Always strive to learn something useful. --Sophocles

The Seattle police department has a proven track record of being less than forthcoming when they institute surveillance measures. They installed 30 cameras in the port district for 'security' without owning up to it or saying how they are used. Most recently, they've installed a mesh wireless network downtown. Each box contains for wireless access points, and they talk to each other. And they can track and triangulate a smartphone's WiFi radio.

The city council passed a regulation that all systems capable of surveillance have to have detailed usage plans before the council within 30 days of installation. The report is expected around Thanksgiving, and the new police network, from a vendor known as Aruba, will have been up for nine months at that point.

The whole thing was funded by the Department of Homeland Security and feeds an intelligence fusion center, among other recipients.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/you-are-a-rogue-device/Content?oid=18143845

http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/13/11/09/060253/seattle-pd-mum-on-tracking-by-its-new-wi-fi-mesh-network


There's a concept called geofencing. In it, a geographic point is defined, such as 'my parent's house', and under iPhone's iOS 6 and later you could tell it 'remind me to open the vent in the bedroom when I get to my parent's house.' I would imagine that Android phones have similar capability. It'd be cool if you could tell it 'Disable WiFi when I leave home, turn it on when I return.'

Three are already in service, one in California and two in New Mexico. Well, north of El Paso, TX, which is close enough. And which I'll have to drive through whenever I go to El Paso, unless I take 150 mile detour through Las Cruces.

I definitely don't like this. This is ionizing radiation, which can damage tissue and DNA, and it's powerful enough to image through a metal car. DHS, of course, says it's perfectly safe. But we don't have studies approved by the FDA saying yea or nay. If your car were to stall with you in the middle of the scanner, you get an increased radiation dose. You know they're not going to build a mechanism like a self-service car wash where the machine moves around you, which would have the same risk, it's just not viable and slows checkpoint throughput. And they're not going to give an option for you to get out of your car and a DHS person drives your car through it, that increases their liability if your car gets damaged. So you're going to have to drive your car through it, no opt-out.

I asked an officer at the checkpoint between Las Cruces and Alamogordo about their backscatter x-ray van. It was late at night, no traffic behind me, and it had been gone for a while so I commented that it was back. The officer was surprised that I knew anything about it. I asked him how often they used it, and he said only occasionally, so I assume they use it for suspicious vehicles and 18-wheelers. The question is whether or not this drive-through thing is compulsory for all or just for suspicious vehicles.

I also feel more than a little sympathy for the officers at the checkpoints. These are ionizing radiation devices that the only statement of safety is the manufacturer and their employer, no independent third-party or government agency. I doubt the officers are going to be issued dosimeters to monitor their radiation exposure, though TSA has put out an RFP for quotes for dosimeters for airport security check workers (we'll see if that actually happens). There was a cancer cluster at Logan Airport in Boston among workers x-raying baggage, I haven't heard of anything yet with airport checkpoint workers.

It's definitely time for me to once again write my congresscritters.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358146-281/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-be-cancer-risk-to-border-crossers/

I love it! "DHS is already struggling to operate their seven existing drones. Officials acknowledge that they are short on pilots and maintenance — right now, they can only pay to fly the drones five days a week. So now DHS is in a mad scramble trying to figure out how they can successfully incorporate three more vehicles into the roster."

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/dhs-unwanted-drones/

The act would have given the governmentMPAA/RIAA power to order American ISPs to block DNS resolution of sites that are infringing content, mainly torrent trackers and download sites. Currently the government has the power to order the Department of Homeland Security to seize the domain names of sites that offend the governmentMPAA/RIAA, which is a tremendously effective tactic as it only works against specific domain types that the US controls, and no one would think of re-registering their domain under a foreign country that is not the US. Not to mention the impossibility of using Firefox add-ins that automatically reroute DNS resolution to alternates.

Definitely a Homeland Security issue. Only terrorists download copyrighted content.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) placed a hold on the Protect IP Act that will keep it from landing on the Senate floor.

“The internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century,” Wyden said in a statement. “It is increasingly in America’s economic interest to ensure that the internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives,” he said.

This is the whole problem that the MPAA/RIAA have: they're making very little effort to adjust to the internet and new technology. They want to maintain an absolute lockdown on their old business models.

Well, as Dylan said, the times they are a' changin'. If I lived in Oregon, Wyden would definitely get my vote.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/blacklisting-law-advances/

Design proposals are being accepted for devices that would scan your shoes while you wear them. Remember the fluoroscopes in shoe stores in years gone by? Lots of shoe store employees got cancer.

When is DHS/TSA going to figure out that a device/protocol that addresses Threat X is invariably worthless against Threat Y?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/next-step-for-airport-security-scanners-for-your-shoes/