Sunday, January 17, 2010

The FBI Sucks at Photoshop

There appears to be no end of the USA's inability to get security right. This incident would be funny, if it wasn't so lame.

The FBI decided to produce one of those age-progression photos of Osama bin Laden since he's aged over the years he's been hiding out in the mountains. Unfortunately, the FBI seems to have used Photoshop Lite (and perhaps a trainee photo analyst?) and essentially used Google to find a photo on the Internet; a photo from a Spanish politician's campaign poster. So this Spanish guy, Gaspar Llamazares, now finds himself on an FBI wanted poster and doesn't find it particularly humorous.
“Bin Laden’s safety is not threatened by this but mine certainly is”, Llamazares said.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Buried Under A Mountain Of Information

Our government's repeated efforts to accumulate information about us results in us being less secure rather than more. This article ("The backfiring of the surveillance state") is from Salon.com, and author Glenn Greenwald gives two main reasons why this is true:
(1) eliminating strict content limits on what can be surveilled (along with enforcement safeguards, such as judicial warrants) means that government agents spend substantial time scrutinizing and sorting through communications and other information that have nothing to do with terrorism; and (2) increasing the quantity of what is collected makes it more difficult to find information relevant to actual terrorism plots
The article provides a number of examples of how information overload is making us less secure. One of the major ones is the Christmas Day attempted bombing of the airliner in Detroit. As more and more information is revealed as to what the government knew about the bomber before the near disaster, it's clear that more than enough information was there to keep him off American planes. What the President has described as a "failure to connect the dots" is a direct result of information overload. Our intelligence agencies had lots of valid information about the plot and bomber, but they couldn't see the "trees for the forest," to torture an aphorism.

So the next time someone tries to frame the debate over government surveillance powers as one of "security v. privacy and civil liberties" you might suggest that increasing the government's surveillance abilities will make us less, not more, safe. Glenn Greenwald quotes former FBI agent and 9/11 whistleblower Coleen Rowley:
Extraneous, irrelevant data clutter the system, making it even harder for analysts to make meaningful future connections. A needle is hard enough to find in the proverbial haystack, without adding still more hay. . . . Quantity cannot substitute for quality.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

The 'Israelification' of Airport Security

This article is about the difference between what we in the U.S. and the Israeli's call airport security. It's about actually addressing the problem (keeping bad people out of airports and off flights) instead of inconveniencing everyone except the bad people. You can find the Toronto Star article here. The word of the day is "Israelification."

While North America's airports groan under the weight of another sea-change in security protocols, one word keeps popping out of the mouths of experts: Israelification.

That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience.

Where the US/Canadian approach to airport security is reactive and focused on however the last bad guy attempt was carried out, the Israeli method is to keep people behaving (or potentially behaving) badly out of the airport. That's why we're still removing our shoes to get through the security line, and why we're now facing limits on having things in our laps during the last hour of a flight. Because the American security approach assumes that the bad guy has gotten on the plane. The result is escalating inconvenience for travelers and little or no real obstacles for bad guys. The Israeli's don't care if you're black, white, Arab, Jew; they care how you're behaving and whether that behavior is suspicious.

The Israeli security expert in the article outlines three "security perimeters" travelers must get through before they even get to the airport terminal. Checkpoints on the entrance road, parking lot, and terminal entrance are staffed by trained personnel who are looking for odd behaviors. One word repeated throughout the article is "trained." The Israelis spend the money on training personnel to look passengers in the eyes to detect nervous, potentially dangerous behavior.
Identification of suspicious behaviors requires lots of training. Americans avoid looking each other in the eyes in the grocery store, no less at the airport.

You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?

"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

There's that word again: trained. The questions asked at various points aren't terribly important; what's important is the traveler's reaction and behavior when asked. If you act suspicious, you'll get searched. And even then, the Israeli approach is preventative, not reactive. For example, if a possible bomb is found inside the terminal in the inspection area, that small area is all that has to be "evacuated." It's bomb-proof and can withstand the detonation of 100 kilos of plastic explosives. There's no need to try to evacuate an entire airport terminal. Every time some idiot in the US wanders in through an exit, our response is to try to evacuate the terminal and find said idiot. Most often, the evacuation takes hours and the idiot has left the building along with Elvis. If the intruder was planning to detonate something he has more than enough time to do so.

Why do Americans "settle" for such lousy security? The Israeli security expert says it's because we're "nice:"
"But, what can you do? Americans and Canadians are nice people and they will do anything because they were told to do so and because they don't know any different."
I think it's more because we collectively have the attention span of a gnat and we've been trained by our so-called leaders to go for the cheap, shallow, and largely ineffective approach to solving problems so we can refocus our attention on the latest celebrity gaffe. We should be demanding better from our leaders and our government. Much better.

On a lighter, related note, humorist Andy Borowitz has a plan, merging airport security with American health care reform: Full Body Scans to Double as Annual Checkups.


Saturday, January 2, 2010

Equality For All?

I couldn't decide what to title this post. It's about two news articles (although I'm not certain they warrant the label "news").

In the first article, a woman was found passed out in a stolen van in S. Dakota recently, and her blood alcohol level (0.708) appears to have set a state record. In fact, it was so high, it was nearly double the fatal alcohol level for half the population. She was arrested and taken to a hospital for treatment. Even more hilarious, she was freed on bond and failed to appear for her court date on 12/15/09. She was located by police passed out again in another stolen vehicle at the side of another highway. This time she was hauled off to jail. The good news is that at least she wasn't driving when she was so wasted. She clearly does appear to have some issues involving stolen vehicles and drinking vast amounts of booze.

The second article is about the fact that while drunk driving arrests of men still are much more frequent than for women, female drivers are closing the gap.
Nationally, the number of women arrested for DUI increased by 28.8 percent between 1998 and 2007, while the number of men arrested for DUI dropped by 7.5 percent, according to U.S. Department of Justice crime statistics.
Part of the huge increase may be attributable to the increase in binge drinking among women, and the fact that females have less water in their bodies than men. Another explanation given is that DUI laws are more strictly enforced against women drivers.

Or perhaps some women drivers consume huge volumes of booze and then pull onto the shoulder of the road to sleep it off (where they're easily found by cops). Maybe the drunk males manage to drive home undetected...