation Syfert prepared include a Motion to Quash, Motion to Dismiss, Affidavit in Support and a Motion for Protective Support. All forms are fillable and are accompanied by detailed instructions of how they should be used. ?My dream would be to have 10,000-20,000 people file all three documents to the lawyers and severely cripple the entire process and show them that you shouldn?t be allowed to join so many defendants,? Syfert informed TorrentFreak. Quite a few people have used the forms in recent months and in total 19 were submitted to the court. However, the defendants weren?t the only ones who took notice of the offer. The law firm behind the USCG lawsuits, Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver, was one of the first clients who bought a copy of the documents. And it didn?t stop there, as Syfert informed us that the law firm was not happy with the service he offered to the defendants. ?After I put the forms up for sale, Jeff Weaver from Dunlap Grubb and Weaver gave me a call and threatened me with sanctions. This was back in September. He also purchased the form for $9.99 when it was on sale for a discount,? Syfert told TorrentFreak. ?He threatened me, and everyone who is using my forms.? According to Syfert, the anti-piracy lawyer (Weaver) threatened to double the settlement requests for those who were using his forms. ?Then he e-mails me a while later, advising me on the status of what he called my ?clients?. They are not my clients, they are people who purchased forms. I do not provide assistance in filling any of these forms out,? Syfert explained. Syfert then flipped out and sent a ?tongue in cheek? email to Weaver asking them to offer him a $200,000 per year job, or contact someone who actually gives a fuck. ?Hire me or eat shit,? he ended his email. Not the gentlest way to make a point, but the calls and emails did stop. That is, until two days ago. This Monday, Weaver emailed Syfert a motion he had just submitted to the court (on behalf of the makers of The Hurt Locker), requesting sanctions against him under federal law. ?He says that the 19 cases of forms that have been currently filed cost them $5000 and he?s seeking those sanctions against me personally,? Syfert explained to TorrentFreak. ?So I requested sanctions against them because this is completely insane,? Syfert added. ?If 19 cases costs them $5000 in attorney time, I wonder how many cases it?d take before their business model crumbles. That is unless they are going to actually work for a living.? The two documents (embedded below) filed by both parties are currently awaiting a response from the court. Although the turn of events is certainly an entertaining one, it seems to be mostly a clash of lawyer?s egos, not something that will contribute anything substantial to the thousands of sued individuals. USCG (and thus Voltage Pictures) feels that Syfert is obstructing their money-making scheme, and ironically accuses Syfert of running his own money-making scheme with his self-help documents. The one positive note from all of this is that USCG are upset for a reason. Although all the motions to quash and motions for protective order, whether filed by an attorney or filed by a pro se defendant, have been denied repeatedly by the judges, the motions to dismiss have not. Defendants who filed a motion to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction have been successful. This is not something USCG and their clients wanted to see because it means they potentially have to refile thousands of cases in other states. Needless to say, this is going to be an expensive endeavor, and thus a huge blow to their pay-up-or-else scheme. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Nov 24 18:09:05 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:09:05 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Facebook Plans to Trademark the Word 'Face' Message-ID: <9535A6A5-183E-44DC-8AAE-7F8272E3F127@infowarrior.org> Facebook Plans to Trademark the Word 'Face' By Jeremy A. Kaplan Published November 24, 2010 | FoxNews.com Hoping to finally launch thefaceslap.com? Sorry, Charlie, you're too late: Facebook may have just won the rights to the word "face." The social-networking giant was just given a green light in its efforts to trademark the word "face." The company's efforts have moved Facebook's pursuit of face past the opposition period, according to the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, and a "Notice of Allowance" has been issued. And it looks like the application will be approved, Neil Friedman, a partner at law firm Baker and Reynolds who regularly practices trademark law, told FoxNews.com. "At the end of the day, will they have protection in this space? Yes," Friedman said. A trademark may help Facebook throw the book at the competition -- and Facebook faces a wealth of it. GoDaddy.com, the world's largest domain name registrar, told FoxNews.com that it has 53,000 domain names containing the word "face" in its databases. The company estimated that the Internet has 89,000 domain names containing the word "face" just in the .com world. So put on a happy face, Facebook, that trademark may need to be put to use. A trademark can cover a variety of things, from the audible jingle in T-Mobile commercials to words or phrases, letters or numbers -- even something pictoral like the Nike swoosh, Friedman explained. Even a color. In Facebook's case, the trademark would cover "telecommunication services, namely providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars." Cars? What could that mean? A spokesman for Facebook declined to comment on the trademark pursuit, but Friedman has a theory: "My guess is that they've been rejected by somebody that has face already for something related to cars," he said. The unusual patent may be probably partly explained by its history: The social network picked up a trademark application originally filed in 2005 by U.K. company Faceparty.com, run by British company called CIS. Tech news site Engadget explains that the original application covered everything from festival planning to dating services to text message systems -- though that doesn't explain the car thing. Around October of 2008 CIS filed to split the various categories into separate applications -- one of which was for online chat rooms. That application was taken over by Facebook on November 7, and on November 17 Facebook officially swapped in its attorney. This doesn't mean that Facebook has won the battle for the word just yet, however. The company must first pay an issue fee, and submit a statement explaining how it uses the word face. Besides, Friedman noted, there are several other trademarks already filed that use the world face. "In this category, there are already 34 other trademark applications that have a face component," he told FoxNews.com. "There's one for streaming video on the Internet -- mymusicface. And there's facefirst for monitoring security of others," for example. "If someone else were using face by itself, yes, they'd be able to block that. But in the real world, that will have to be taken on a case by case basis," Friedman told FoxNews.com. So Facebook won't be able to block all other faces -- because Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have the very first face. Other prominent faces: Apple's newly launched video conferencing service Facetime may be the most high profile service to feel the brunt of Facebook's patent, though it may not be covered by the trademark. (Apple has filed its own trademark application for Facetime, though its efforts have been rejected.) And Facebook has already filed suit against a pornography company with the similar name FacePorn. The company's efforts are also interesting in light of the current litigation surrounding the other half of the its name -- the "book" part, that is. Facebook has been embroiled in a spate of trademark-fueled litigation in recent months, most recently a back and forth with parody site Lamebook. The company has also sued Teachbook and Placebook in an effort to protect its identity following the social network's astronomical rise in popularity in recent years. Of course, the trademark for Face is nothing new. Facebook has already trademarked "Like" and "Wall." So watch what you say the next time you visit corporate headquarters -- a slip of the tongue could lead to a lawsuit. Print Close URL http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/24/facebook-plans-trademark-word-face/ Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/24/facebook-plans-trademark-word-face/#ixzz16FRuMAJ8 From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 26 19:08:34 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:08:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Doctors sound TSA germ alert Message-ID: Doctors sound TSA germ alert Dangers include syphilis, lice, viruses, ringworm Posted: November 24, 2010 9:09 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh ? 2010 WorldNetDaily http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232457 Syphilis, lice, gonorrhea, ringworm, chlamydia, staph, strep, noro and papilloma viruses all are part of the possible fringe benefits when airline passengers next go through a full hands-on pat-down by agents of the federal government's Transportation Security Administration, according to doctors. WND reported two days ago on alarmed passengers who noted that TSA agents doing the pat-downs that have been described by critics as molestation since they include touching private body parts were not changing gloves between passengers. In fact, some apparently were patting down dozens of passengers or more wearing the same gloves. But neither the TSA nor federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control was willing to comment on the possibilities that infections and other loathsome afflictions could be passed from passenger to passenger. Now two doctors ? and several others ? have confirmed that there is the definite possibility that passengers will be able to catch whatever someone in front of them in line was suffering from via the latex gloves TSA workers use. Join tens of thousands of Americans in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue. "There is no doubt that bacteria (staph, strep, v.cholerae etc.) and viruses (noro, enteroviruses, herpes, hepatitis A and papilloma viruses) can be spread by contaminated vinyl or latex gloves," Dr. Thomas Warner of Wisconsin told WND in a letter to the editor. "If a traveler has diarrhea and is soiled, as can and does happen, the causative agent can be spread by this method since bacteria and viruses in moist environments have greater viability." He continued. "The traveler readjusting clothes can easily get the infectious agents on their hands and therefore into their mouth, nose or eyes." Added a pulmonary critical care physician from Connecticut who did not want to be identified by name, "That doesn't make sense that they're not changing gloves." "Anything can be transmitted. If there are open wounds and they [TSA agents] are not aware, there's syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, lice, ringworm." Worse yet would be for people whose immune systems are compromised by treatments they may be having, including cancer patients, she said. Physicians undergo extensive training, follow strict rules and even have those who watch them to make sure they follow procedures to reduce to an absolute minimum the likelihood of carrying disease from one person to another, she said. "How come if we as doctors have guidelines, we must wear gloves and have oversight, it's very different [for the TSA]," she said. Warner told WND some of the infections are "a tough little beast" and easily would be spread through the contact being used by the TSA. "Staphylococci are also tough and can be spread on fomites (eg . towels, tampons or gloves ) and survive in dry conditions. Methicillin resistant staph creates havoc in hospitals AND in those awaiting surgery (eg. traveling for a transplant ) when the 'carrier' patient must be clear of the bacterium before elective surgery," he said. "Emerging infectious and tropical agents create another wild scenario," he said. He said at a minimum gloves should be changed between pat-downs, "especially if the gloved hand is inside clothes or in the genital ... area even if clothed. Travelers should be advised of this and hand-wash and change clothes ASAP after these intimate examinations." The CDC previously told WND to contact the TSA, which did not respond to inquiries, on the status of policies that would minimize the possibility of passing infections from one passenger to another. The response today was the same, according to a WND reader who passed along his question to the CDC about the situation and the agency's response. In response to a question about minimizing the possibility infections could be passed along, the CDC said: Thank you for your inquiry to CDC-INFO. In response to your comments that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents are not changing gloves between the travelers that they pat-down, we are pleased to provide you with the following information. If you are traveling and are going to be searched, you can request that the TSA agent change his or her gloves. Endorsing the doctors' recommendations was a commentary at Natural News.com. There, the editorial writer noted the intimacy of the pat-downs by the TSA, procedures which are required for some travelers and offered as an option to those who refuse to go through a full-body image scanner which essentially reveals a nude image of the passenger for TSA workers to review. "Air travel passengers across America have been complaining of the TSA fingering their genitalia and touching their sex organs. Just this week, an ABC News employee was fingered by a TSA agent who felt around inside her underwear. ... This process of touching traveler's genitals without consistently changing latex gloves means the TSA is involved in extremely risky behavior that could spread disease," the website warned. "TSA agents are not trained as medical personnel. Just as they don't seem to grasp the Bill of Rights, they also may not understand how infectious disease is spread. They aren't medical personnel; they're Big Brother enforcers who have likely never been taught the principles of how to conduct a sterile body search," the commentary said. "If an athlete with jock itch (a fungal infection) undergoes a TSA pat-down, that TSA agent could spread the passenger's jock itch from his crotch to his armpits and neck. The same is true for a person suffering from ringworm or other skin fungal infections: Merely touching them and then touching another body part can cause them to spread," the website said. "Even worse, if that same TSA agent does not change his or her gloves between pat-downs, they could be spreading jock itch, ringworm or other infections from traveler to traveler. So traveler #2 could end up with the jock itch picked up from traveler #1." In WND's original report on the issue of gloves online forum participants said it was clear the gloves are to protect the TSA agents, not provide any protection for passengers. Martha Donahue in a commentary at Resistnet said she'd spent 30 years in the medical industry. "For those of you who fly and opt for the 'pat down,' you need to demand the TSA thugs change their gloves. I've been watching on the news how they operate. People are being searched [with] dirty gloves ... gloves that have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill, people who pick their noses. Do you want those gloves touching you? "These thugs are protecting themselves from you. You need to be protected from them," she wrote. "In a hospital, nursing home, in-home care, or even labs, that would never even be considered an option." While the CDC referred questions about health and disease issues to the TSA, in its online writings the organization repeatedly makes clear the importance of maintaining clean hands to avoid such transmission of communicable and contagious afflictions. Dr. Julie Gerberding, at the time the chief of the CDC, said during a special presentation on hand cleanliness, "We know that hand hygiene is a critical component of safe and healthy health care." At the same time, Dr. John Boyce, lead author of the organization's hand-washing guidelines and the chairman of the Hand Hygiene Task Force, said, "There's a large study that was conducted at the University of Geneva Hospital in Switzerland where they demonstrated significant improvement in the adherence of health care workers to hand hygiene practices and they also showed that the incidence of antibiotic resistance to staph infections went down and that the overall prevalence of health care-acquired infections went down ... ." Suggested Gerberding in the context of health care, "Hand hygiene saves lives. We're recommending a comprehensive evidence-based approach in hospitals that consists of handwashing with soap and water when the goal is to remove unsightly debris; hand alcohol preps for enhancing appearance and reducing bacterial counts; and gloving when people have contact with blood or other body fluids in accordance with universal precautions." She said even in a "community setting," "washing with soap and water remains a very sensible strategy for hand hygiene." Other health standards across the country routinely warn against hand contact with sores, lesions or other sources of viruses or contamination. The Lincoln, Neb., health site notes, "This includes hand contact." Officials at the Canadian Center for Occupational Health noted that "hand washing is the single most effective way to prevent the spread of infections. "You can spread certain 'germs' (a general term for microbes like viruses and bacteria) casually by touching another person. You can also catch germs when you touch contaminated objects or surfaces and then you touch your face (mouth, eyes, and nose)," it said. On a TSA blog promoting the agency's actions and policies, one screener explained, "Changing gloves is fairly simple ... . When I gate screen I carry about 10-12 pairs in my pockets." Respondents to the comment were outraged, "That's just plain disgusting and most certainly not acceptable ... procedures as set forth by the CDC for usage of gloves for protection," said one. "Reasoning being is that the bacteria count in your pockets is about the same is your mouth or armpit." Wrote another forum participant, "Those gloves are soiled if they come out of your pockets and before handling my stuff you will be expected to obtain a clean, from the original container, pair. ... Who knows what filth inhabits your pockets!" From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Nov 26 20:15:00 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:15:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DHS Seizes BitTorrent Search Engine Domain and Mor Message-ID: <900B4C20-687A-4BF7-9D89-B8890FC29C25@infowarrior.org> U.S. Government Seizes BitTorrent Search Engine Domain and More Written by enigmax on November 26, 2010 http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/ Following on the heels of this week?s domain seizure of a large hiphop file-sharing links forum, it?s clear today that the U.S. Government has been very busy. Without any need for COICA, ICE has just seized the domain of a BitTorrent meta-search engine along with those belonging to other music linking sites and several others which appear to be connected to physical counterfeit goods. While complex, it?s still possible for U.S. authorities and copyright groups to point at a fully-fledged BitTorrent site with a tracker and say ?that?s an infringing site.? When one looks at a site which hosts torrents but operates no tracker, the finger pointing becomes quite a bit more difficult. When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield ? unless you?re ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is. This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE have seized the site?s domain. The message below is posted on the seized sites ?My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!? the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning. ?I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,? he explained. Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner. Torrent-Finder remains operational through another URL, Torrent-Finder.info, so feel free to check it out for yourself. The layouts of the sites it searches are clearly visible in the results shown. Yesterday we reported that the domain of hiphop site RapGodFathers had been seized and today we can reveal that they are not on their own. Two other music sites in the same field ? OnSmash.com and DaJaz1.com ? have fallen to the same fate. But ICE activities don?t end there. Several other domains also appear to have been seized including 2009jerseys.com, nfljerseysupply.com, throwbackguy.com, cartoon77.com, lifetimereplicas.com, handbag9.com, handbagcom.com and dvdprostore.com. All seized sites point to the same message. Domain seizures coming under the much debated ?censorship bill? COICA? Who needs it? Update: Below is an longer list of domains that were apparently seized. Most of the sites relate to counterfeit goods. We assume that the authorities had a proper warrant for these sites (as they had for RapGodFathers yesterday), but were unable to confirm this. 2009jerseys.com 51607.com amoyhy.com b2corder.com bishoe.com borntrade.com borntrade.net boxedtvseries.com boxset4less.com boxsetseries.com burberryoutletshop.com cartoon77.com cheapscarfshop.com coachoutletfactory.com dajaz1.com discountscarvesonsale.com dvdcollectionsale.com dvdcollects.com dvdorderonline.com dvdprostore.com dvdscollection.com dvdsetcollection.com dvdsetsonline.com dvdsuperdeal.com eluxury-outlet.com getdvdset.com gofactoryoutlet.com golfstaring.com golfwholesale18.com handbag9.com handbagcom.com handbagspop.com icqshoes.com ipodnanouk.com jersey-china.com jerseyclubhouse.com jordansbox.com lifetimereplicas.com louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com lv-outlets.com lv-outlets.net lv-outletstore.com massnike.com merrytimberland.com mycollects.com mydreamwatches.com mygolfwholesale.com newstylerolex.com nfljerseysupply.com nibdvd.com odvdo.com oebags.com onsmash.com overbestmall.com rapgodfathers.com realtimberland.com rmx4u.com scarfonlineshop.com scarfviponsale.com shawls-store.com silkscarf-shop.com silkscarfonsale.com skyergolf.com sohob2b.com sohob2c.com storeofeast.com stuff-trade.com sunglasses-mall.com sunogolf.com tbl-sports.com throwbackguy.com tiesonsale.com timberlandlike.com topabuy.com torrent-finder.com usaburberryscarf.com usaoutlets.net From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 10:51:49 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:51:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - What good is Wall Street? Message-ID: WHAT GOOD IS WALL STREET? Much of what investment bankers do is socially worthless. by John Cassidy, New Yorker NOVEMBER 29, 2010 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_cassidy?printable=true From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 11:32:46 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:32:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - WikiLeaks under attack, it says, as new leak looms Message-ID: <124469D9-40AF-4F78-A239-DCDEE7BC0224@infowarrior.org> WikiLeaks under attack, it says, as new leak looms By the CNN Wire Staff November 28, 2010 -- Updated 1716 GMT (0116 HKT) http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/wikileaks.attack/?hpt=T1 (CNN) -- The whistleblower website WikiLeaks is under cyber attack, but even if it goes down, a new cache of leaked U.S. diplomatic cables will still be published Sunday night, it said via Twitter Sunday. The announcements come shortly after the United States warned WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange that publishing the papers would be illegal and endanger peoples' lives. The New York Times, The Guardian newspaper in England, and newspapers and magazines in three other European nations are planning to publish new classified material on Sunday, WikiLeaks said on Twitter. The site is experiencing a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack, it said. That's an effort to make a website unavailable to users, normally by flooding it with requests for data. The U.S. State Department's legal adviser said Saturday that if any materials in the posting of documents by the site were provided by government officials without proper authorization, "they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action." WikiLeaks indicated last week that it was preparing to release a new batch of previously classified U.S. military documents. "Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs," the group stated via Twitter Monday. "Intense pressure over it for months. Keep us strong." State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh told Assange he was responding to a letter about the newest leak. Koh wrote that the department had spoken with representatives from The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers, and the German magazine Der Spiegel about 250,000 documents the whistleblower organization provided to them for publication. WikiLeaks said Sunday it had also given documents to El Pais in Spain and Le Monde in France. Koh described the distribution as the "illegal dissemination of classified documents" and said it would "place at risk the lives of countless individuals" -- criticisms that have been repeated by U.S. officials after past postings on the site. The information blitz from WikiLeaks is expected to offer a glimpse into the worldwide communications of the State Department and its 297 embassies, consulates and missions through what are commonly referred to as "cables." Koh wrote that releasing such documents could jeopardize relationships with allies, military actions and anti-terrorism operations. CNN has not had advanced access to the documents, unlike some media organizations, because the company declined to sign a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks. In October, WikiLeaks released nearly 400,000 U.S. military reports about operations in Iraq. In July, it released more than 70,000 reports from the war in Afghanistan. CNN Senior State Department Producer Elise Labott contributed to this report. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 11:33:32 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:33:32 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Wikileaks' Newest Leak Leaked on Twitter Message-ID: <7602C0AC-04AA-4D7B-86BC-DC0EACE94700@infowarrior.org> Wikileaks' Newest Leak Leaked on Twitter http://gawker.com/5700580/wikileaks-newest-leak-leaked-on-twitter Twitter has out-leaked the leakers. About 12 hours before Wikileaks latest enormous leak was scheduled to be released, a Twitter user bought a copy of a German news magazine outlining the leak after it was placed on newstands too early. According to tweets from German-speaking Twitter users who snagged an embargoed copy of this week's Der Spiegel (cover above), the cache of over 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables may be a bit of a let-down. At least from the German point of view there are no earth-shattering revelations, just a lot of candid talk about world leaders. Angela Merkel is praised as "teflon," though she "avoids risk and is rarely creative," and German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle is repeatedly bashed. There is talk of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's "wild parties," (duh) and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likened to Hitler. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is called an "emperor with no clothes." The cables also show Obama has "no emotional relationship with Europe," focusing instead on Asian countries, according to Der Spiegel. The full tranche of cables is apparently scheduled to be released by Wikileaks this afternoon at around 4:30 pm EST in concert with The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel. But this morning, a sharp-eyed Twitter user spotted a copy of Der Spiegel at a a rest area on the Germany-Switzerland border. "Der Spiegel too early in the Badische Bahnhof Basel!" wrote Freelancer_09. "We'll see what it says...... :)" He and another user, sa7yr, have been tweeting excerpts for a few hours now. It's the biggest leak since Kanye West's new album! But Wikileaks has bigger problems: They just tweeted "We are currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack." The attack has apparently brought Wikileaks.org down. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 11:49:01 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:49:01 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - MPAA Chief Job Proving Tough to Fill Message-ID: <7CB9A0E6-A5A8-47A6-9DED-F2DDC425A77D@infowarrior.org> A Casting Call for Hollywood?s Chief Lobbyist By BROOKS BARNES Published: November 27, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28steal.html?_r=1&hpw The Motion Picture Association has been looking almost a year for its next chairman. The late Jack Valenti held the job nearly four decades, until 2004. HOLLYWOOD is used to casting tricky roles, but one seems to have the industry stumped: chief lobbyist in Washington. The job, as chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, is supposed to be one of the most coveted gigs around. Mingling with moviedom?s A-list. Hosting Champagne-soaked screenings for star politicians. A $1.2 million salary. What?s not to like? The late Jack Valenti held the position for nearly four decades, and he not only wielded incredible power but also found time to maintain a Malibu tan. Yet three studio chairmen, aided by headhunting firms, have been trying for almost a year to find a new leader to replace Dan Glickman, the former nine-term congressman from Kansas who stepped down earlier this year after succeeding Mr. Valenti in 2004. (Mr. Valenti died in 2007.) The search committee came close over the summer, zeroing in on Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska and president of the New School. But negotiations fell apart. Now a new round of interviews is under way. According to a headhunter with knowledge of the search, but who asked for anonymity because the search is private, one candidate is Christopher J. Dodd, the powerful Democratic senator from Connecticut, who is retiring. Bill Richardson, the exiting governor of New Mexico, is also in the mix, this person said. One of the more out-of-left-field names under consideration is Vickee Jordan Adams, a former executive at the communications firm Hill & Knowlton and daughter of Vernon Jordan, the senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton. (The candidate pool is filled with Democrats because it reflects the political leanings of Hollywood power players.) Spokesmen for Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson did not return calls seeking comment. Efforts to reach Ms. Adams were unsuccessful. A spokesman for the Motion Picture Association declined to comment. Studio executives say Bob Pisano, the association?s president who has been serving as interim chairman, is well liked in the movie capital and has done a stellar job. But Mr. Pisano, who formerly did stints as C.E.O. of the Screen Actors Guild and general counsel for Paramount Pictures, has signaled that he is not interested in the position long term. The difficult job search underscores how much Hollywood has changed since the heyday of Mr. Valenti, who earned his political stripes by working as an adviser in the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson. For starters, the job has become less fun. The association still holds screenings at its 80-person theater two blocks from the White House. But last year, the studios cut the group?s budget by 20 percent, or about $20 million, making lavish events harder to pull off. Stricter lobbying rules also restrict grandiosity. And when it comes to influence, Hollywood has also been surpassed by Silicon Valley. Given a choice between meeting George Clooney or Google?s C.E.O., Eric Schmidt, the more coveted invitation for many Washington hands is the latter. In Mr. Valenti?s era, studios were stand-alone entities whose interests in Washington were in lock step over issues like movie standards. Mr. Valenti fought back state and local efforts to censor content, for example. The association gave Hollywood moguls a government stage but also kept Washington out of the movie business by starting and running the movie rating system, which it continues to do. But today the association?s six members ? Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios and Warner Brothers ? are all embedded deep within global media conglomerates. All employ their own lobbyists and often have competing interests. For example, the News Corporation owns 20th Century Fox along with MySpace and newspapers, putting it at odds in many instances with the legislative needs of a Sony, which also owns a movie studio but is more concerned about its electronics business. As a result, Mr. Glickman said, ?it has become much more difficult for the film industry to speak with one clear voice.? Consider what happened last year when the Motion Picture Association, addressing the issue of who controls the Internet released a statement to the news media saying that studios were ?not proponents? of government regulation of the Web. The chairmen of two studios ? Sony and Fox ? hit the roof, worrying that the statement sent a message that they did not want the government help to fight piracy. The association ultimately released a more nuanced second statement. Indeed, the delay in finding a new leader appears to stem in large part from an identity crisis at the association. Should the job go to a seasoned Washington hand, preferably with bipartisan support? Or is younger and hungrier the way to go? Do the studios want a hard-charging leader ? somebody like Mr. Valenti, who would knock heads together from time to time to gain consensus ? or do they want more of an errand runner? The personality of the new chairman is more important than one might think, as evidenced by the troubles that greeted the affable and low-key Mr. Glickman, who was secretary of agriculture during the Clinton administration. ?I certainly was not Mr. Glamour,? he said. ?The leader of the M.P.A.A. needs to have a fair amount of both sizzle and steak. Having one quality and not the other diminishes your effectiveness.? WHICH handful of issues should the association put its muscle behind? Piracy is perhaps the industry?s No. 1 problem, highlighted earlier this month when about 25 percent of ?Harry Potter and the Deathly-Hallows: Part 1? was stolen and put online before the movie?s release. But lobbying could help the film industry deal with an array of challenges, including how to convince China to lift restrictions on the distribution of Hollywood pictures and how to maintain state and federal tax incentives for filming in places like Michigan and Louisiana. One thing is clear, Mr. Glickman said: Pressure is building on the industry to make a hire. ?In Washington, you can quickly get out of sight, out of mind,? he said. ?This is too important of a job not to get filled very soon.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 22:56:55 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:56:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Comcast DNS apparently down Message-ID: Comcast Internet (or any other service) out? Try a new DNS. By Rob Pegoraro http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2010/11/comcast_internet_or_any_other.html?hpid=moreheadlines Sometime earlier tonight, Comcast's Internet service seems to have suffered a major malfunction -- but, fortunately, one you can actually fix on your own. The issue, as reported in numerous complaints on Twitter and at such troubleshooting sites as DSLReports.com -- but still unmentioned on Comcast's own "network health" page, even as users have begun to report a restoration of service -- involves a failure of Comcast's domain name servers. You don't need a working Domain Name System to get on the Internet, but you do need it to get anywhere online. DNS translates the numerical Internet Protocol addresses used by computers on the Internet to human-readable names like comcast.net or washingtonpost.com. Fortunately, you don't have to stick with your Internet provider's DNS. By plugging a handful of IP addresses into your computer's networking settings, you can have another service route your requests properly. One of the most popular alternatives in this category is a free service called OpenDNS. I've tried it and liked it; for a detailed writeup, see this review by New York Times technology columnist David Pogue. (Note to self: Probably should have written about OpenDSN sooner.) Another option comes from Google, which launched a competing, also free DNS option called Google Public DNS last December. Google's major advantage is a set of easily-memorized server addresses: 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4, which roll off the tongue a little easier than OpenDNS's 208.67.220.220 and 208.67.222.222. Using either of these alternatives requires plugging in a new set of numbers in your computer's network-settings software. Google and OpenDNS each has detailed setup instructions available. (In the case of Windows, they're obscenely detailed, thanks to the byzantine interface Microsoft has put between users and this fundamental network setting.) This glitch could affect a large chunk of America's online population. Philadelphia-based Comcast touts itself as the largest broadband Internet provider in the United States, reporting 16.7 million subscribers in its latest quarterly filing (PDF). It might also lead to some unsettling questions for executives at Verizon Wireless. As my colleague Cecilia Kang wrote last week, OpenDNS is accusing that wireless carrier of blocking its service. The Verizon affiliate denies that; outside reports suggest that although it might have done so in the past, it no longer stops users from switching to Open DNS. If you're on Comcast and can read this post, please share a report on your connectivity in the comments. When did you get knocked off the Internet? When did things seem to return to normal? From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 23:03:42 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:03:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIP Leslie Nielsen Message-ID: <4E10032E-CDE5-4900-ABCC-3033524A17AA@infowarrior.org> "I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert!" ---- rick November 28, 2010 Leslie Nielsen, Actor, Dies at 84 By ANITA GATES http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/nyregion/29nielsen.html?src=mv&pagewanted=print Leslie Nielsen, the Canadian-born actor who in middle age tossed aside three decades of credibility in dramatic and romantic roles to make a new, far more successful career as a comic actor in films like ?Airplane!? and the ?Naked Gun? series, died on Sunday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. He was 84. According to The Associated Press, his agent, John S. Kelly, said Mr. Nielsen died at a hospital near his home in Fort Lauderdale where he was being treated for pneumonia. Mr. Nielsen, a tall man with a matinee-idol profile, was often cast as an earnest hero at the beginning of his film career, in the 1950s. His best-known roles included the stalwart spaceship captain in the science fiction classic ?Forbidden Planet? (1956), the wealthy, available Southern aristocrat in ?Tammy and the Bachelor? (1957) and an ocean liner captain faced with disaster in ?The Poseidon Adventure? (1972). In the 1960s and ?70s, as his hair turned white and he became an even more distinguished figure, Mr. Nielsen played serious military men, government leaders and even a mob boss, appearing in crime dramas, westerns and the occasional horror movie. Then, in the low-budget, big-money-making 1980 disaster-movie parody ?Airplane!? he was cast as a clueless doctor on board a possibly doomed jetliner. Critics and audiences alike praised his deadpan comic delivery, and his career was reborn. ?Airplane!? was followed by a television series, ?Police Squad!? (1982), from the film?s director-writers. It lasted only six episodes, but Mr. Nielsen, his goofy character, Lt. Frank Drebin, and the creators went on to three successful feature-film spinoffs. The first, ?The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!? (1988), was followed by ?The Naked Gun 2 ?: The Smell of Fear? (1991) and ?The Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult? (1994), whose cast included Priscilla Presley, O. J. Simpson and Anna Nicole Smith. Other filmmakers cast Mr. Nielsen in a variety of comedies, including ?Repossessed? (1990), an ?Exorcist? spoof with Linda Blair; ?Dracula: Dead and Loving It? (1995); ?Spy Hard? (1996); and ?2001: A Space Travesty? (2000). None were received as well as the ?Naked Gun? films, but Mr. Nielsen found a new continuing role as the paranoid, out-of-control president of the United States in ?Scary Movie 3? (2003) and ?Scary Movie 4? (2006). In keeping with his adopted comic persona, when Mr. Nielsen in 1993 published an autobiography, ?Naked Truth,? it was one that cheerfully, blatantly fabricated events in his life. They included two Academy Awards, an affair with Elizabeth Taylor and a stay at a rehabilitation center, battling dopey-joke addiction. In real life he was nominated twice for Emmy Awards, in 1982 as outstanding lead actor in a comedy series for ?Police Squad!? and in 1988 as outstanding guest actor in a comedy series for an episode of ?Day by Day,? an NBC sitcom about yuppies and day care. Off screen, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada, the country?s highest civilian honor, in 2002. Leslie William Nielsen was born on Feb. 11, 1926, in Regina, Saskatchewan. The son of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of Danish heritage and a Welsh mother, he grew up in the Northwest Territories and in Edmonton, Alberta, where he graduated from high school. Jean Hersholt, the Danish-born actor and humanitarian, was an uncle. Mr. Nielsen enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force before his 18th birthday and trained as an aerial gunner during World War II, but he was never sent overseas. He began his career in radio in Calgary, Alberta, then studied at the Academy of Studio Arts in Toronto and at the Neighborhood Playhouse in New York. This led him to his television debut, in a 1950 episode of ?Actors Studio,? an anthology series on CBS. By the time Mr. Nielsen made his film debut, in 1956, he had made scores of appearances in series and performed in one Broadway play, ?Seagulls Over Sorrento? in 1952, as a tyrannical navy petty officer. He continued to make guest appearances in television series throughout his career, and with great regularity through the 1970s. And he did stage work, touring North America and Britain in a one-man show about the crusading lawyer Clarence Darrow. His final projects included ?Lipshitz Saves the World? (2007), an NBC movie comedy, and ?Scary Movie 5,? to be released. Mr. Nielsen married four times. His first wife (1950-56) was Monica Boyer; his second (1958-73) was Alisande Ullman, with whom he had two daughters; and his third (1981-83) was Brooks Oliver. Those marriages ended in divorce. In 2001 he married Barbaree Earl; a resident of Fort Lauderdale, she survives him, as do his daughters, Maura Nielsen Kaplan and Thea Nielsen Disney. His elder brother, Erik Nielsen, who was deputy prime minister of Canada from 1984 to 1986, died in 2008. In a 1988 interview with The New York Times, Leslie Nielsen discussed his career-rejuvenating transition to comedy, a development that he had recently described as ?too good to be true.? ?It?s been dawning on me slowly that for the past 35 years I have been cast against type,? he said, ?and I?m finally getting to do what I really wanted to do.? From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 23:07:05 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:07:05 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Wikileaks cables: key issues Message-ID: 28 November 2010 Last updated at 20:10 ET Wikileaks cables: key issues http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858990 The controversial whistle-blowing site Wilileaks has released a cache of 250,000 secret messages sent by US diplomatic staff. So far, Wikileaks has published on its site 220 of 251,287 of what it describes as US "cables"; however, it has given the files in full to five media groups, including the New York Times and Guardian newspapers. Below are some of the key issues the documents reveal. Iran attack Several Arab leaders and their representatives are quoted as urging the US to carry out an attack on Iran to bring an end to its suspected nuclear weapons programme. The Saudi Ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, recalled the king's "frequent exhortations" to the US to attack Iran in order to bring an end to its nuclear programme. In a report of a 2008 meeting with US General David Petraeus, Mr al-Jubeir said the king wanted the US to "to cut the head off the snake". King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain is reported to have told the US to stop Iran "by whatever means necessary", while the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed, told the US he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "going to take us to war". Biometric spying on UN A cable to US diplomats issued under US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name tells them to collect "biographic and biometric" information - including iris scans, DNA samples and fingerprints - on key officials at the UN. They are also ordered to find credit card details, email addresses and passwords and encryption keys used for computer networks and in official communications. The officials covered include "undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders". At least nine similar directives covering various countries are included in the Wikileaks release, both under the name of Mrs Clinton and her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice. Pakistan stand-off The cables show US concern over radioactive material in nuclear power stations in Pakistan, with fears it could be used in terror attacks. They reveal the US has been attempting to remove highly enriched uranium from a research reactor in Pakistan since 2007. In a May 2009 cable, US ambassador Anne W Patterson says Pakistan had refused a visit from US experts. She quotes a Pakistan officials as saying removing the fuel would be seen in Pakistan "as the United States taking Pakistan's nuclear weapons". China hacking There is concern over the alleged growing use of large scale computer hacking by the Chinese government. Cables reports claims that a network of hackers and private security experts has been employed by China since 2002 and that it has hacked into US government and business computers, those of Western allies and the Dalai Lama. The cables quote a Chinese contact telling the US embassy in Beijing that the Chinese government had been behind the hacking of Google's computer systems in the country in January. Korea plans US and South Korean officials have discussed plans for a united Korea, should North Korea collapse. The US ambassador to Seoul said South Korea would consider offering commercial incentives to China to "help salve" Beijing's "concerns about living with a reunified Korea". Guantanamo The cables appear to reveal discussions between various countries on whether they would take prisoners released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Slovenia is offered the chance to meet President Barack Obama if it takes a prisoner, while Kiribati, in the South Pacific, is offered millions of dollars of incentives. Brussels is told taking prisoners could be "a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe". World leaders Various world leaders are covered by the documents - showing the diplomats' less than flattering views of them. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is referred to as "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader" by a US diplomat in Rome. In 2008, the Moscow embassy describes Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as playing "Robin to (Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's) Batman". The cables also comment on the extremely close relationship between Mr Berlusconi and Mr Putin. North Korea's Kim Jong-il is a "flabby old chap" suffering from trauma from a stroke, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is referred to as "Hitler". South Africa's international relations and cooperation minister refers to President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as "the crazy old man". From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Nov 28 23:16:46 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Opinion: Lies Across America Message-ID: (NB: The charts/pics within the text that appear on the website are helpful. --- rick) LIES ACROSS AMERICA Posted on 28th November 2010 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=7783 ?Every single empire, in its official discourse, has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort.? ? Edward Said The increasingly fragile American Empire has been built on a foundation of lies. Lies we tell ourselves and Big lies spread by our government. The shit is so deep you can stir it with a stick. As we enter another holiday season the mainstream corporate mass media will relegate you to the status of consumer. This is a disgusting term that dehumanizes all Americans. You are nothing but a blot to corporations and advertisers selling you electronic doohickeys that they convince you that you must have. Propaganda about consumer spending being essential to an economic recovery is spewed from 52 inch HDTVs across the land, 24 hours per day, by CNBC, Fox, CBS and the other corporate owned media that generate billions in profits from selling advertising to corporations schilling material goods to thoughtless American consumers. Aldous Huxley had it figured out decades ago: ?Thanks to compulsory education and the rotary press, the propagandist has been able, for many years past, to convey his messages to virtually every adult in every civilized country.? Americans were given the mental capacity to critically think. Sadly, a vast swath of Americans has chosen ignorance over knowledge. Make no mistake about it, ignorance is a choice. It doesn?t matter whether you are poor or rich. Books are available to everyone in this country. Sob stories about the disadvantaged poor having no access to education are nothing but liberal spin to keep the masses controlled. There are 122,500 libraries in this country. If you want to read a book, you can read a book. The internet puts knowledge at the fingertips of every citizen. Becoming educated requires hard work, sacrifice, curiosity, and a desire to learn. Aldous Huxley describes the American choice to be ignorant: ?Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don?t know because we don?t want to know.? It is a choice to play Call of Duty on your PS3 rather than reading Shakespeare. It is a choice to stand on a street corner looking for trouble rather than reading Hemingway. It is a choice to spend Black Friday in malls fighting other robotic consumers for iSomethings, the latest innovative, advanced TVs, flashy Rolexes, and ostentatious Coach bags rather than spending the day reading Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman, a brilliant Pulitzer Prize winning history of the outset of World War I, which would provide insight into what could happen on the Korean Peninsula. It is a choice to watch 6 hours per day of Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, Brainless Housewives of Everywhere, or CSI of Anywhere rather than reading Orwell or Huxley and discovering that their dystopian warnings have come true. Conspicuous Consumption Conquistadors Americans have chosen to lie to themselves. They have persuaded themselves that buying stuff with plastic cards while paying 19% interest for eternity, driving BMWs while locked into never ending indecipherable lease schemes, and living in permanently underwater McMansions bought with 0% down on an interest only liar loan, is the new American Dream. They think watching the boob tube will make them smart. They soak in the mass media hype, misinformation and lies like lemmings walking off a cliff. Depending on their political predisposition, they watch Fox or MSNBC and unthinkingly believe the propaganda that pours from the mouths of the multi-millionaire talking heads who read Teleprompters with words written by corporate media hacks. They tell themselves that buying stuff on credit, giving them the appearance of success as measured by the media elite, is actually success. This is a bastardized, manipulated, delusional version of accomplishment. Americans have chosen to believe the lies because the truth is too hard to accept. Becoming educated, thinking critically, working hard, saving money to buy what you need (as opposed to what you want), developing human relationships, and questioning the motivations of government, corporate and religious leaders is hard. It is easy to coast through school and never read a book for the rest of your life. It is easy to not think about the future, your retirement, or the future of unborn generations. It is easy to coast through life at a job (until you lose it) that is unchallenging, with no desire or motivation for advancement. It is easy to make your everyday troubles disappear by whipping out your piece of plastic and acquiring everything you desire today. If your brother-in-law buys a 7,000 sq ft, 7 bedroom, 4 bath, 3 car garage, monolith to decadence for his family of 3, thirty miles from civilization, with no money down and a no doc Option ARM providing the funds, why shouldn?t you get in on the fun. It?s easy. Why sit around the kitchen table and talk with your kids, when you can easily cruise the internet downloading free porn or recording every trivial detail of your shallow life on Facebook so others can waste their time reading about your life. It is easiest to believe your elected leaders, glorified mega-corporation CEOs, and millionaire pastors preaching the word of God for a ?small? contribution to their mega-churches. Americans love authority figures who act as if they have all the answers. It matters not that these egotistical monuments to folly and hubris (Bush, Obama, Paulson, Geithner, Greenspan, Bernanke) have committed the worst atrocities in the history of our Republic, leaving economic carnage and the slaughter of thousands in their wake. The most dangerous man on this earth is an Ivy League educated, arrogant ideologue who believes they are smarter than everyone else. When these men achieve power, they are capable of producing catastrophic consequences. Once they seize the reigns of authority these amoral psychopaths have no problem lying to the American public in order to achieve their objectives. They know that Americans love to be lied to, so the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. The current lie proliferating across the land of the free financing and home of the debtor is that austerity has broken out across the land. The mainstream media and the government, aided by various ?think tanks? and Federal Reserve propagandists insist that Americans have buckled down, reduced spending, increased savings, and have embraced austerity. < -- BIG SNIP - > http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=7783 From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 29 13:54:10 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:54:10 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Drudge_Fought_The_TSA=85=2EAnd_D?= =?windows-1252?q?rudge_Won?= Message-ID: <1BA5AD53-3F6E-47A6-A30F-6D2D2D9DB179@infowarrior.org> Drudge Fought The TSA?.And Drudge Won ? Big Sis forced to mothball invasive security measures, as Drudge once again confounds establishment media doubters who belittled his influence http://www.prisonplanet.com/drudge-fought-the-tsa-and-drudge-won.html Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Prison Planet.com Monday, November 29, 2010 Despite the establishment media presiding over another mass hoax in claiming that Americans were completely happy with invasive airport security measures, contrary to polls showing a majority in opposition, and that the national opt out day was a failure, the fact that the TSA was forced to change its policy by mothballing naked body scanners and curtailing aggressive pat downs clearly goes to show that the man who almost single-handedly drove the issue, Matt Drudge, fought the TSA and he won. The big networks and the so-called progressive borg hive, who instantly tried to spin the lack of delays at airports over Thanksgiving as proof that the opt-out protest had failed, conveniently failed to mention the fact that major airports across the country had deliberately mothballed their naked body scanners in a crass PR ploy aimed at deflating the momentum behind the demonstration. Early reports began to pour in from Twitter users who said that body scanner machines were roped off and out of use in airports such as LAX, Seattle, San Jose and Columbus, Ohio. They also said that pat downs had reverted back to the standard procedure and were not the new grope downs that the TSA had announced a couple of weeks before. The New Jersey Star-Ledger subsequently reported that, ?The majority of Newark?s full-body scanners were idle throughout much of the day, depriving most passengers of the chance to opt out of the controversial screening procedure even if they had wanted to.? At the nation?s busiest airport, Atlanta-Hartsfield, there was,?limited, if any, use of the controversial full-body scanners,? the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Later reports confirmed that, the TSA had ?backed down and resorted to using the old screening procedures ? metal detectors and less-intrusive pat-downs.? Infowars reporters Rob Dew and Aaron Dykes also flew back from Denver International Airport on national opt-out day and confirmed that body scanners were completely out of use. This was the same airport in which Infowars staffer Michelle was groped by TSA goons who also attempted to fondle her children, in a story that helped kick off the rebellion against invasive airport security. In addition, many people took part in the protest by avoiding airports altogether. Traffic was jammed on the highways, with the Massachusetts Turnpike playing host to a 30-mile hold-up. According to AAA, more drivers were on the road than ever before during a Thanksgiving holiday. (ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW) Stock up for the Holidays with eFoods Direct and get FREE Shipping! The establishment media echo chamber attempted to pull a hoax by claiming that the vast majority of Americans were completely happy with having their genitals groped by federal goons and naked pictures taken of their children. In reality, after Drudge relentlessly drove the issue, polls of Americans that were previously in support of body scanners had reversed dramatically and the ACLU received an avalanche of new complaints. The nationwide scanner shut down proved two things. 1) Big Sis?s security talk is nothing more than hot air. If the scanners were so imperative to keep us safe from terrorists then why did the TSA turn them off in a vain effort to score political points? 2) Drudge won. The DHS and TSA were forced to change their policies on both naked body scanners and invasive pat downs ? both of which were curtailed over Thanksgiving. Whether such a change stays in place remains to be seen ? the war will undoubtedly rage on, but there can be little doubt that Drudge won the battle. As Politico?s Ben Smith highlighted, ?There?s no doubt about who won on this issue: Matt Drudge chose it and drove it, illustrating both his continued power and his great sense of the public mood, and it now seems a matter of time until he gets results.? Indeed, the whole issue underscores once again why the establishment media is so petrified of Drudge?s power to direct the nationwide rebellion against big government. One man with a website was able to take on the might of the multi-billion dollar corporate media industry and the federal government for whom they act as apologists, and in doing so stir the next great wave of resistance against tyranny. The establishment continually berates Drudge and attempts to assert that he has lost the power to influence the national discourse, even as the Drudge Report continues to smash its traffic record year after year. As Matt Lewis writes, Drudge has helped to spark a new movement, confounding establishment media pundits who have repeatedly belittled his influence. Not long ago, of course, there was great debate as to whether or not Drudge even still had it. As Barack Obama was besting John McCain in 2008, many observers wondered whether or not The Drudge Report ? which a decade earlier had pushed the Monica Lewinsky scandal into the headlines ? had lost a step. At the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz debated whether or not Drudge still had the clout to drive media coverage. And TPM?s Greg Sargent also argued that Drudge?s influence was over-stated. He was not alone. Of course, as the TSA rebellion illustrates, Drudge remains incredibly powerful and uniquely important. The wider issue now becomes not just what Big Sis is subjecting Americans to at airports, but how this same invasive and unconstitutional technology is now being increasingly used on the streets. As Homeland Security extends its tentacles more and more into our private lives, the rebellion against Big Sis will only accelerate, and Drudge as ever will be at the forefront of that charge, much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the castrated, corrupted, distrusted, and increasingly irrelevant establishment media. ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America?s most listened to late night talk show. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 29 13:57:09 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Apple bans Android magazine app Message-ID: <8109B7BD-5CDC-4FDF-B2E1-95DA7EE3900B@infowarrior.org> (c/o MC) Apple bans Android magazine app Posted by Philip Elmer-DeWitt November 26, 2010 6:27 PM Tells a Danish publisher he can't sell a magazine about Google's OS in Apple's App Store http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/26/apple-bans-android-magazine-app/ Tuesday seems to have been Apple's (AAPL) day for saying "No." First Apple Legal ordered the Chinese manufacturer of a Steve Jobs look-alike doll to stop making the popular action figure. Then a representative from developer relations informed the CEO of Mediaprovider, a small magazine publisher based in Denmark, that he couldn't put a magazine about Google's (GOOG) Android on the App Store. According to Mediaprovider's Brian Dixon, the exchange went like this: "So what's the problem?" Dixon asked, knowing full well what the problem was. "You know... your magazine," replied the Apple rep, who identified himself only as Richard. "It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store." The bi-monthly publication -- the Android counterpart to an iPhone magazine Dixon began putting out earlier this year -- launched Nov. 11. "It's funny really because I don't think we would sell many magazines on Android through Apple App Store," Dixon told Media Watch. "But the question is where this is going." Apple has not responded to a request for comment. [Follow Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Twitter @philiped] From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 29 16:59:25 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:59:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Causing Terror on the Cheap Message-ID: Causing Terror on the Cheap http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/causing_terror.html Total cost for the Yemeni printer cartridge bomb plot: $4200. "Two Nokia mobiles, $150 each, two HP printers, $300 each, plus shipping, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses add up to a total bill of $4,200. That is all what Operation Hemorrhage cost us," the magazine said. Even if you add in costs for training, recruiting, logistics, and everything else, that's still remarkably cheap. And think of how many times that we spent in security in the aftermath. As it turns out, this is bin Ladin's plan: In his October 2004 address to the American people, bin Laden noted that the 9/11 attacks cost al Qaeda only a fraction of the damage inflicted upon the United States. "Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event," he said, "while America in the incident and its aftermath lost -- according to the lowest estimates -- more than $500 billion, meaning that every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars." The economic strategy of jihad would go through refinement. Its initial phase linked terrorist attacks broadly to economic harm. A second identifiable phase, which al Qaeda pursued even as it continued to attack economic targets, is what you might call its "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan." Bin Laden announced this plan in October 2004, in the same video in which he boasted of the economic harm inflicted by 9/11. Terrorist attacks are often designed to provoke an overreaction from the opponent and this phase seeks to embroil the United States and its allies in draining wars in the Muslim world. The mujahideen "bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt," bin Laden said, and they would now do the same to the United States. [...] The point is clear: Security is expensive, and driving up costs is one way jihadists can wear down Western economies. The writer encourages the United States "not to spare millions of dollars to protect these targets" by increasing the number of guards, searching all who enter those places, and even preventing flying objects from approaching the targets. "Tell them that the life of the American citizen is in danger and that his life is more significant than billions of dollars," he wrote. "Hand in hand, we will be with you until you are bankrupt and your economy collapses." None of this would work if we don't help them by terrorizing ourselves. I wrote this after the Underwear Bomber failed: Finally, we need to be indomitable. The real security failure on Christmas Day was in our reaction. We're reacting out of fear, wasting money on the story rather than securing ourselves against the threat. Abdulmutallab succeeded in causing terror even though his attack failed. If we refuse to be terrorized, if we refuse to implement security theater and remember that we can never completely eliminate the risk of terrorism, then the terrorists fail even if their attacks succeed. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 29 17:02:06 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:02:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - RIP Irvin Kershner (Director of 'Empire Strikes Back') Message-ID: Empire Strikes Back director Kershner dies at 87 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/29/irvin_kershner_dies/ By Rik Myslewski in San Francisco Posted in Entertainment, 29th November 2010 18:58 GMT Irvin Kershner, the man who directed what was arguably the best of the six Star Wars films ? The Empire Strikes Back ? died over the weekend at his home in Los Angeles. He was 87. "I knew that it was going to be a dark film, with more depth to the characters than in the first film," Kershner told Vanity Fair about Empire just last month. "It took a few years for the critics to catch up with the film and to see it as a fairy tale rather than a comic book." Kershner also told Vanity Fair that he turned down the third film in the original trilogy, Return of the Jedi, because "After working for two years and nine months doing Empire, and having it take so much out of my life and having given me so much, I felt that it was a complete experience and it was time to move on." But after a few years spent recovering from that experience, Kershner "would have said yes" to directing one of the prequels to the original trilogy. Had he been asked, perhaps The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith would have been less execrable ? although it would have taken a cinematic genius to have raised the character of Jar-Jar Binks from insufferable to merely tolerable. Although he may be best remembered for his work with Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, and that blonde kid from Corvette Summer in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Kershner also directed Richard Harris in The Return of Man Called Horse, George C. Scott in The Flim-Flam Man, Barbra Streisand in Up the Sandbox, Faye Dunaway in Eyes of Laura Mars, and Sean Connery in Never Say Never Again. Before directing and co-writing his first feature film ? Shakeout on Dope Street ? in 1958, Kershner studied music and art in his home town of Philadelphia, along with painting and photography in New York and Los Angeles. His acting credits included an appearance in Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. ? From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 29 17:12:30 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:12:30 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Message-ID: <7B8C4822-1494-43CC-BCA7-00DDB54E355E@infowarrior.org> Nov. 29, 2010, 4:38 p.m. EST Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29 BROOMFIELD, Colo., Nov 29, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Level 3 Communications, Inc. /quotes/comstock/15*!lvlt/quotes/nls/lvlt (LVLT 1.01, +0.01, +1.00%) today issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of Level 3: "On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation's largest cable provider. "On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was 'take it or leave it,' Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions. "Level 3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use to transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to consumers. When a Comcast customer requests such content, for example an online movie or game, Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for delivery to consumers. "Level 3 believes Comcast's current position violates the spirit and letter of the FCC's proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and statutes, as well as Comcast's previous public statements about favoring an open Internet. "While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content requested by its subscribers, Comcast's decision goes well beyond this. With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast's subscribers at all, unless Comcast's unilaterally-determined toll is paid -- even though Comcast's subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a 'closed' Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content. "It is our hope that Comcast's senior management, for whom we have great respect, will closely consider their position on this issue and adopt an approach that will better serve Comcast and Comcast's customers. "While Comcast's position is regrettable, Level 3 remains open and willing to work through these issues with Comcast. However, Level 3 does not seek any 'special deals' or arrangements not generally available to other Internet backbone companies. "Given Comcast's currently stated position, we are approaching regulators and policy makers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content." About Level 3 Communications Level 3 Communications, Inc. /quotes/comstock/15*!lvlt/quotes/nls/lvlt (LVLT 1.01, +0.01, +1.00%) is a leading international provider of fiber-based communications services. Enterprise, content, wholesale and government customers rely on Level 3 to deliver services with an industry-leading combination of scalability and value over an end-to-end fiber network. Level 3 offers a portfolio of metro and long-haul services, including transport, data, Internet, content delivery and voice. For more information, visit www.Level3.com. (C) Level 3 Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Level 3, Vyvx, "From Creation to Consumption," Level 3 Communications and the Level 3 Communications Logo are either registered service marks or service marks of Level 3 Communications, LLC and/or one of its Affiliates in the United States and/or other countries. Level 3 services are provided by wholly owned subsidiaries of Level 3 Communications, Inc. Any other service names, product names, company names or logos included herein are the trademarks or service marks of their respective owners. Forward-Looking Statement Some of the statements made in this press release are forward looking in nature. These statements are based on management's current expectations or beliefs. These forward looking statements are not a guarantee of performance and are subject to a number of uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside Level 3's control, which could cause actual events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the statements. The most important factors that could prevent Level 3 from achieving its stated goals include, but are not limited to, the current uncertainty in the global financial markets and the global economy; disruptions in the financial markets that could affect Level 3's ability to obtain additional financing; as well as the company's ability to: increase and maintain the volume of traffic on the network; successfully integrate acquisitions; develop effective business support systems; defend intellectual property and proprietary rights; manage system and network failures or disruptions; develop new services that meet customer demands and generate acceptable margins; adapt to rapid technological changes that lead to further competition; attract and retain qualified management and other personnel; and meet all of the terms and conditions of debt obligations. Additional information concerning these and other important factors can be found within Level 3's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Statements in this press release should be evaluated in light of these important factors. Level 3 is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any such obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. SOURCE: Level 3 Communications Level 3 Communications Media: Josh Howell, 720-888-3912 E-mail or Investors: Valerie Finberg, 720-888-2518 From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Nov 29 17:52:14 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:52:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?WikiLeaks=92_Julian_Assange_Want?= =?windows-1252?q?s_To_Spill_Your_Corporate_Secrets?= Message-ID: <14AE0368-0F95-417D-806C-F9EA3C9F865B@infowarrior.org> http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/ Nov. 29 2010 - 5:04 pm | 4,626 views | 3 recommendations | 0comments In a rare interview, Assange tells Forbes that the release of Pentagon and State Department documents are just the beginning. His next target: big business. Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives? response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm?s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on. (For the full transcript of Forbes? interview with Assange clickhere.) When? Which bank? What documents? Cagey as always, Assange won?t say, so his claim is impossible to verify. But he has always followed through on his threats. Sitting for a rare interview in a London garden flat on a rainy November day, he compares what he is ready to unleash to the damning e-mails that poured out of the Enron trial: a comprehensive vivisection of corporate bad behavior. ?You could call it the ecosystem of corruption,? he says, refusing to characterize the coming release in more detail. ?But it?s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that?s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they?re fulfilling their own self-interest.? This is Assange: a moral ideologue, a champion of openness, a control freak. He pauses to think?a process that occasionally puts our conversation on hold for awkwardly long interludes. The slim 39-year-old Wiki Leaks founder wears a navy suit over his 6-foot-2 frame, and his once shaggy white hair, recently dyed brown, has been cropped to a sandy patchwork of blonde and tan. He says he colors it when he?s ?being tracked.? ?These big-package releases. There should be a cute name for them,? he says, then pauses again. ?Megaleaks?? I suggest, trying to move things along. ?Yes, that?s good?megaleaks.? His voice is a hoarse, Aussie-tinged baritone. As a teenage hacker in Melbourne its pitch helped him impersonate IT staff to trick companies? employees into revealing their passwords over the phone, and today it?s deeper still after a recent bout of flu. ?These megaleaks . . . they?re an important phenomenon. And they?re only going to increase.? He?ll see to that. By the time you?re reading this another giant dump of classified U.S. documents may well be public. Assange refused to discuss the leak at the time FORBES went to press, but he claims it is part of a series that will have the greatest impact of any WikiLeaks release yet. Assange calls the shots: choosing the media outlets that splash his expos?s, holding them to a strict embargo, running the leaks simultaneously on his site. Past megaleaks from his information insurgency over the last year have included 76,000 secret Afghan war documents and another trove of 392,000 files from the Iraq war. Those data explosions, the largest classified military security breaches in history, have roused antiwar activists and enraged the Pentagon. Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says. Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we?ve been discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm that he says attempted to sabotage its competitors? wells. Like informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 30 08:44:19 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:44:19 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Ask The Pilot: TSA's double standard Message-ID: Monday, Nov 22, 2010 11:01 ET TSA's double standard In the uproar about scanners and pat-downs, no one seems to have noticed that one group is exempt from inspection By Patrick Smith ? Patrick Smith is an airline pilot. http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/11/22/tsa_screening_of_pilots/index.html Late last week, the Transportation Security Administration, bowing to controversy and the threat of lawsuits, ruled that airline pilots will no longer be subject to the backscatter body scanners and invasive pat-downs at TSA airport checkpoints. For pilots like myself this is good news, though at least for the time being we remain subject to the rest of the checkpoint inspection, including the X-raying of luggage and the metal detector walk-through. Eventually, we are told, the implementation of so-called CrewPASS will allow us to skirt the checkpoint more or less entirely. Not everybody agrees that air crews deserve this special treatment. That's not an unreasonable point of view, and I don't disagree with it, necessarily. As security experts like Bruce Schneier point out, if you are going to screen at all, it is important to screen everybody, lest the system become overly complicated and prone to exploitable loopholes. (Incidentally, the requirement that crews undergo checkpoint screening was imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration after the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in 1987. A recently terminated flight attendant, David Burke, used his credentials, which the airline had failed to recover, to carry a concealed handgun onto Flight 1771 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. En route, he shot both pilots and nosed the airplane into the ground near Harmony, Calif., killing all 44 on board.) But this is a useful approach only if the system is rational and effective to start with. As a pilot I would have no problem going through screening together with everybody else -- just not the screening we currently have in place, with its bullying and its mindless protocols and its wasteful obsession with minutiae. And by "contradictory," here's some blockbuster news: Although the X-ray and metal detector rigmarole is mandatory for pilots and flight attendants, many other airport workers, including those with regular access to aircraft -- to cabins, cockpits, galleys and freight compartments -- are exempt. That's correct. Uniformed pilots cannot carry butter knives onto an airplane, yet apron workers and contract ground support staff -- cargo loaders, baggage handlers, fuelers, cabin cleaners, caterers -- can, as a matter of routine, bypass TSA inspection entirely. All workers with airside privileges are subject to fingerprinting, a 10-year criminal background investigation and crosschecking against terror watch lists. Additionally they are subject to random physical checks by TSA. But here's what one apron worker at New York's Kennedy airport recently told me: "All I need is my Port Authority ID, which I swipe through a turnstile. The 'sterile area' door is not watched over by any hired security or by TSA. I have worked at JFK for more than three years now and I have yet to be randomly searched. Really the only TSA presence we notice is when the blue-shirts come down to the cafeteria to get food." Actually, this is something I wrote about, to no measurable reception, in a column over five years ago. Little has changed since then. With all of the recent talk about airport security, this ought to be a bombshell of a story. Every media outfit in the country should be covering it. It undermines almost everything TSA has told us from the beginning about the "need" to screen pilots and flight attendants, and if there is a more ringing "let me get this straight ..." scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I?d like to hear it. This is one of the reasons I've been somewhat disappointed by all of the recent attention and controversy over body scanners and pat-downs. Sure, the deployment of the scanners is rightfully controversial; the devices raise important privacy issues, and possibly health issues as well. (And, yes, it is heartening that finally, after almost 10 years, we're seeing a groundswell of resistance against TSA.) The downside to this conversation, however, is that it distracts us from asking important questions about the agency's approach to security overall. The purpose of highlighting this loophole is not to scare or sensationalize, and enacting yet another layer of zero-tolerance screening, this time for ground workers, is possibly the exact wrong response. The answer, if you ask me, rests in the middle. I would propose somewhat tougher screening for underwing employees, while ratcheting down somewhat the overzealous scrutiny of pilots and flight attendants. You may or may not agree, but in the meantime one thing is certain: This is, for now, a double standard so brazen and hypocritical as to be almost unbelievable. - - - - - - - - - - - - Do you have questions for Salon's aviation expert? Contact Patrick Smith through his website and look for answers in a future column. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 30 09:24:42 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:24:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - BitTorrent Based DNS To Counter US Domain Seizures Message-ID: BitTorrent Based DNS To Counter US Domain Seizures Written by Ernesto on November 30, 2010 http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-based-dns-to-counter-us-domain-seizures-101130/ The domain seizures by the United States authorities in recent days and upcoming legislation that could make similar takeovers even easier in the future, have inspired a group of enthusiasts to come up with a new, decentralized and BitTorrent-powered DNS system. This system will exchange DNS information through peer-to-peer transfers and will work with a new .p2p domain extension. In a direct response to the domain seizures by US authorities during the last few days, a group of established enthusiasts have started working on a DNS system that can?t be touched by any governmental institution. Ironically, considering the seizure of the Torrent-Finder meta-search engine domain, the new DNS system will be partly powered by BitTorrent. In recent months, global anti-piracy efforts have increasingly focused on seizing domains of allegedly infringing sites. In the United States the proposed COICA bill is explicitly aimed at increasing the government?s censorship powers, but seizing a domain name is already quite easy, as illustrated by ICE and Department of Justice actions last weekend and earlier this year. For governments it is apparently quite easy to take over the DNS entries of domains, not least because several top level domains are managed by US-based corporations such as VeriSign, who work closely together with the US Department of Commerce. According to some, this setup is a threat to the open internet. To limit the power governments have over domain names, a group of enthusiasts has started working on a revolutionary system that can not be influenced by a government institution, or taken down by pulling the plug on a central server. Instead, it is distributed by the people, with help from a BitTorrent-based application that people install on their computer. According to the project?s website, the goal is to ?create an application that runs as a service and hooks into the hosts DNS system to catch all requests to the .p2p TLD while passing all other request cleanly through. Requests for the .p2p TLD will be redirected to a locally hosted DNS database.? ?By creating a .p2p TLD that is totally decentralized and that does not rely on ICANN or any ISP?s DNS service, and by having this application mimic force-encrypted BitTorrent traffic, there will be a way to start combating DNS level based censoring like the new US proposals as well as those systems in use in countries around the world including China and Iran amongst others.? The Dot-P2P project was literally started a few days ago, but already the developers are making great progress. It is expected that a beta version of the client can be released relatively shortly, a team member assured TorrentFreak. The project has been embraced by many familiar names in the P2P-community. Former Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde is among them, and the people from EZTV have been promoting it as well. ?For me it?s mostly to scare back. To show that if they try anything, we have weapons of making it harder for them to abuse it. If they then back down, we win,? Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak in a comment. Although the initiators of the project are still debating on various technical issues on how the system should function, it seems that the administrative part has been thought out. The .p2p domain registration will be handled by OpenNIC (requires OpenNic DNS), an alternative community based DNS network. OpenNIC also maintains the .geek, .free, .null and several other top level domains. On the other hand, there are also voices that are for distributed domain registration, which would keep the system entirely decentralized. The domain registrations will be totally free, but registrants will have to show that they own a similar domain with a different extension first, to prevent scammers from taking over a brand. The new P2P-based DNS system will require users to run an application on their own computer before they can access the domains, but there are also plans to create a separate root-server (like OpenNIC) as a complimentary service. It?s worth noting that the DNS changes will only affect the new .p2p domains, it will not interfere with access to any other domains. It will be interesting to see in what direction this project goes and how widely it will be adopted. There are already talks of getting Internet Service Providers to accept the .p2p extension as well, but even if this doesn?t happen the system can always be accessed through the BitTorrent-powered application and supporting DNS servers. If anything, this shows that no matter what legislation or legal actions are taken, technology stays always one step ahead. The more aggressive law enforcement gets, the more creative and motivated adopters of the Open Internet will respond. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 30 13:48:20 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:48:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Analyst finds flaws in Canon image verification system Message-ID: This story appeared on Network World at http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/113010-analyst-finds-flaws-in-canon.html Analyst finds flaws in Canon image verification system A system used to digitally sign Canon photos for use as evidence has major flaws, according to a Russian company By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service November 30, 2010 09:11 AM ET A cryptographic system used by Canon to ensure that digital images haven't been altered is flawed and can't be fixed, according to a Russian security company that specializes in encryption. Mid- to high-end Canon digital cameras have a feature called "Original Decision Data" (ODD), which is a digital signature that can be verified to see if a photo has been retouched or if data such as timestamps or GPS coordinates have been changed. The Associated Press news wire uses the system, which can also be used to verify photos used as evidence. But the digital signature can be forged due to design flaws in Canon's system, according to Dmitry Sklyarov, an IT security analyst with Elcomsoft, which specializes in password recover systems. Sklyarov was due to give a presentation on the flaws at the Confidence IT security event in Prague on Tuesday afternoon. Elcomsoft has published photos -- including one with an astronaut planting the flag of the Soviet Union on the moon -- that, if checked using a smart card and special software from Canon, confirm that the photo has not been tampered with. Elcomsoft shared a copy of Sklyarov's presentation, which hasn't been released publicly, with IDG News Service. In it, he describes how one component, the Hash-based Message Authentication Code (HMAC), which is used to calculate the ODD, can be extracted from the memory of several different Canon camera models. In Canon's second version of its ODD system, the HMAC code is 256 bits. The code is the same for all cameras of the same model. Knowing the HMAC code for one particular model allows the ODD to be forged for any camera within that model range, Sklyarov wrote. The problem is that the HMAC sits in the camera's RAM in a de-obfuscated form and can be extracted, according to Sklyarov. It is also possible to extract the HMAC from the camera's Flash ROM and manually de-obfuscate it. Canon also released a third version of ODD, which Sklyarov was also able to break and forge the ODD. Elcomsoft has written a program that can analyze a camera's processor and firmware. The problem is a design flaw and can't be fixed, according to Elcomsoft. Sklyarov said he was able to extract the HMAC keys for the following models: EOS 20D, EOS 5D, EOS 30D, EOS 40D, EOS 450D, EOS 1000D, EOS 50D, EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 500D and EOS 7D. With future models, Sklyarov wrote that Canon could implement an HMAC calculation in a cryptoprocessor that does not expose it. Also, Canon should prevent its cameras from running non-Canon code to avoid the use of software tools by an attacker. Elcomsoft made several attempts about three months ago to notify Canon of the problem with no response, said Katerina Korolkova, an Elcomsoft spokeswoman. A senior manager in Canon's technical department finally acknowledged receipt of the issue. "We have provided them all of our technical findings," she said. Elcomsoft told Canon it planned to release details of the problem, and the company has also notified the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team, Korolkova said. Elcomsoft plans to release Sklyarov's full presentation on its website in about two weeks. Canon officials were not immediately available for comment on Tuesday. The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate. All contents copyright 1995-2010 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Nov 30 18:43:37 2010 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Interpol Issues Arrest Warrant for Assange Message-ID: <287B0FAD-D31B-4A5C-80B0-B49E91E7DCB8@infowarrior.org> Interpol Issues Arrest Warrant for WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Published November 30, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/30/interpol-issues-arrest-warrant-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/ Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on sex charges. The Australian is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion in an investigation that stems from his encounters with two women during a visit to Sweden in August. Assange has denied the allegations and insisted his sexual relations with the women were consensual. A veteran computer hacker, Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006. It has published almost 500,000 secret U.S. documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Court documents filed by the prosecutor show Assange is suspected of raping and sexually molesting a woman in the town of Enkoping, central Sweden. He's suspected of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion of the second woman, in Stockholm. A police report obtained by The Associated Press shows that both women had met Assange in connection with a seminar he gave in Stockholm on Aug. 14. The report shows the women filed their complaints together six days later. Mark Stephens, Assange's lawyer in Britain, said both women have declared that they had "consensual sexual relations" with Assange. "Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him," Stephens said in a statement. Governments and some of Assange's own colleagues have denounced him for releasing Afghan documents that contained the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO forces, saying that could place the sources' lives at risk. But Assange has urged U.S. authorities to investigate possible human rights abuses by American troops during the two conflicts. He also has complained that he and his group are being targeted and persecuted by intelligence agencies from the United States and elsewhere who are angry over the leaks of the secret military documents. The Associated Press contributed to this report.