Slashdot Mirror

http://www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/gc_1218480185439.shtm#9 Project Overview: The Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency (HSARPA) and S&T Directorate Human Factors Behavior Sciences (HFBS) Division Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) Project is an initiative to develop innovative, non-invasive technologies to screen people at security checkpoints. FAST is grounded in research on human behavior and psychophysiology, focusing on new advances in behavioral/human-centered screening techniques. The aim is a prototypical mobile suite (FAST M2) that would be used to increase the accuracy and validity of identifying persons with malintent (the intent or desire to cause harm). Identified individuals would then be directed to secondary screening, which would be conducted by authorized personnel. This project is part of the HFBS innovations portfolio (Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency Program).

A carefully crafted acquisitions regime...
...we have to find specific areas or roles where the government can add value...

Those two alone make this whole thing a joke. But wait, there's more:

...and a humane and common-sense approach to dealing with the millions of immigrants who are already in this country illegally...

Hmm, humane and common-sense. Like this, this, this, and this among others? I'm no apologist for illegal immigration, but the United States can do better than that. And, about privacy. The only reference he gave was to the Privacy Impact Assessments page which is only a vague public description of their banal, internal standard operating procedures. It says nothing about their interactions with other agencies. He lauds that the office must be top-level for the sake of interoperability with other agencies, but then behaves as if the DHS is the only one involved here. And nobody has yet answered the question: what does "homeland security" have to do with this?

It's nice to see high-ranking officials humor us by pretending that we exist and answering our questions, but they never say anything profound or useful. It's all Fluff and BS.

So where are the US antiterrorism people? This is an attack on US assets by foreign nationals. We have a whole Department of Homeland Security. They had a good computer security guy in charge of dealing with such attacks, Amit Yoran, and he quit in 2004, fed up because DHS didn't really want to deal with real problems. His replacement was a career lobbyist. Really. "He served as Director of 3Com Corporation's Government Relations Office in Washington, DC where he was responsible for all aspects of the company's strategic public policy formulation and advocacy." That's America's first line of defense against cyberterrorism.

The FBI has an antiterrorism operation. What are they doing? What they say they're doing is working to "strengthen and support our top operational priorities: counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, and major criminal programs." What they're actually doing is flying around the FBI director in the private jet purchased with antiterrorism funds.

FBI testimony before Congress, 2001: "The FBI believes cyber-terrorism, the use of cyber-tools to shut down, degrade, or deny critical national infrastructures, such as energy, transportation, communications, or government services, for the purpose of coercing or intimidating a government or civilian population, is clearly an emerging threat for which its must develop prevention, deterrence, and response capabilities."

FBI testimony before Congress, 2004: " In the event of a cyberterrorist attack, the FBI will conduct an intense post-incident investigation to determine the source including the motive and purpose of the attack."

So where's the action?

Heads need to roll at DHS and the FBI.

"In trials using 140 volunteers those told to act suspicious were detected with 'about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80% on deception,' says a DHS spokesman."

None of that matters - what's important is the false positive rate, ie. the proportion of people with no malicious intent who get flagged up. If it's as high as 1% the system will be pretty much unworkable.

Exactly, the NewScientist article fails to mention false positives. However, the attached PDF goes into it in great detail. I don't have time to read 274 pages though.

Even if this new technique is only intended to help law enforcement determine which individuals to pay extra close attention too, it will inevitably be abused much like Tasers are today. What makes this "tool" completely useless is the fact that it can be tricked by individuals acting suspicious but not actually committing a crime. This tells me that this device is weak to attacks that involve misdirection.

I shouldn't have hit "submit"...

...In fact, we are told how afraid we should be. How fucked up is that? I was in an airport and they said "the current threat level is orange" and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So let me reiterate that for you in capital levels so you can think about it for a second: YOU ARE TOLD HOW AFRAID TO BE. Can you wrap your mind around that? That's out of some sort of dystopian reality to be told how afraid to be. I mean, you don't even have to scare people at that point, you just tell them "be orange afraid", and then they'll get orange afraid for you. If they are frightened enough they'll do anything you want. That's why a gun to the head is so effective at extracting a wallet from someone--FEAR! And now we can get our fear without anyone doing anything really scary. They tell us a color and we get consummately afraid. Its Pavlovian at this point. By the way, my signature has been the same for months. I didn't change it recently for this thread...I'm just god damned prescient, that's all.

I'm on the list as well, and share the same name as a certain famous comedian. I asked an agent what the problem was and was told "Oh, you've probably got the same name as someone." I even went so far as to go through TSA's grievance site https://trip.dhs.gov/ with no luck.

The weird thing is that it is different from airline to airline. On United, I can check in online, but my wife can't. On Frontier, I can't check in online but she can't.

I guess I should have taken HER name when I got married, and not the other way around.

C) Keep the terror level level artificially high.
http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm

The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow.

The U.S. threat level is High, or Orange, for all domestic and international flights.

So for the rest of you its only Yellow, but if your flying, its Orange!

They could do with a red-yellow-green warning system.

We have a working system right at our fingertips. Now with more colors!

A December 21, 2005, Federal Register has Mr. Ruwaldt's email address listed as: paul.ruwaldt@dhs.gov, or, alternately, paul.s.ruwaldt@tc.faa.gov. Maybe he needs to hear how taxpayers feel about his interest in fitting us with shock-collars while we're on business trips, or going on vacation?

I thought that AVG were good guys like Google that put their customers first rather than the neo-conservative fascists that bought the White House. It's all the other A/V companies that scare me. Maybe all has changed since they acquired Linkscanner.

Let me tell you how I feel about the other guys. It all started with Cyberstorm I, back in 2006.

The Department of Homeless Insecurity claim that their exercises are on an imaginary parallel internet housed somewhere in the basement of the Pentagon (or somewhere like that). I personally believe that Cyberstorm I exercise was live although I do not wish to prove that, just speculate...

To my knowledge AVG/Grisoft were not a participant in Cyberstorm, however Symantec, M$, Cisco and other commercial players were. There were some really horrible viruses that did the rounds at the time, blackmailing people into believing that all their secrets had been passed on with the virus. Another twist was that the computer would 'self-destruct' at the end of the month. Viruses made it into the news at the time, hospitals having scanners put out and such like. I was amazed at how sophisticated those viruses were. They stripped out all A/V protection, deleting the files and registry entries. Obviously a script kiddy in somewhere like Hungary could have written them, but I thought the level of sophistication and timing was odd.

The whole idea of Cyberstorm 1 was to test whether an online anti-government word of mouth campaign could be contained. The government would not want the truth about how we got into this war to get out, and it was on the basis of Cyberstorm I that informed Rumsfeld that 'The War Against Terrorism' was here for 75 years or so. Rumsfeld was correct to focus on Cyberstorm instead of Iraq, but it could have been instrumental in his 'demise'.

Coupled with the 'not' live exercise was 'Full Spectrum Dominance', i.e. different stories in security blogs about what the viruses were about. I think the exercise lasted a fortnight or so, and a week or two before the exercise officially started. Cyberstorm II had a deeper focus on spoof blogs and 'Full Spectrum Dominance', however, I did not 'participate' in that one...

If AVG are now playing ball with the Department of Homeless Insecurity then the 4th generational cyber-warfare scene is getting hotter and hotter.

Warfare has always been information warfare, remember 'Enigma'? It matters more than anything that grunts with bullets and bombs. Warfare is notionally about an external threat, however, it is always about control of the domestic population. An internal threat is a lot, lot worse than an external one for the guys in the palaces. Cyberstorm has a political motive, no matter how flowery the official language. In all warfare - online or otherwise - there is propaganda and fog of war. Fog of war means that nobody really knows what is going on. Hence, only wildly speculative hypothesis can be used to make sense of it all - hard facts don't happen and pukka adversaries run feints. Nonetheless, the Department of Homeland Insecurity do hint at this in their official spiel:

"The Cyber Storm II scenario will be executed by persistent, fictitious adversaries with a distinct political and economic agenda. The Cyber Storm II adversary will use sophisticated attack vectors to create a large-scale incident requiring players to focus on response."

http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1204738760400.shtm

The document on Cryptome is a must read as this shows the whole game plan. It's scary:

http://cryptome.org/cyberstorm.pdf

Note that they is talking anti-globalisation, not al-make-believe or the Chinese or the Estonians...

A press release story from the time:

"Original Cyberstorm 1 bulletin (AP, Feb. 10, 2006):

The government concluded its "Cyber Storm" wargame Friday, its biggest-ever exercise to test how it would respond

"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. In urban areas, faulty wiring accounts for 33% of residential electrical fires." http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/home_fire_prev/electrical.shtm Hardly seems like hyperbole.

Do they control all of immigration? I thought that was someone else. Homeland Security has been handling immigration for a while.

In the US we don't have the liquid and gel restrictions any more.

What are you talking about? For a second, I believed you, but I was skeptical because I flew cross-country last month. Some quick googling brought me to the official TSA security theatre site.

I fly several times a quarter. Damn you for getting my hopes up.

As an aside, I was playing the "who's paying attention game" for about half a year before the security people at DIA finally noticed that I had liquids in my carry-on. Seriously... Half a year of flying (maybe 6 short/long flights) before anyone noticed. At my local airport, I've observed the x-ray monkeys chatting with the conveyor belt on and only making cursory glances at best at the monitors.

Sigh. But gee, I sure do feel safe.

2) You missed my point most spectacularly. Until a real bullet hits that vest, there is no proof that it can deflect bullets.

You missed my point as well. Given the choice between wear the vest you have or don't wear the vest, I would wear the vest. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. I don't need proof before I wear it if it is what I have right now and I assume it at least helps to some extent. Maybe it is a placebo to help calm the public, but that also helps in a way...

As for entrapment, it is still legal AFAIK. Why shouldn't DHS put together a ihateamerica.com honeypot to collect intel on evil-doers?

And I don't know about debunking the binary explosives. There were two UK plots that look relevant that apparently were disrupted, but it looks like searches at the airport had nothing to do with it.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/stories006.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/stories013.shtm

As for 9/11 truthers, how can W both simultaneously the most derided president in recent memory for limited intellectual ability, yet at the same time the mastermind of some sinister plot to force us into a war on terror? Do we quickly forget about the first WTC bombing, the embassy and barracks bombings, and the Cole? Is the WTC attack that far-fetched, given the history of terrorists over the last two decades?

2) You missed my point most spectacularly. Until a real bullet hits that vest, there is no proof that it can deflect bullets.

You missed my point as well. Given the choice between wear the vest you have or don't wear the vest, I would wear the vest. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. I don't need proof before I wear it if it is what I have right now and I assume it at least helps to some extent. Maybe it is a placebo to help calm the public, but that also helps in a way...

As for entrapment, it is still legal AFAIK. Why shouldn't DHS put together a ihateamerica.com honeypot to collect intel on evil-doers?

And I don't know about debunking the binary explosives. There were two UK plots that look relevant that apparently were disrupted, but it looks like searches at the airport had nothing to do with it.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/stories006.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/stories013.shtm

As for 9/11 truthers, how can W both simultaneously the most derided president in recent memory for limited intellectual ability, yet at the same time the mastermind of some sinister plot to force us into a war on terror? Do we quickly forget about the first WTC bombing, the embassy and barracks bombings, and the Cole? Is the WTC attack that far-fetched, given the history of terrorists over the last two decades?

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/gc_1188408340457.shtm

There are some plots that have been foiled, but I am not sure checking my shoes at the airport helped.

If you live in a war zone, I would keep my bulletproof vest on. Just because you did not get shot at today does not mean you are safe for tomorrow.

It is about balancing risk and cost. If we wanted no terrorists to take over planes, we could all strip nekkid and handcuff us while on board. Someone has to make a call about how far to go to get some sort of effective deterrent. I personally would go with personal interviews like the Israelis do. A trained psych person can pick up cues just by talking with people. Of course, a trained evil-doer can probably not give off those cues...

To get it, you must live in the USA. That's a heavy burden to get a 'free' magazine.

Hope you guys can fix everything with your election.

That is, if you even care.

Given the level of comments to this article so far, I'm guessing that is not the case.

This is part of the spirit of the mandate of the sweeping Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which prioritizes information sharing, including between federal, state, and local entities, and enabling state/local/tribal governments to leverage federal intelligence resources across the spectrum.

Then you'll probably love to hear that the US is rolling out a new system to take all 10 of your fingerprints. It's already in a bunch of airports. Great, huh? http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1201104663578.shtm

TSA security will have nothing to do with the next terrorist attack. The terrorists will either not attack airplanes, or they will take non-prohibited items through and turn them into weapons, or they will secrete them in body locations TSA will not search, or they will have them placed on the planes for them by ground crew.

Just a point of clarification: TSA's operations are not limited to potential attacks against aircraft -
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/index.shtm

Here's a link to the actual report:

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1158340980371.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/prep_cyberstormreport_sep06.pdf

From the report, it looks like everything was simulated.

Here's a link to the actual report:

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1158340980371.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/prep_cyberstormreport_sep06.pdf

From the report, it looks like everything was simulated.

Established by Congress, this program has created an integrated network of centers at the Nation's leading research universities, which will help to continually align scientific results with homeland security priorities.

You mean where it says;

"Foreign nationals can have legal residency in the US, but would normally be required to present a valid passport from their country of origin. Similarly, US citizens residing in other countries would be presenting a US passport."

This is partly false. U.S. permanent residents need only present their Permanent Resident Card to enter the U.S.. Of course, if they travel anywhere that requires they have a passport they would have one from their country of citizenship anyway. But Canadians, for example, do not need a passport to enter the U.S. if they are U.S. permanent residents, and they do not need a passport to enter Canada.

http://www.dhs.gov/xtrvlsec/crossingborders/whtibasics.shtm

... but I am as confident as I am that the Sun will rise tomorrow that it will be safe from terrorists. After all, we have the children to think about.

July 12, 2005

Copyright © 2005 Michael David Crawford.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

It seems that David Clark, who led the development of the Internet way back in the '70's - did you know there even was a '70's? - wants to create a whole new Internet that will fix many of the problems the current Internet is plagued with. The New Internet's engineers will be much more careful this time around to make sure it works better than the first one did.

I'm afraid, though, that the engineers are not the only ones who will be deciding how our New Internet will work.

If one is able to find any privacy or anonymity in this New Internet, it will be because of some undiscovered security hole, which will be quickly repaired, rather than any kind of conscious design decision. Probably one reason they are accepting proposals before rolling it out is to avoid the sort of accidental security holes that enable pr0n, peer-to-peer filesharing and left-wing political activism.

Microsoft, a leading contributor both to this nation's technology base and to the campaign coffers of its leaders, will embrace this new technology and extend it in such a way that the development and dissemination of Open Source software will be, if not mathematically and physically impossible, at least as intractible as factoring a 2048-bit public key.

Imagine, if you will, Trusted Computing implemented at the router level, in such a way that any packets that go farther than one hop are certified not only to support protocols whose patent licenses are fully paid-up and on file with the legal department in Redmond, but whose content is compliant with the Windows standard. The faintest whisp of a Public License, GNU or otherwise, will result in the dropping not only of the individual packet, not only in the cancellation of the entire file transmission, but, within microseconds, the reporting of the physical location of the offending server to responsible law enforcement personnel. The identities of its rogue administrators will be fetched instantly from the database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. (You will have to submit fingerprints and DNA samples to obtain a Windows server license, as after all, Internet servers can be used to disseminate explosives r

Well according to the WhiteHouse http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/, the Dept of Homeland Security has terrorism as it's primary focus (at least that's how it's justified). However, their org chart http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_OrgChart.pdf shows they over arch quite a few agencies that don't really have anything to do with terrorism.

"Seventy percent of all criminal activity can be tied to a vehicle," says Mark Windover, president of Remington ELSAG Law Enforcement Systems, which is marketing its product to 250 U.S. police agencies."

Hold on a second; what percent of criminal activity is related to Homeland Security? I'll bet it's very low. Now cut that to 70%.

The Department of Homeland Security Mission Statement says:

We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.

The DHS constantly oversteps its bounds and infringes on our personal freedom. We must not fall victim to Big Brother tactics.

the DHS has found a way to pay for citizen surveillance without using taxpayer dollars.

Sorry, but they do raid businesses for illegal aliens

That's just one story. I'm trying to find the stories about the mass raids here in Georgia that went after illegal farm workers. Boy, were the farmers pissed!

Some are going home anyway with the slowdown in the construction market anyway, do I guess the ICE guys are getting bored and justifying their jobs?

The TSA is not responsible for the no-fly list. They only enforce it. Your question should be directed to the FBI. Specifically, a little known office called the TSC. http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_02 46.shtm

TSA (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement)
FEMA
Customs and Border Protection
Immigration (Former INS)
Secret Service (Not covered by CIA, FBI or any other Law Enforcement)
Coast Guards (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement)

I'm no fan of them, but how about you take a look at their website if you want to know what they are supposed to do:

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0644 .shtm

HSA was created to create some confusion and allow an agency to get around pesky rules established to protect our rights.

The 9/11 Commission endorsed the REAL ID requirements, noting that "For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons ... All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities."

Recommendation: The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points that includes our transportation system and access to vital facilities, such as nuclear reactors. The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security to lead the effort to design a comprehensive screening system, addressing common problems and setting common standards with systemwide goals in mind. Extending those standards among other governments could dramatically strengthen America and the world's collective ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats.

Recommendation from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Rep ort_Ch12.htm/

Here are a few ways how changes made as a result of Real ID will improve security:

• Standard levels of identity-proofing prior to issuing and ID (States are all over the place with this right now)
• Verify identity documents with the issuing entity. If someone brings you a passport, verify with DOS that they actually issued one to the person. Same with SSOLV, SAVE, EVVE, etc.
• Requiring that a person is in the country legally prior to issuing an ID or set the expiration date on the ID to the last day the person is permitted in the US (had this been done prior to 9/11, several of the terrorists whose visas had expired would not have been able to obtain valid IDs which they used make preparations and board planes)
• Ensure "one person, one license" by checking with other states prior to issuing an ID (this is a major problem not just for combating terrorism but for identity theft as there have been numerous instances where a person has obtained multiple licenses under multiple names for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining credit)
• Photo first- Capture an applicant's photo at the begining of the process. If the person later presents fraudulent documents and skips out, there is a photo record of the individual.
• Standardize the information appearing on the IDs (things like first and last name, DOB, DL#, address, etc. are standard)
  
  Want further proof? Have you read the DHS Draft Regulations for Real ID (link above)? I'm doubtful...If not, read it before demanding proof of something you haven't even spent the effort to look into.

Smoke and toxic gases kill more people than flames do. http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/abou t_fire.shtm

No, No Fly lists are created so that airlines and airports have a semi-protected list of names, both from a privacy and national security perspective, to match against their own databases of persons purchasing tickets and checking in. To protect privacy, the lists given to airlines/airports for use are name and limited information only. If there is a hit, it goes up the chain, to TSA/DHS, or other reporting agencies as needed, to confirm that this is (or is not) the person that is actually on the list. That's why it's such a hassle, and why some people can't figure out why they're "on" a list, and why they can't get "off": it's because "they" are not "on" any list. Their NAME ONLY is on a list, and EVERY TIME, it will be confirmed by the responsible agency (usually TSA at that airport) that they are not the person. Whether or not No Fly lists are a good idea, would we prefer that all terrorist watch lists, in their entirety, with all personally identifiable information, were provided to all airlines? To say nothing about the technical nightmare to integrate that into every airlines' disparate systems, keep it updated, and so on. This is why we tried to create CAPPS II, which was discontinued in 2004 and replaced by Secure Flight. So we are still stuck with the old, limited system (which was created not by Bush or in response to 9/11, but during the Clinton administration, for what it's worth). The other alternative is to never attempt to stop anyone from flying, at all, including people who are known terrorists (regardless of whether or not they "could" use false credentials), and all problems aside, that is simply not an alternative for most people. The fact is that air travel has a significant effect on our economy; it's not just about lives potentially lost due to terrorism, but about the billions and billions lost from the economy. And, in large part, the economic factors are about people feeling safe.

And what "profile" are you talking about? There isn't some kind of secret "credit report sort of list" that tracks people in this way. I know, I know, it's "secret", so we don't know about it right? Wrong. There are criminal records, court records, police records, legal records, registered sex offender databases, and other public records. There are terrorist watch lists from various agencies (State, CIA, DHS, FBI, and so on). There are No Fly lists which are compendium of terrorist watchlists for persons barred from flying. But there are some kind of secret profile which persons who get matched by MySpace to existing, legitimate lists, on which someone will now be improperly associated with being a sex offender.

It's not naive; that's just the truth. I know you want to believe there are such secret lists and profiles that the "powerful" (e.g., government, large employers) get to use and somehow keep secret from the public (and no, I'm not talking about terrorist watch lists, which, while their contents may variously be secret, the existence of the lists themselves is not), but that's simply not the case. The burden of proof to show that such a "profile" exists is on you, not the reverse (i.e., for me to "prove" it doesn't exist).

Three key points I see from this link to dhs.gov

Is this a National ID card?
No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number). Most States already routinely collect the information required by the Act and the proposed regulations.
...
What is the Machine Readable Technology specified in the NPRM?
The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations.
Will REAL ID driver's licenses include RFID cards?
The NPRM does not specify the use of RFID cards as a minimum standard. States may independently choose to implement an RFID solution, in addition to the standard 2-D barcode, to meet their constituent's needs.

It would seem to me that the US Government is setting a standard for all the states to follow since they all do not seem to play well together. In doing so there could be an increase in efficiency with interstate information gathering and/or duplication, etc. This appears to contain no information about the federal government collecting more information than they already know (e.g., SSN and Passport numbers). Please give me links to government issued documents to show that this has changed.

3) There's no requirement to use a REALID-compliant license for anything except a) Airplanes, b) Federal facilities, c) Nuclear power plants. I'll gladly get a REALID passport for those purposes (which I keep in an RFID-resistant bag) and lobby my state to provide non-REALID licenses.

4) The federal government isn't providing funds to states, but that's good. The states SHOULD be paying for it so they (and in turn, their voters) maintain control. If we raise local taxes and lower federal taxes, or local governments will have more power and, in turn, each of us will have more power since our votes are part of a smaller state and local pool. How many of us can even name the mayor of our city? Why? Because he's not that important.

DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings to maximize the security benefits of REAL ID.

In any case Homeland Security doesn't really want really secure devices...

Indeed

Add to this the fact that there's really no effective enforcement going on, this "limit filled in one day" just reeks of political fodder to push for more Visas.

Surprisingly, there are indeed some actual real numbers published on the number of H1-B admissions into the U.S., from the Department of Homeland Security. These numbers appear to confirm that there are a lot more H1-B's entering the country than the Visa limit would suggest.

The DHS document (The 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics) is at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/year book/2005/OIS_2005_Yearbook.pdf

I'm quoting the following from a discussion on dice.com at: http://seeker.dice.com/olc/thread.jspa?threadID=49 2&tstart=15

"Temporary workers and Trainees:" Specialty Occupations(H-1B):

YEAR - H-1B visas Admitted
1996 - 144,458
1997 - 240,947
1998 - 302,421
1999 - 355,065
2001 - 384,191
2002 - 370,490
2003 - 360,498
2004 - 386,821

There are a number of other excellent quotes on the above thread on Dice. It's well worth reading.

The Secret Service is a very effective police agency, and they'll probably do a good job of it. On the other hand, the DHS runs the TSA and the immigration service and has an appalling civil rights record. I can only hope that the Secret Service prevails in the operations of the Institute.

Links
    Secret Service press release (PDF)
    DHS copy of press release (HTML)

Since /. readers have a tendency to start screaming about national ID cards and identity databases without (apparently) actually reading the documents in question, I will provide the relevant quotes for you.

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686 .shtm

"In the proposed rule, DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants."

"Is this a National ID card? No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number)."

"Will a national database be created that stores information about every applicant? No. The REAL ID Act and these regulations do not establish a national database of driver information. States will continue to collect and store information about applicants as they do today. The NPRM does not propose to change this practice and would not give the Federal government any greater access to this information."

"DHS is proposing minimum standards that will appear on the face of the card. The proposed regulation would require each of the following on the face of REAL IDs; space available for 39 characters for full legal name; address of principal residence; digital photograph; gender; date of birth; signature, document number; and machine readable technology."

"What is the Machine Readable Technology specified in the NPRM? The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations."

So, let's see. What we're *actually* looking at is federal standards on what information needs to be displayed on state ID cards, and how identity needs to be proved prior to the issuance of a state ID card.

Gee, that's actually a lot less threatening then all the comments are making it sound. Hmm...

Baltimore/Washington International Airport, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Denver International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Long Beach and San Pedro seaports near Los Angeles, San Juan's Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport, Miami International Cruise Line Terminal, Newark Liberty International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, San Francisco International Airport and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Baltimore/Washington International Airport, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Denver International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Long Beach and San Pedro seaports near Los Angeles, San Juan's Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport, Miami International Cruise Line Terminal, Newark Liberty International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, San Francisco International Airport and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that this kind of thing is ridiculous and retarded.

From Department of Homeland Security (PDF)

U.S. Government prepares for Vista ...

... by asking the Department of Homeland Security to raise the National Threat Advisory to level orange.

If you've been listening to the post-911 Bushisms you should know that you are NEVER safe, remember? We're on CODE ORAGE right now in fact, you should be running around screaming because there's a terrorist RIGHT BEHIND YOU, AAAAAAH!!!! http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29