Communion Of Dreams


Never underestimate the stupidity of a bureaucracy.

Couple of weeks ago I got my notice from the state that it was time to renew my CCW permit. The whole process was fairly straight forward: go to the sheriff’s office, hand over my driver’s license and other ID, have them renew the paperwork on their end (checking to make sure I hadn’t done anything which would warrant losing my permit); then over to the Driver’s License center for a new ID.

I use a non-driver’s ID for my CCW permit. It costs me an extra couple of bucks to have a separate ID, but that way if I have to hand over my DL to someone, they don’t know that I have a permit to carry. It’s not an issue for the police, should I get pulled over or something, since the CCW info is tied into the driver’s license database. And this way, I always have a second photo ID.

So, I got to the Driver’s License center. Light crowd, and it only took me a minute to get to a clerk. Who took my paperwork, pulled up the info on her computer, and said that since none of my information had changed, the simple thing to do was just to issue a renewal with the updated CCW expiration date. Cool.

Then she asked if I had a birth certificate or passport.

Yeah, the Real ID Act.

Now, think about this for a moment. I was getting a renewal of my CCW permit. Said permit requires initially a fairly thorough background check by the State Highway Patrol, along with plenty of ID and documentation about competency. The renewal paperwork had to be processed by the local sheriff’s office, and then an additional form issued requiring me to get the new ID endorsement within a week. Nothing had changed in my file since the original ID was issued three years ago – all they were going to do was just change the date of the CCW expiration. And yet they did not trust their own system to confirm that I was who I was.

Yeah, I had my passport with me. I knew not to underestimate the stupidity of the bureaucracy. I handed it over, and the clerk scanned it for just a moment before pushing the final key on her computer that spat out my new ID. But boy, I’m sure I’d have been in trouble had I not brought it.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to UTI.)



Yeah, it’s gotten that bad.

A thought experiment for you:  Consider, if you will, at what point the absurdity of “security theatre” crosses the line from the merely annoying to the actively dangerous (to our civil liberties).  How would you detect such a point?

How about with a simple American flag?

Metal plates send messages to airport x-ray screeners

One of my favorite artists, Evan Roth, is working on a project that will be released soon – the pictures say it all, it’s a “carry on” communication system. These metal places contain messages which will appear when they are X-Rayed. The project isn’t quite done yet, Evan needs access to an X-Ray machine to take some photos and document. If you have access to an X-Ray machine he’s willing to give you a set of the plates for helping out.

There are two such plates shown at the site, made up as stencils carved into an X-ray opaque plate about the size of your average carry-on bag. One says “NOTHING TO SEE HERE”. The other is an American Flag.

Now, consider, what do you think the reaction would be from your friendly local airport authorities upon seeing such an item in your luggage?

Would you (reasonably, I think) expect to be given additional scrutiny? Have your bags and person checked more thoroughly? Be ‘interviewed’ by the security personnel? Perhaps miss your flight? Have your name added forevermore to the ‘terrorist list’, meaning hassles each and every time you’d try and fly in the foreseeable future?

For having a stencil of an American Flag in your luggage?

I’d say we’ve reached that point.

Perhaps we should reconsider this.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to UTI.)



“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?”*

So, according to FOX News, our friends at the Department of Homeland Security will soon have a new trick up their sleeve: MALINTENT.

Homeland Security Detects Terrorist Threats by Reading Your Mind

Baggage searches are SOOOOOO early-21st century. Homeland Security is now testing the next generation of security screening — a body scanner that can read your mind.

Most preventive screening looks for explosives or metals that pose a threat. But a new system called MALINTENT turns the old school approach on its head. This Orwellian-sounding machine detects the person — not the device — set to wreak havoc and terror.

MALINTENT, the brainchild of the cutting-edge Human Factors division in Homeland Security’s directorate for Science and Technology, searches your body for non-verbal cues that predict whether you mean harm to your fellow passengers.

I’m . . . sceptical.  Let me put it like this: if this thing actually, dependably, reliably works the way they tout it in the article (go read the whole thing, even if it is from FOX), then the TSA would be perfectly fine with allowing me to carry a gun onto a plane.  After all, I have a legitimate CCW permit, have been vetted by a background check and accuracy test, have had the permit for three years, and have never demonstrated the slightest inclination to use my weapon inappropriately.  If I could pass their MALINTENT scanners as well, they should be completely willing to let me (and anyone else who had a similar background and permit) carry a weapon on board.

Just how likely do you think that is?

Right.  Because this sort of technology does not, will not, demonstrate reliability to the degree they claim.  There will be far too many “false positives”, as there always are with any kind of lie detector.  That’s why multiple questions are asked when a lie detector is used, and even then many jurisdictions do not allow the results of a lie detector to be admitted into courts of law.

Furthermore, the risk of a “false negative” would be far too high.  Someone who was trained/drugged/unaware/elated with being a terrorist and slipped by the scanners would still be a threat.  As Bruce Schneier just posted about Two Classes of Airport Contraband:

This is why articles about how screeners don’t catch every — or even a majority — of guns and bombs that go through the checkpoints don’t bother me. The screeners don’t have to be perfect; they just have to be good enough. No terrorist is going to base his plot on getting a gun through airport security if there’s decent chance of getting caught, because the consequences of getting caught are too great.

Contrast that with a terrorist plot that requires a 12-ounce bottle of liquid. There’s no evidence that the London liquid bombers actually had a workable plot, but assume for the moment they did. If some copycat terrorists try to bring their liquid bomb through airport security and the screeners catch them — like they caught me with my bottle of pasta sauce — the terrorists can simply try again. They can try again and again. They can keep trying until they succeed. Because there are no consequences to trying and failing, the screeners have to be 100 percent effective. Even if they slip up one in a hundred times, the plot can succeed.

OK, so then why do it?  Why introduce these scanners at all?  Why intrude on the privacy of people wanting to get on an airplane?

Control.  As I noted earlier this year, about the news that the US military was deploying hand-held ‘lie detectors’ for use in Iraq:

The device is being tested by the military. They just don’t know it. And once it is in use, some version of the technology will be adapted for more generalized police use. Just consider how it will be promoted to the law enforcement community: as a way of screening suspects. Then, as a way of finding suspects. Then, as a way of checking anyone who wants access to some critical facility. Then, as a way of checking anyone who wants access to an airplane, train, or bus.

Just how long do you think it will be before you have to pass a test by one of these types of devices in your day-to-day life? I give it maybe ten years.  But I worry that I am an optimist.

An optimist, indeed.  Because here’s another bit from the FOXNews article:

And because FAST is a mobile screening laboratory, it could be set up at entrances to stadiums, malls and in airports, making it ever more difficult for terrorists to live and work among us.

This is about scanning the public, making people *afraid*.  Afraid not just of being a terrorist, but of being thought to be a terrorist by others, of being an outsider.  Of being a critic of the government in power. The first step is to get you afraid of terrorists, because then they could use that fear, and build on it, to slowly, methodically, destroy your privacy.  Sure, the DHS claims that they will not keep the information gathered from such scanners.  And you’re a fool if you think you can trust that.

Jim Downey

Via BoingBoing. Cross posted to UTI.

*Recognize the quote?



“More and more, it seems as if public officials in this country have simply gone insane.”
September 12, 2008, 6:25 am
Filed under: Bruce Schneier, Emergency, Failure, Government, Preparedness, Society, Terrorism, Uncategorized

That’s the closing line of yesterday’s post by Bruce Schneier.  Of course, Schneier has thought this for a long time.  But what is he going on about?  This:

Are the fire hydrants in your neighborhood turned on?

ROCKWALL COUNTY – A North Texas homeowner wants you to learn from his family’s tragedy.

The fire hydrants in his neighborhood are turned off.

Now, why are the hydrants turned off?

You guessed it: terrorism.

More from the news story:

Clay Hodges is the general manager of Cash Special Utility District.

He explains all the district’s hydrants, including those in Alexander Ranch, have had their water turned off since just after 9/11 – something a trade association spokesman tells us is common practice for rural systems.

“These hydrants need to be cut off in a way to prevent vandalism or any kind of terrorist activity, including something in the water lines,” Hodges said.

But Hodges says fire departments know, or should have known, the water valves can be turned back on with a tool.

Insane.  Just bloody insane.  As Schneier says:

One, fires are much more common than terrorism — keeping fire hydrants on makes much more sense than turning them off. Two, what sort of terrorism is possible using working fire hydrants? Three, if the water valves can be “turned back on with a tool,” how does turning them off prevent fire-hydrant-related terrorism?

Yes, this is insane.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to UTI.)



Just down the road.

[This post contains mild spoilers about Communion of Dreams.]

I’ve had some people say that the Edenists I created for Communion of Dreams are just absurdly overblown – that I have unfairly mischaracterized both fundamentalist religion and radical environmentalists.  I don’t usually argue with people who say things like this – my goal is not to convince everyone that my book of speculative fiction is right in all of its particulars.  I just hope that they will continue to pay attention to the world around them, and see what is happening.

Like this item, via PZ Myers:

Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?

* * *

Clearly then, “evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land.” All that remains for us to discuss is “What should be done with evolutionists?” For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence and merely mention possible solutions to the “evolutionism problem,” leaving the legal details to others:

  • Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these.  But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
  • Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce “Warning:Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent – Potentially Dangerous.” I consider this option too dangerous.
  • Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, thisshould, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.
  • An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent too much progress. They might invent gunpowder.
  • A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned out to be intelligent enough to invent it.

That’s an excerpt from the close of the piece, after the author has gone through some effort to define who ‘evolutionists’ are (he seems to mix up socialism, communism, Nazism, and support for slavery.  No, really, he says that ‘evolutionists’ are all of these things.)  Feel free to read the entire piece.

Now, as one commentor over at Pharyngula said, “that’s some weapons-grade crazy.”

My intent here isn’t to get into a discussion on this particular fellow’s pathology.  It is simply to point out that this stuff is out there, and in my experience is fairly widespread.  He’s just down the road from me about 100 miles, and growing up and living in the Midwest I have met plenty of his type.  There are a lot of people who would take such an eliminationist approach to all their perceived enemies.  Unfortunately, as we have also seen with the Earth Liberation Movement, there are also those who claim to be radical environmentalists who are willing to take violent action.  Melding two such groups was an easy step in my mind.

Don’t misunderstand me – I am not claiming that all religious adherents are violent extremists.  Nor are all environmentalists.  Hardly.  But these groups are out there.  They are not a figment of my imagination.  And if we forget that, or ignore them, we may find ourselves in a world akin to Communion of Dreams (or someplace worse.)

Jim Downey



The latest TSA Follies . . .

So, you’re a retired brigadier general in the Air National Guard, and even certified to carry a pistol as a pilot of a commercial airliner, under the program designed to provide last-chance security against terrorists seizing control of a jet. What does the TSA do? Put you on the terror watch list, of course:

But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”

That means he can’t use an airport kiosk to check in; he can’t do it online; he can’t do it curbside. Instead, like thousands of Americans whose names match a name or alias used by a suspected terrorist on the list, he must go to the ticket counter and have an agent verify that he is James Robinson, the pilot, and not James Robinson, the terrorist.

“Shocking’s a good word; frustrating,” Robinson — the pilot — said. “I’m carrying a weapon, flying a multimillion-dollar jet with passengers, but I’m still screened as, you know, on the terrorist watch list.”

Along with about a million other people.

OK, that’s good, but this is even better:

Commuter Flights Grounded Thanks To Bumbling TSA Inspector

They’re the government… and remember, they’re here to help. A bumbling inspector with the Transportation Safety Administration apparently has some explaining to do, after nine American Eagle regional jets were grounded at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on Tuesday.

Citing sources within the aviation industry, ABC News reports an overzealous TSA employee attempted to gain access to the parked aircraft by climbing up the fuselage… reportedly using the Total Air Temperature (TAT) probes mounted to the planes’ noses as handholds.

“The brilliant employees used an instrument located just below the cockpit window that is critical to the operation of the onboard computers,” one pilot wrote on an American Eagle internet forum. “They decided this instrument, the TAT probe, would be adequate to use as a ladder.”

Sweet! As noted in a further comment on ANN:

E-I-C Note: This was an extraordinarily dangerous incident, folks. The TSA has neither the mandate nor the knowledge to inspect any aircraft for any reason. The stupidity of this matter is nearly unbelievable… until you hear that the TSA is involved… then it becomes understandable, though still tragic. And I can not tell you how frustrating it is, to see them continue to hurt an indsutry that they were created to protect.

The TSA has NO BUSINESS putting untrained personnel in a position to damage aircraft. Their bizarre games, in the name of security, do NOTHING to enhance security and do much to inhibit safety. Aviation personnel — pilots, A&P’s, ground personnel — are all either licensed or supervised by licensed personnel and this kind of tampering, had it been accomplished by anyone else, would have subjected that person to criminal charges.

But hey, they can do what they want. They’re the TSA.

Well, *maybe* there’s a chance to fight back, at least on some things:

Court: Passengers can challenge no-fly list

Critics of the government’s secret no-fly list scored a potentially important victory Monday when a federal appeals court ruled that would-be passengers can ask a judge and jury to decide whether their inclusion on the list violates their rights.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated a suit by a former Stanford University student who was detained and handcuffed in 2005 as she was about to board a plane to her native Malaysia.

The ruling is apparently the first to allow a challenge to the no-fly list to proceed in a federal trial court, said the plaintiff’s lawyer, Marwa Elzankaly.

The decision would allow individuals to demand information from the government, present evidence on why they should not have been on the list, and take the case to a jury, Elzankaly said.

Of course, it’d take time, money, and the willingness to suffer further hassle from the TSA, for standing up for your rights. Because, you know, that’d mark you as a troublemaker. Hell, just writing about these issues has probably flagged my name – we’ll see what happens the next time I need to fly somewhere, coming up in about two months.

I swear, just about the biggest thing a presidential candidate could do in my book would be to promise to get rid of the whole security theater nonsense, to reconsider whether we need the TSA as it currently exists, to revamp the Department of Homeland Security, and to return us some semblance of our rights under the Constitution. Sheesh.

Jim Downey

(Via MeFi and ML, cross posted to UTI and Daily Kos.)



For no reason at all.

In May, Bruce Schneier wrote this:

Crossing Borders with Laptops and PDAs

Last month a US court ruled that border agents can search your laptop, or any other electronic device, when you’re entering the country. They can take your computer and download its entire contents, or keep it for several days. Customs and Border Patrol has not published any rules regarding this practice, and I and others have written a letter to Congress urging it to investigate and regulate this practice.

Well, we now know the response:

Travelers’ Laptops May Be Detained At Border
No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies

Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Basically, they can take any electronic or other device capable of storing data for as long as they want, for no reason at all. Yes, I said “other device”. From the Washington Post article cited above:

The policies cover “any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form,” including hard drives, flash drives, cellphones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover “all papers and other written documentation,” including books, pamphlets and “written materials commonly referred to as ‘pocket trash’ or ‘pocket litter.’ “

Think about that for just a moment. They have to right to take anything of yours which could contain data, and keep it for as long as they think they need it. Furthermore, they can share it with others as they see fit. Will the data be secure? Will it be destroyed if not needed? Will your laptop (etc) be returned to you unmolested and intact, or will it have some spyware installed to record your keystrokes? (This last item plays a pivotal plot point in Communion of Dreams, so I tend to think of such things).

What to do?

Accept that the authorities will do this, and not worry about it? Don’t cross the boarder? Try and hide your data? Simply don’t take any such devices with you?

We’re going to Patagonia in about 10 weeks. My wife has been considering taking her laptop, since she is part of the organizing team for the tour we’ll be on. I told her that I don’t recommend it. But it’s her call. At the very least, I hope that she – and anyone else who has to do this – will take the time to consider Schneier’s advice on how to do so safely. Here’s a bit:

So your best defence is to clean up your laptop. A customs agent can’t read what you don’t have. You don’t need five years’ worth of email and client data. You don’t need your old love letters and those photos (you know the ones I’m talking about). Delete everything you don’t absolutely need. And use a secure file erasure program to do it. While you’re at it, delete your browser’s cookies, cache and browsing history. It’s nobody’s business what websites you’ve visited. And turn your computer off – don’t just put it to sleep – before you go through customs; that deletes other things. Think of all this as the last thing to do before you stow your electronic devices for landing. Some companies now give their employees forensically clean laptops for travel, and have them download any sensitive data over a virtual private network once they’ve entered the country. They send any work back the same way, and delete everything again before crossing the border to go home. This is a good idea if you can do it.

If you can’t, consider putting your sensitive data on a USB drive or even a camera memory card: even 16GB cards are reasonably priced these days. Encrypt it, of course, because it’s easy to lose something that small. Slip it in your pocket, and it’s likely to remain unnoticed even if the customs agent pokes through your laptop. If someone does discover it, you can try saying: “I don’t know what’s on there. My boss told me to give it to the head of the New York office.” If you’ve chosen a strong encryption password, you won’t care if he confiscates it.

There’s also advice (and links) in that essay on how to partition your hard drive to include hidden material, how to encrypt your data safely, and so forth. Use according to how valuable your data is. But keep in mind that showing up at the boarder (or Customs) with such encryption evident is a sure way to attract attention and make your day more difficult. Not fun.

What I find astonishing, and extremely insightful, is this quote from that WaPo piece:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote in an opinion piece published last month in USA Today that “the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices.” Searches have uncovered “violent jihadist materials” as well as images of child pornography, he wrote.

With about 400 million travelers entering the country each year, “as a practical matter, travelers only go to secondary [for a more thorough examination] when there is some level of suspicion,” Chertoff wrote. “Yet legislation locking in a particular standard for searches would have a dangerous, chilling effect as officers’ often split-second assessments are second-guessed.”

A “chilling effect”, Mr. Chertoff? Funny, that term is more commonly used and understood in how government can infringe on the civil rights of law-abiding Americans. To make the claim that the government’s agents are the ones suffering such an infringement in their duties is to turn the entire notion of governmental authority coming *from* the people on its head, and says rather that those public employees are something more akin to our rulers than servants.

But I suppose that this is hardly surprising in this day and age.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to UTI. Also see further discussion at MetaFilter, Daily Kos, and BoingBoing.)



Did you remember?

Yesterday was an anniversaryHere are some stunning pictures related to itThere have been movies made about itAnd movies about what it meantOr what it could lead toAnd, of course, there are a whole bunch of books on related subjectsI’ve talked about the threat it presentsLore about it has widely influenced popular cultureAnd it is still topical.

Did you mix a drink to celebrate?

Jim Downey



Oh, *this* is good.

The Washington Times ran an interesting story last week:

Want some torture with your peanuts?

Just when you thought you’ve heard it all…

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers (video also shown below).

This bracelet would:

• Take the place of an airline boarding pass

• Contain personal information about the traveler

• Be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage

• Shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

The Electronic ID Bracelet, as it’s referred to, would be worn by every traveler “until they disembark the flight at their destination.” Yes, you read that correctly. Every airline passenger would be tracked by a government-funded GPS, containing personal, private and confidential information, and would shock the customer worse than an electronic dog collar if the passenger got out of line.

“Just when you thought you’ve heard it all… ” indeed.

Now, I’m not a big fan of the Washington Times, so I checked the website mentioned in the article. Where I found this statement:

The bracelets remain inactive until a hijacking situation has been identified. At such time a designated crew member will activate the bracelets making them capable of delivering the punitive measure – but only to those that need to be restrained. We believe that all passengers will welcome deliverance from a hijacking, as will the families, carriers, insurance providers etc. The F-16 on the wingtip is not to reassure the passengers during a hijacking but rather to shoot them down. Besides activation using the grid screen, the steward / stewardess will have a laser activator that can activate any bracelet as needed by simply pointing the laser at the bracelet – that laser dot only needs to be within 10 inches of the bracelet to activate it.

Got that? “This is for your own good”.

Never mind that there are dozens of potential problems I can see how this technology could be abused, inadvertently misused, or accidentally triggered. Never mind that Tasers use a similar type of electro-muscular disruption technology and have been suspect in the deaths of perhaps hundreds. Never mind that it is likely that someone wanting to hijack a jet would figure out a way to disable such a bracelet (it’s activated by a laser pointer? Just wrap something around the bracelet when you move to act.) Consider solely what this does to you: makes you someone else’s pet or slaughter animal.

Airline travel is grim and degrading enough as it is, and most of the airlines are struggling to avoid bankruptcy. If they decide to go forward and implement the use of this kind of technology, a significant percentage of travelers will give up on flying altogether (it’s actually a shame that likely a majority would probably play along, thanks to the conditioning we’ve already received).

I know I sure as hell would give up flying under those conditions.

Sheesh.

Jim Downey

(Via dKos. Cross posted to UTI.)



Watch it . . .

. . . and weep for the Fourth Amendment:

And people wonder why Congress has an approval rate of 9%.

Sheesh.

UPDATE: FISA passed in the Senate, 69 – 28:

WASHINGTON – The Senate approved and sent to the White House a bill overhauling controversial rules on secret government eavesdropping Wednesday, bowing to President Bush’s demand to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and bitter debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign it soon. He scheduled a 4 p.m. EDT White House statement to praise the passage.

Jim Downey

(Via Daily Kos. Cross posted to UTI.)




Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started