Slashdot Mirror

Actually former secretary of homeland security, but the point is still valid:

http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+chertoff
http://www.cov.com/mchertoff/
http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-about-full+body-scanners
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Chertoff
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/11/19/michael-chertoff-behind-tsa-pornoscanners/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/biography_0116.shtm
http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/airport-full-body-scanners-are-made-by.html
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Chertoff_Michael
etc.

The danger levels of the color-coded terror alert level will never go down to low. We are supposed to be always be afraid. But here is the flaw in the logic: The danger wasn't zero before 9/11. So can we have a "no elevated danger" level when the danger is at that background level and specific alerts otherwise.

Yes. The Homeland Security Advisory System (the pretty rainbow) is in the active process of being replaced with exactly such a system. See: http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/ntas.shtm

Recommended Activities:

• Everyone should establish an emergency preparedness kit and emergency plan for themselves and their family, and stay informed about what to do during an emergency. See more at Citizen Guidance on the Homeland Security Advisory System (PDF - 1 page, 132 KB)
• All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately.

Holy fuck! We're all gonna die!

Recommended Activities:

• Everyone should establish an emergency preparedness kit and emergency plan for themselves and their family, and stay informed about what to do during an emergency. See more at Citizen Guidance on the Homeland Security Advisory System (PDF - 1 page, 132 KB)
• All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately.

Holy fuck! We're all gonna die!

Beardo, here's the short of it.

1. President signs HSPD-12 which mandates issuing a new, more secure, id card to all federal employees. HSPD-12 is all about "secure and reliable" id. It has nothing to do with background checks. Full text: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1217616624097.shtm

2. OMB is tasked with carrying out HSPD-12.

3. OMB arbitrarily adds background checks and "employee suitability". HSPD-12 does not authorize this. This bears repeating. HSPD-12 does not mandate background checks. The background check is a fantasy invented by OMB.

4. Presumably because there are too many background checks to be done, the background checks are being partially outsourced. For example, ChoicePoint handled JSC. Here's a nice article about ChoicePoint: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/02/66685. An old article now, but was relevant 3 years ago.

5. SF85 is the form that landed on my desk with instructions to "sign or else resign". The "carte blanche" part is the first paragraph on the last page. It basically says, "authorize any investigator ... obtain any information ... is not limited". Full text is here: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf85.pdf

I would be happy to undergo an actual real background check and receive an S or TS clearance. Such a check has real value and would open up work opportunities to me. I an not willing to let some random dude investigate me and store that information in some unknown location to be stolen or shared with arbitrary entities.

You can find the draft version PDF here.

From the draft, page 4:

Envision It!

An individual voluntarily requests a smart identity card from
her home state. The individual chooses to use the card to
authenticate herself for a variety of online services, including:
  Credit card purchases,
  Online banking,
  Accessing electronic health care records,
  Securely accessing her personal laptop computer,
  Anonymously posting blog entries, and
  Logging onto Internet email services using a pseudonym.

Anyone who envisions people using Identity Cards to authenticate "anonymous" posting on the internet is dangerous, either evil and dangerous or stupid and dangerous or both.

Many parts of the draft make it implicit that this Identity System is built on top of Trusted Computing, and page 15 explicitly says that hardware and software "also require rigorous identification, authentication, and authorization" and provides an example explicitly naming the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) in this role. For those not familiar with Trusted Computing and Trusted Platform Modules, it means that each computer or other device is embedded with a unique identifier number (the PUBEK). Each computer or other device is also given a pair of master keys, the PRIVEK and RSK. The core idea of Trusted Computing is that the owner is FORBIDDEN to know or fully control these master keys locking down his computer. These keys are used to secure the computer AGAINST THE OWNER. That is the meaning of "Trust" in Trusted Computing and in the Trust chip - they mean that other people can "Trust" that you do not know your own master security keys and therefore other people can "Trust" that your computer is secure AGAINST YOU. They can "Trust" that you cannot alter or override the security on your computer because you do not know your own master security keys.

Page 22 says the Federal government must establish new laws to enforce this system.

Page 23 explicitly names Intellectual Property protection as a purpose of the system.

Page 24 says "the scope of this strategy extends beyond national boundaries" and that Governance is required at the international level to create this Identity system. It complains that the Federal Government has not focused sufficient resources pushing this sort of system through international standards bodies. Continuing into page 25 is says this policy "is becoming a matter of diplomacy".

The Federal government is already giving away many tens of millions of dollars a year in grants to develop this stuff, and still page 25 calls for more aggressive focused R&D to promote this system and "promote the transfer of the government's sponsored R&D results related to the Identity Ecosystem to the commercial sector".

All throughout the draft are listed all sorts of ways to force this Identity system upon us, from implementing it in government services to your electric company requiring it to access your account. However page 29-30 is particularly notable in how it identifies "Other Means to Drive Adoption of the Identity Ecosystem Across the Nation". It suggests tax breaks for those who adopt the system, which is inherently a shift of the tax burden onto those who who refuse or decline to adopt the Identity system. But I think the really fun part is where it suggests regulatory changes to critical infrastructure sectors to drive adoption. In particular it proposes new regulations be placed upon all credit card transactions as a means to drive this Identity system down our throats.

-

Comments on this draft closed in July, and it's been changed since. But this should give you a sense of what they're actually proposing. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf

The federal government already gets the public databases pulled it in to their databases. This is exactly why multiple Fusion centers were set up in almost every state, at least what they are willing to admit publicly from the middle of 2009. Who knows how many they actually have now. They are not part of the federal government, but rather setup by the state and local governments, even though they get federal DHS money to set these up. Since they are not federal agencies, they are not restricted by federal rules for data mining and privacy. They collect information from public sources and private databases (think credit reports, grocery stores, and others that sell their databases), link up with businesses, state and local police and then pass all this up to the federal level such as the FBI and Homeland Security. The FBI and DHS then send down terrorist watch lists, and lists of people that the Fusion centers and law enforcement should monitor in their areas. The stated idea was to allow more data sharing between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement along with the help of businesses. What in fact has happened is that the federal government has gotten around rules about what data they can collect by having it passed to them from another/third party, in this case the state Fusion centers. Technically they didn't mine the data, the states did and they just passed the information along to the federal government. So vast amounts of data is being collected already about the public and what is going on in the US, and most people have no clue at all that this is being done.

The problem with all of this is who the Fusion centers are putting on the terrorist watch list. They have put the ACLU on the watch list in Tennessee, Ron Paul supporters in Missouri, people who vote third party or support them, people who advocate for the Constitution, those who are over friendly, people who buy lots of jeans, owners of certain kinds of historical flags, and other crazy things that have come out. It just insane who the Fusion centers are putting on the terrorist watch list, and the insane criteria being used to put people on the terrorist watch list.

http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1156877184684.shtm
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/dec/22/aclu-bristles-over-terror-list/
http://publicintelligence.net/florida-fusion-center-monitored-bp-protests-ron-paul-events-code-pink/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/

USSR was very random. If they needed a few thousand to make up a death quota for an area, it was done.
Germany had the help of IBM tech to sort the population. Germany also had a very good system of letter writing from people who disliked/wanted your job ect.
What the USA is rolling out is fusion centres with the NSA as part of your telco network.
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/nsa-grsoc/nsa-grsoc.htm
If you fly and phone home, your fair game. Use a set of words ...
The US is also rolling out ""If You See Something, Say Something"" to suburbia, so really its back to random again
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1291648380371.shtm
So you have the Germany tech feel with Soviet like employees to keep an eye on you. Where the fed van will stop next ..

In 2010 not a contrast.
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1291648380371.shtm
If You See Something, Say Something'
"Informing on your neighbours? There's an app for that: Big Brother iPhone download encourages you to spy "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1338738/The-Big-Brother-app-New-iPhone-download-lets-tell-tales-neighbours.html

I would agree this seems fishy. However as stated in this Directive ICE has the authority to do some fairly clandestine stuff without any approval, such as registering 'fake' domains to poorly beguile terrorists, miscreants, and other groups found the oracle on high deems unworthy. I suppose this could extend to transferring DNS to a sleazy hosting outfit... however I bet this is a little bit closer to home, sleezy outfits seem to attract one another. I seriously doubt DHS and ICE have anything to do with copyright infringement despite claims to the contrary, especially considering at least of the the 'victims' seems to be up and running.

P.S, The FEDs usually fell entire forests when delivering mail informing you of tax violations, compliance violations, legal violations, and penalties. It's usually quite unambiguous.

uhh, customs and TSA have nothing in common.

Other than they are part of the same organizational chart.

The DHS defines "Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources" on this website: http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1189168948944.shtm ("Key Resources" refer to things like national monuments that, while relatively irrelevant to the operation of the nation, are nonetheless impossible to replace and likely targets of attack.)

It's not a matter of being a vendor to government, it's a matter of being an industry (not a company) where industry-wide failures would result in material impact to the security of the country due to interdependencies. If there's an impact to the petroleum products distribution infrastructure, for example, then there's no gasoline, avgas, or diesel. Trucks can't resupply supermarkets, planes can't deliver goods or passengers, and in short order, first responders (cops, firemen, ambulances) can't travel except on a very limited basis. That doesn't make the gas station a critical asset, since an awful lot of gas stations can get shut down without mucking up the works...people will just have longer lines as they go to fewer stations. But, on the other hand, the petroleum depots...well, since one of those services an enormous area...one of those is quite critical.

You can see some of these questions on the ESTA form on-line:
https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/esta.html?_flowExecutionKey=_cAA87A45D-BB10-BD69-546C-3A6C110CDB26_kC5D1910B-3EF3-ABDD-96D4-8BFFE65F97A5

This replaces the I94 (Visa Waiver) form that you'd fill out on the flight / at arrival.

For the privilege of filling it in online now, you pay $4 administration costs (by credit card only... you're welcome to have the info, Uncle Sam)... and an additional $10 if the application has been approved*, which is used to promote tourism (Travel Promotion Act) to the U.S**.

* of course it's only the application that's been approved.. if the border-control-person is having an off day and you look at 'm funny, they'll still send you back after a little chat.

** not charging and getting rid of the security theater might promote tourism better, eh? But the act is loved all-around as it practically costs U.S. taxpayers and businesses squat.. seeing as previous visitors effectively end up paying a good chunk of it. Well played!

The questions start after the two "yeah, yeah... I understand I must bend over.. take me to the form" pages.
I wonder what happened to the questions of whether or not the person has been to any farmland/soil recently. Come to think of it.. maybe that was Australia.

According to national statistics ( http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm ). Nationally, it's 1,451,500 fires across 30,170 fire stations, for an average of 48 fires per station, per year. My town of 32,000 people pays $6,362,437 for their fire service, and has 4 stations. That's about 200$ per person, on average. If they were charged the 6 million divided by the number of fires per year (200, for this rough estimate) it would be approximately $30,000. So, on the order of tens of thousands of dollars. You really might as well not have the option, as anyone with that kind of cash wouldn't care about the 75$ fee.

Of course, often Congress does specify where in the executive branch things go, and even creates new offices, which the president cannot override. This is generally frowned upon at levels lower than cabinet positions....Congress creates the top level Departments, and maybe one level below that, but generally shouldn't be micromanaging within the offices, as it makes any sort of reorganization difficult. I.e., they create the Department of Homeland Security, and put the FBI (and others) within it, and assign specific crimes for the FBI to handle...but they shouldn't really be creating offices in the FBI to handle those crimes. (Because, over time, crimes change, and the FBI might find itself with one nearly empty office and one overworked one. I mean, at one time it would have made sense to have a 'train robbery' division.)

Funny you should bring up Homeland Security. That bill was the most God awful piece of crap that they landed in the Executive Branches lap that has ever come out of Congress.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf

Just look through the table of contents and you can see the Congressional micro-management going on. I remember the change, being in FEMA at the time, and it was terrible to endure. That bill needs to be revisited to remove FEMA from DHS for many reasons (including waste, fraud and abuse) and given a much smaller budget. It needs to become a coordinating agency between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and the intelligence gathering communities. DHS needs to get out of the disaster business. DHS raiding of FEMA money and more importantly staff resources is a big part of why they are flailing about ineffectually on just about every disaster they try to run.

Another reason the agency is impotent is the micro-management Congress has enforced on this agency through this bill. DHS is a paranoid and schizophrenic agency. It is fragmented into so many compartments it is little wonder why they are ineffective.

An important thing to note is that the administration lied about the background checks. They stated that invasive personal background checks were required by a presidential directive called "HSPD-12". This, as it turns out, is incorrect.

The full text of HSPD-12 is available on the web. In fact, what it says is that the government identification cards should be difficult to forge. As a part of that, it said that the government should verify the identification of its employees before issuing identification cards. That's it. The only background check required it "check their ID."

This could be an interesting plot line for a Comedy script. I believe that Girish Kumar has just confessed to committing a felony. Is the DHS done eating dinner?

Are you a reliable source, drinkypoo?

apprehensions 2005-2008

"the number of apprehensions made by the Border Patrol declined for the third year in a row to 724,000 in 2008 after reaching a mid-decade peak of 1,189,000 in 2005."

Now, I don't see any journalist, any border cop contesting these specifics, if they did, I would have picked up that information.

You, drinkypoo, are not a reliable source though.

Cool, so that means the current Department of Homeland Security alert level of yellow/orange actually means there's information out there regarding an actual threat, and not just a constant elevated paranoia to cover their asses if something bad actually goes down?

http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm

When the threat is mitigated, do we finally get to reduce the threat level to blue or green? What are the criteria for actually reaching that? :P

I hate to break it to you, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Apparently the speech focused on one of those situations where "tradeoffs are inevitable." If Hassan and Shahzad were "inspired" by radical internet posts, I cannot conceive of any further investigative tradeoff that could have been made while still maintaining constitutionality. Even if they had made radical internet posts, they would have to be inciting imminent lawless action or alluding to their participation in criminal plots/conspiracies/etc. to justify a search warrant. The FBI is already on the lookout for people who post such things on public online forums.

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

I would hate to think that anyone liberal on civil rights would find these statements comforting...

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Yes, I'm sure "liberals" will be relieved that Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary (nice research, AP) of the DHS for George W. Bush, approves of the Obama Administration's "security" policies. When Republican hawks talk about "mature" security policies, they mean the ones that Dick Cheney dreams about at night, the ones that Bush was trying to step back from in his final two years; they mean Obama's current policies.

More like literally ten million in 2006. That DHS publication states that there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in all states. California has the bulk of them, and honestly it's not that bad here.

It's funny, really - Arizona, a state with the population of 6 million citizens, has passed this law specifically so that they can more easily target 0.5 million illegal aliens.

I think people just don't realize the scale of the numbers involved in these things.

The department of Home Land Security is already on top of this one via the Container Security Initiative Ports http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1165872287564.shtm monitoring.

Sure, go ahead and mod me down, but you can't escape the fact that Obama is facing a reality where the budget needs to be cut to bring the deficit under control, whereas the past administration and congress continually lived in fantasyland believing that they could spend whatever they wanted.

Actually the NASA budget is not slated to be cut; it will still increase at about the pace of inflation, meaning it will essentially hold steady. Canceling the moon program merely frees up more resources to be spent elsewhere, on programs you described which were sacrificed in the name of the Constellation program.

That said, I believe it's a mistake to cancel the program instead of funding it. Since it is widely regarded as an essential stepping stone, and will thus be necessary at some point, delaying the manned moon program will only set us back further in relation to other countries (Japan, China, Russia, India(?)) and collectives (ESA).

NASA's $19B budget is a tiny fraction of Federal spending: between 0.5% and 1%, historically, for the past 30 years. Compare that to the DHS budget, which has doubled from 23.3B in 2003 to $56B today, just shy of 3x NASA's budget. If you consider DHS to be the manifestation of loss aversion, and NASA to be the manifestation of aspiration and progress, which I think are fair characterizations, then loss aversion is limiting progress (as it often does). Of course it's not a strict dichotomy between DHS and NASA, but I find it ridiculous that we have no shortage of funds for Security Theater while science and technology suffer.

I'm extremely disappointed that the Obama administration -- one ostensibly dedicated to advancing science and technology -- has decided to scrap this program.

Sure, go ahead and mod me down, but you can't escape the fact that Obama is facing a reality where the budget needs to be cut to bring the deficit under control, whereas the past administration and congress continually lived in fantasyland believing that they could spend whatever they wanted.

Actually the NASA budget is not slated to be cut; it will still increase at about the pace of inflation, meaning it will essentially hold steady. Canceling the moon program merely frees up more resources to be spent elsewhere, on programs you described which were sacrificed in the name of the Constellation program.

That said, I believe it's a mistake to cancel the program instead of funding it. Since it is widely regarded as an essential stepping stone, and will thus be necessary at some point, delaying the manned moon program will only set us back further in relation to other countries (Japan, China, Russia, India(?)) and collectives (ESA).

NASA's $19B budget is a tiny fraction of Federal spending: between 0.5% and 1%, historically, for the past 30 years. Compare that to the DHS budget, which has doubled from 23.3B in 2003 to $56B today, just shy of 3x NASA's budget. If you consider DHS to be the manifestation of loss aversion, and NASA to be the manifestation of aspiration and progress, which I think are fair characterizations, then loss aversion is limiting progress (as it often does). Of course it's not a strict dichotomy between DHS and NASA, but I find it ridiculous that we have no shortage of funds for Security Theater while science and technology suffer.

I'm extremely disappointed that the Obama administration -- one ostensibly dedicated to advancing science and technology -- has decided to scrap this program.

The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency.

How has that worked out? And where was their outrage over its creation and its current status of operation?

Try sending a letter or small package through the USPS, UPS and FedEx and let me know which one was more cost effective.
Now try building a straw man and knocking him down.

The USPS sends packages cheaper because they're subsidized by the taxpayer. They have lost $BILLIONS per year for the last few years. Of course you can mail stuff for less when you're allowed to have the Federal government bail you out. UPS and FedEx don't have that luxury. Their prices reflect reality.

The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency.

But that's okay because it has a suitably patriotic-sounding name.

Call it Department for Healthy Americans, and point out that some veterans are diabetic, and I'm sure you'll get a lot more support.

The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency.
How has that worked out? And where was their outrage over its creation and its current status of operation?

Try sending a letter or small package through the USPS, UPS and FedEx and let me know which one was more cost effective.
Now try building a straw man and knocking him down.

Laws might also play a much bigger role in something like this. Rife abuse of things like the DMCA to halt innovation for fear of lawsuits, a well known fact of a highly broken patent system would cause less of a desire to want to get too creative lest you get a court issue summoning to east Texas ( http://blog.innovators-network.org/?p=922 ) and being sued to death. Other issues are that I have a feeling that laws like the US-VISIT Act ( http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/usv.shtm ) might cause some people to re-consider going to the US since being digitally finger printed and photo'd for just wanting to enter the country is real discouraging (and I think this info stay on file indefinitely). Lots of legal problems, rising costs of business, the recession, laws that just make you less wanted by the country as a whole and stories of people being assaulted by border guards, and that the US Customs can and do copy your laptops and all of it's private business information ( http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/no-warrant-necessary-seize-your-laptop ) possibly risking millions of dollars to your business (and don't think that a leak could never happen, they do). With all this to consider, it's less and less of a reason to want to start a business or take a business from another country and do it in places like Silicon Valley in the US.

Schmidt wasn't just "a former Bush administration official," he was the first cybersecurity czar, appointed shortly after 9/11 and contributed to the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. I suppose they didn't get it right the first time, but things will be different now.

Just FYI, I actually did look, and it seems it has three settings: Yellow, Orange, and Red.

Since Yellow is Elevated, you are mostly correct. It has, however risen and lowered (up to Orange/Red, back down to Yellow), mostly driven by the Muslim holy days. Elevated means 'significant risk of terrorist attacks', which has mostly been proven false. There have been something like .01% days containing terrorist attacks since the day the system was created.

Still it makes one wonder if blue and green ever see any use. For example, what is the terror level for posting on Slashdot? Surely that, at least, is green?

Then why have so many police agencies abandoned the 9mm in favor of other calibers?

Because you can get hit with a 9mil round and still keep running. Not so much with the .40. From what I understand DHS also switched to the .357 and the .40.

During a typical year, home electrical problems account for 67,800 fires, 485 deaths, and $868 million in property losses. Home electrical wiring causes twice as many fires as electrical appliances.

The second quoted sentence indicates that two-thirds of the 485 annual deaths are caused by wiring itself, leaving a little over 160 deaths per year to other causes (I ignored injuries & property damage because we previously only discussed death stats). As with electrocutions, problems with the plug/outlet are certain to be a small subset of those, although I couldn't find any statistics that specific. The US 110v socket/plug just doesn't overheat easily, unless the device itself is damaged or poorly made (best to make sure it's UL approved before buying); overheating to the kindling point of the insulation or nearby material is very unlikely. I still feel the existing plugs pose a reasonable level of risk.

And I reread my earlier post - I didn't intend to be sarcastic about the helmet/Kevlar question. But it does starkly illuminate the safety/convenience trade-off.

- T

If you were talking about a cost difference of $100 or maybe even $10, I'd understand it but to put savings over safety for pennies or even a couple dollars is just stupid.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/home_fire_prev/electrical.shtm

According to that electrical problems cause 67,800 fires, 485 deaths, and $868 million in property losses.

As it points out most of the problems come from wiring, not the actual devices. Perhaps shorts wouldn't be as much of a problem if cords had things, like fuses in them.

I know a lot of people are talking shit and saying they don't know anyone that has died from an electrical death which is a flawed argument and yes I do see the official stats do say that actually not too many people die.

However there is still a shit load of damage and quite frankly I do have things I don't want to lose in a fire. I also don't want my insurance to sky rocket so yeah to be quite honest, I think paying out a couple dollars more would be worth it whether or not I'm likely to die from a cheaper plug.

none of the hell that comes along with modern air travel...

I don't know how long that will last, truly. I have heard rumblings that TSA is really eyeing up Amtrak as a great expansion to their mini empire. Ah, yes, a few years old but: http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0401.shtm

I'm waiting for the first train to get blown up in the US. I suspect the only reason it hasn't happened is because no one rides trains here.

I can't wait until the federal government decides to try to build fencing around major rail corridors.

As much as we (usually rightfully) talk shit about them, most departments of the US federal government have FOIA pages detailing how to send in requests, including the Department of Homeland Security.

To answer your question though (from the page I linked),

Information about another individual may be requested under the FOIA but release is subject to application of the balancing test to decide whether the privacy interest of the affected party outweighs the public interest in the release of said information.

So probably not.

http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/press/happenings/amateur_radio_operators.shtm

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/06/24/2/

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=3412

http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/amateur.html

It's almost as if you're speaking out of your ass...

The DHS wants you to think of them like this: http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm

But this is what they really are: http://www.ice.gov/

No quarter to tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Well, from Wikipedia:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ...

Of course ICE is a agency under DHS ... I don't understand what your point is. So they have a division that deals in customs and immigration. Can you just shut up? There's no need to post on every goddamn story.

The DHS wants you to think of them like this: http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm

But this is what they really are: http://www.ice.gov/

No quarter to tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

"ICEPIC is a toolset that assists ICE law enforcement agents and analysts in identifying suspect identities and discovering possible non-obvious relationships among individuals and organizations that are indicative of violations of the customs and immigration laws as well as possible terrorist threats and plots."

Full Text: Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12

It's good to see the DHS is being proactive...

About halfway down the page:

        Anyone exhibiting symptoms is being referred to an isolation room
        where they can be evaluated by a public health official before
        proceeding to their destruction.

YIKES!

Thank you for the correction. It's a bit overkill to say I "don't have the slightest clue" what I'm talking about. Airspace over New York City and Washington DC was restricted by Operation Liberty Shield. The restriction put in place then is still in effect for Washington, but apparently the restriction around New York city was rescinded. Sorry I wasn't accurate as to the current status, as I'm not a pilot.

As an aside, if you do actually want to get educated on current efforts, start here: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm

You mean, kind of like the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the NSA, and of course, our wonderful color-coded "Homeland Security Advisory System"? The same people who consider citizens who carry the Constitution or know it well and who support libertarian-minded candidates such as Ron Paul to be domestic terrorists, and yet don't deem illegal aliens, er, "illegal immigrants" to be any kind of threat whatsoever?

The US spends ~$146B plus $46.5B per year for 2 wars and DHS, but they can't even scrub an old flash drive?

Allowing that kind of data (if true) is an unconscionable crime. It is a treasonous act, even if in error.

Kudos to Chris Ogle for doing the right thing with this information.

I'm outside the USA, so I went to the website to see if my country was on this list of people who had to pre-regsiter, https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/

I got this wonderful javascript popup dialog that said...

You are about to access a Department of Homeland Security computer system. This computer system and data therein are property of the U.S. Government and provided for official U.S. Government information and use. There is no expectation of privacy when you use this computer system. The use of a password or any other security measure does not establish an expectation of privacy. By using this system, you consent to the terms set forth in this notice. You may not process classified national security information on this computer system. Access to this system is restricted to authorized users only. Unauthorized access, use, or modification of this system or of data contained herein, or in transit to/from this system, may constitute a violation of section 1030 of title 18 of the U.S. Code and other criminal laws. Anyone who accesses a Federal computer system without authorization or exceeds access authority, or obtains, alters, damages, destroys, or discloses information, or prevents authorized use of information on the computer system, may be subject to penalties, fines or imprisonment. This computer system and any related equipment is subject to monitoring for administrative oversight, law enforcement, criminal investigative purposes, inquiries into alleged wrongdoing or misuse, and to ensure proper performance of applicable security features and procedures. DHS may conduct monitoring activities without further notice.

Damn, I really want to visit now

1. Andorra
2. Austria
3. Australia
4. Belgium
5. Brunei
6. Czech Republic
7. Denmark
8. Finland
9. France
10. Estonia
11. Germany
12. Hungary
13. Iceland
14. Ireland
15. Italy
16. Japan
17. Latvia
18. Liechtenstein
19. Lithuania
20. Luxembourg
21. Monaco
22. the Netherlands
23. New Zealand
24. Norway
25. Portugal
26. Republic of Malta
27. San Marino
28. Singapore
29. Slovenia
30. Slovak Republic
31. South Korea
32. Spain
33. Sweden
34. Switzerland
35. United Kingdom

Which countries participate in the Visa Waiver Program?

The welcome message you get when you go to that site
You are about to access a Department of Homeland Security computer system. This computer system and data therein are property of the U.S. Government and provided for official U.S. Government information and use. There is no expectation of privacy when you use this computer system. The use of a password or any other security measure does not establish an expectation of privacy. By using this system, you consent to the terms set forth in this notice. You may not process classified national security information on this computer system. Access to this system is restricted to authorized users only. Unauthorized access, use, or modification of this system or of data contained herein, or in transit to/from this system, may constitute a violation of section 1030 of title 18 of the U.S. Code and other criminal laws. Anyone who accesses a Federal computer system without authorization or exceeds access authority, or obtains, alters, damages, destroys, or discloses information, or prevents authorized use of information on the computer system, may be subject to penalties, fines or imprisonment. This computer system and any related equipment is subject to monitoring for administrative oversight, law enforcement, criminal investigative purposes, inquiries into alleged wrongdoing or misuse, and to ensure proper performance of applicable security features and procedures. DHS may conduct monitoring activities without further notice.

Access to records are ruled by the Freedom of Information Act. For non-personal information requests, you need give your name, address, daytime telephone number, information on the records you are looking for, and an agreement on amount of fees you are willing to pay. For personal information, you also need a bunch of info on the person (subject), a notarized signature or Under Penalty of Perjury Statement (see third link), and a statement authorizing you to receive the subject's personal information (assuming you are not the subject).

Sources:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats.pdf (section 7.1)
http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/103067.pdf