26 Miles

The TSA Wants You Naked

// July 11th, 2008 // No Comments » // Security & Privacy

Rivaling only the IRS in the public’s collective derision, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now has a new gadget through which to extend their reign of Orwellian coercion on we, the throngs of presumed-terrorists boarding U.S. flights every day.

The new “millimeter wave scanners” rolling out in some U.S. airports — and used as part of the “secondary screening” on selected passengers — photograph the human body through the clothing with a high-degree of photo-realistic accuracy.

From the article:

“These machines, which show detailed images of a person’s naked body, are equivalent to a ‘virtual strip search,’ ” says the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “The image resolution … is high so the picture of the body presented to screeners is detailed enough to show genitalia.”

…and…

Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union marvels at the government’s double standard: “If Playboy published them, there would be politicians out there saying they’re pornographic.”

The TSA has also begun handing out cracker-jack-box badges to it’s workforce and outfitting them in blue, police-looking uniforms. Real law enforcement officers are none to happy being cast in the same lot with the TSA workers.

Now … they want to see us naked. Are we ready yet to say enough is enough, or will we, as we have since 9/11, simply march like lemmings through the nudie-portal and continue to let the TSA and their policies run amok, awash in excessive power and limited, ineffective oversight?

The TSA itself likely represents the greatest threat to aviation safety and the long-term economic viability of the airline industry. In so poorly executing their mission, they create a very thin illusion of security when in fact it could be argued the aviation safety record of the last 7 years was achieved in spite of them, rather than because of them.

A serious, thoughtful discussion needs to occur about how best to understand and guard against whatever the real threat to airline safety is, and shape new policies and, if necessary, organizations around the outcomes of that discussion. The TSA was hastily conceived during a period of fear and sorrow and since inception the divergence between real threats and their ill-conceived policies has only grown. 5 ounces of shampoo and a butter knife do not a terrorist make. Folks, It’s time to start over with this one.

Bruce Schneier Facts

// April 12th, 2007 // No Comments » // Security & Privacy

You know you’re a real security geek when you can’t flip through these because you’re wiping away tears of laughter.

My favorite… “Bruce Schneier once proved the infinitude of twin primes — by enumeration.”

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Bruce Schneier, read on.

Also, be sure to get the t-shirt.

Recovering From Identity Theft

// March 29th, 2007 // No Comments » // Security & Privacy

With identify theft on the rise, I’ve often wondered where I’d start if it ever happened to me.

YourCreditAdvisor.com has a 24-point checklist for recovering your identity that seems pretty comprehensive.

Needless to say, if it ever happens to you, you’ll be one busy individual trying to recover it.

Establishing a pattern of always paying with cash as much as possible can be one step in minimizing your exposure. Spending money you already have – instead of charging it – is always a good idea as well, and apparently when you pay with cash, you’re more inclined to spend less than when using a credit card.

Identity theft happens to real people. I found out last weekend a house behind ours was purchased using a stolen identity.

Patenting Life

// February 15th, 2007 // 4 Comments » // Business & Politics, Security & Privacy

Michael Crichton has an interesting op-ed in the New York Times discussing what has become among the most egregious abuse of the underfunded US Patent Office and their penchant for rubber stamping most patent applications that come across their desk, regardless of the true originality, merit, or social value of the claim.

Companies now hold gene patents for the genes that compose common diseases, such as Hepatitis. This stifles research as scientists who would otherwise devote energy to researching cures are dissuaded by the sometimes huge licensing fees that must be paid to the owners of the patent to conduct their research.

People die because of this, as Crichton points out. He cites proposed legislation to nullify prior gene patents and prevent the future patenting of genes but the only reference I could find to a similarly titled piece of legislation died in Congress 3 years ago. If anyone can find evidence that the legislation is on the docket for the current Congressional session, please comment and provide a citation.

Federal Government Plans to Greatly Expand DNA Database

// January 21st, 2007 // No Comments » // Security & Privacy

Included in a bill signed last year by President Bush reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act was a provision allowing the federal government to greatly expand the federal DNA database.

Language commonly used in promoting it’s use include “crime fighting database”, “fighting terrorism”, and “catching immigration violators”. The “with-us-or-against-us” mentality among some in law enforcement will inevitably paint those raising their voices in protest as “pro-crime”, “pro-terrorism”, and “pro-illegal-immigration”. The nuances of privacy and the potential abuse of this information are lost on them.

Efforts to include DNA in criminal records has momentum and isn’t likely to wane, but close oversight of the collection, storage, and use of DNA is critical.

From the article: “Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, say such mass seizures of DNA violate privacy and do little to improve law enforcement.”

The public rarely recognizes how the privacy violations of those they consider bad people (e.g., “criminals”) chip away at privacy for all of us. It is often done against the backdrop of something no rational, half-thinking person can argue against, such as “fighting crime”. Fear language is used to silence and marginalize critics, and too often the “authorities” succeed in achieving their narrow goal — such as building heavily armed and rarely-used SWAT programs or chasing the ghosts of the drug trade — without the benefit of public discourse reflecting on the downsides.

In this case, the “downsides”, like so much other law enforcement pork projects, are wasted dollars on security theater and a massive invasion of personal privacy with little effort spent to ensure that the program will protect the privacy of not only the innocents but the accused as well.