Slashdot Mirror

The Department of Homeland Security has a Privacy Assessment of this program. Guess what? It has no privacy implications.

• The information can only be shared with "...other agencies at the federal, state, local, foreign, or tribal level, who are lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement information (whether civil or criminal) and national security intelligence information and/or who are investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing civil and/or criminal laws, related rules, regulations, or orders." "The Privacy Act SORNs for the systems on which US-VISIT draws provide notice as to the conditions of disclosure and routine uses for the information collected by US-VISIT. Any disclosure by DHS must be compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected."
• The tag only contains an unencrypted number, and only the very limited number of groups above would have access to the information.
• The tag can't be used to ID someone as a visitor because the DHS has contemplated this problem. Thus problem solved... "it is contemplated that the unencrypted RFID tag number will not be structured in such a way that it can be used to identify the individual as a non-immigrant."(pg 15)How exactly? Will everyone soon be carrying an RFID, so the visitor won't stand out?
• And of course it can't be used for surveillance, as "There is also a low risk that the RFID tag could be used to conduct surreptitious locational surveillance of an individual; i.e., to use the presence of the tag to follow an individual as he or she moves about in the U.S. However, ensuring that RFID tag numbers do not exhibit properties that can be readily attributed to US-VISIT and using a limited radio frequency range effectively mitigates this risk. The design process is also taking into account methods of reducing eavesdropping and skimming possibilities." (pg 15). Reducing the "possibilities" by sticking their fingers into their ears and singing "La la la" each time a new tech groups shows them ever longer read ranges.
• And most importantly it doesn't affect US Citizens, because the document doesn't mention them. Never mind that every traveler in the car must be identified in order to separate the residents and citizens from visitors (by definition). They'll now know who you're associating with as you travel.

I'm now going to "contemplate" that being asked for "your papers, please" and being tracked every time I enter and leave my country, that there is no more "If" in "If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free." doesn't change our rights (4th Amendment anyone? it says "Persons") in the US. Whooohoo, I'm ever so much safer! [btw, that's one of the best essays on why privacy is a necessary and fundamental right in a free society. He warns Canadians not to give up what the U.S. has already lost. Worth reading.]

• It applies to every visiting person in the car- it is the new I-94 documentation for aliens.

• It is extremely private, in that "The information may also be shared with other agencies at the federal, state, local, foreign, or tribal level, who are lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement information (whether civil or criminal) and national security intelligence information and/or who are investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing civil and/or criminal laws, related rules, regulations, or orders." "The Privacy Act SORNs for the systems on which US-VISIT draws provide notice as to the conditions of disclosure and routine uses for the information collected by US-VISIT. Any disclosure by DHS must be compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected." Yup, limited purposes.

• But really, the tag is safe, as "The RFID tag number will not contain or be derived from any personal information." (pg 14) Its just an unencrypted number. And only those very few groups listed above have the right to connect the number back to your personal info.

• ...therefore removing the possibility that a person can be found out as a visitor just because they carry an RFID: "it is contemplated that the unencrypted RFID tag number will not be structured in such a way that it can be used to identify the individual as a non-immigrant."(pg 15) Uh-huh. Because we all carry RFIDs, so one person carrying one can't stand out. I am comtemplating that my social security number will never be used as an identifier: it says so right on the card.

• And the RFID can't be used for surveillance, as "There is also a low risk that the RFID tag could be used to conduct surreptitious locational surveillance of an individual; i.e., to use the presence of the tag to follow an individual as he or she moves about in the U.S. However, ensuring that RFID tag numbers do not exhibit properties that can be readily attributed to US-VISIT and using a limited radio frequency range effectively mitigates this risk. The design process is also taking into account methods of reducing eavesdropping and skimming possibilities." (pg 15) Yup, if you take it into account you're solving it.

• There are no risks to U.S. citizens, because this document doesn't mention them at all. Sure they'll have checked and scanned everyone's documents in the car- citizens or not- so now know exactly which so called "U.S. citizens" have the audacity to travel with others, but nothing to worry about.

I'm now going to "contemplate" that being asked for "your papers, please" and being tracked every time I enter and leave my country, that "If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free." doesn't change the privacy rights (4th Ammendment anyone? it says "Persons") in the US. Whooohoo, I'm ever so much safer! [btw, that's one of the best essays on why privacy is a necessary and fundamental right in a free society. He warns Canadians not to give up what the U.S. has already lost. Worth reading.]

In the post 9/11 world, the risk of being set up the bomb is yellow.

I hope that i am not being baited- However, people don't seem to understand what the department of homeland security is. It is an amalgamation of a lot of different agencies, including ICE (immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the Coast Guard. So yes, ICE may go after Fake LV Handbags, even though they aren't a terror threat. And yes, when the Coast Guard rescues someone from a sinking pleasure boat, that is the DHS, even though saving boaters isnt fighting terrorism.
I hope that helps- I am not trying to be an ass, but I think it is important for us to understand what we comment about....
Log onto http://www.dhs.gov/ to find out about the Department of Homeland Security.... -alex

Prepare to meet your doom.

Not your pal,
Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security

--
This post is satire and no actual U.S. government employee was involved in its creation. Only North Korean Government Employees post on Slashdot.

Help, I'm being oppressed by the Department of Homoland Security!

...the "oh, wait..." part.

It's tangled.

This is your 2005 wake-up call. At least some of the FBI is in the Department of Homeland Security now, along with secret service, imigration, customs, coast guard, FEMA, whatever. It's the ominous omnibus organization.

Well, if you're in the U.S., and you're concerned about these events (it's looking more and more like an anti-privacy group), might I suggest contacting the privacy office or going directly to the dept. of homeland security to let them know how you feel as a taxpayer about the appointment of individuals with a less than stellar record when it comes to privacy concerns?

Might be a good idea to contact your senators and representatives too.

Well, if you're in the U.S., and you're concerned about these events (it's looking more and more like an anti-privacy group), might I suggest contacting the privacy office or going directly to the dept. of homeland security to let them know how you feel as a taxpayer about the appointment of individuals with a less than stellar record when it comes to privacy concerns?

Might be a good idea to contact your senators and representatives too.

There are two links in the post:
1. The .pdf
On the very first page in the title, it says: "Review of the Transportation Security Administration's Role in the Use and Dissemination of Airline Passenger Data".

2. Schnieider's blog
The very first paragraph: "The Transportaion Security Administration misled the public about its role in..."

• when authorities take you in for interrogation do not agree to sign any confidentiality document. Tell them that you are a blubber mouth and that you talk in your sleep. They can use that document to force you to spy on your friends and relatives (they will just "invite" you for interrogation and the confidentiality agreement will prevent you from notifying people they interrogated you about).
• Remember: lying to authorities is usually a violation of the law. Having poor memory is not. It helps to be scared, especially when you have a reason to. Remember: government has lots more power than you'll ever have. A little of humiliation is worth it if it saves your friends.
• Be careful when proposing improvements (be it to technical or political matters) based on technical merit alone, however benign your intentions are. Your opponents will put this in a political context and claim that your improvement is "anti-proletariat" (or "pro-terrorist"). Instead, include a few paragraphs showing how this improvement was forethought in the original documents of Lenin (or documents of Department of Homeland Security - you can even use a search engine and there is plenty of material to support almost anything, at least with liberal cut'n'paste).

Post more suggestions below.

I wish I could say this is 100% for "creepiness" value only.

Contact your elected representatives

If all the Slashdot readers called or filled out a form, we might make a difference. Even if nothing changes, at least DHS will know people are aware of this ridiculous act.

Members appointed for the inaugural term of the DHS Privacy Advisory Committee are:

Joseph Alhadeff, Vice President and Chief Privacy Officer, Oracle Corporation, Washington, DC

Ramon Barquin, President, Barquin International, Bethesda, MD

J. Howard Beales, Associate Professor, The George Washington University, Arlington, VA

D. Reed Freeman, Chief Privacy Officer and Vice President, Claria Corporation, Arlington, VA

James W. Harper, Editor/Executive Director, Privacilla.org & Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, DC

Kirk Herath, Chief Privacy Officer & Associate General Counsel, Nationwide, Columbus, OH

David A. Hoffman, Group Counsel and Director of Privacy, Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, OR

Lance Hoffman, Distinguished Research Professor, The George Washington University, Washington, DC

Tara Lemmey, Chief Executive Officer, Lens Ventures, San Francisco, CA

Joseph Leo, Vice President, SAIC, Vienna, VA

John Marsh, Distinguished Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law, Winchester, VA

Joanne McNabb, Chief, Office of Privacy Protection, California Department of Consumer Affairs, Sacramento, CA

Charles Palmer, Department Group Manager, Security, Networking & Privacy, IBM Corporation, Yorktown Heights, NY

Richard Purcell, Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Privacy Group, Nordland, WA

Paul Samuel Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC

John Thomas Sabo, Manager, Security, Privacy, and Trust Initiatives, Computer Associates, Herndon, VA

James Sheehan, General Counsel, Milton Hershey School, Hershey, PA

Lisa Sotto, Partner, Head of Regulatory Privacy & Information Management Practice Group, Hunton & Williams, New York, NY

Michael Turner, President and Senior Scholar, Information Policy Institute, New York, NY

Samuel Wright, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, Cendant Corporation, Washington, DC

I can't say I like Freeman being on the committee, but a quick glance at the rest of the list makes me feel a lot better.

The D.H.S.'s own "chief privacy officer" used to work for DoubleClick.

since they are part of the US Treasury dept

Used to be part of the treasury dept. They are now DHS

Do Canadians get fingerprinted and photographed at the border like all us other foreign criminals? ... I wonder how many terrorists this amazingly intrusive and expensive system has actually caught.

Maybe they can follow RFID marked foreign visitors to the USA !

Threat Advisory: Elevated - Significant Risk of Terrorist Attacks

1) You have Firefox as your primary browser, which has modified having Internet Explorer as the default browser. Would you like to restore the settings back to the default? (Highly recommended)

2) You have iTunes as your default MP3 player, circumventing the functionality of Windows Media Player. Your Windows Media Player will not perform correctly without making it the default music player. Would you like to restore the settings back to default? (Highly recommended)

US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is, actually, a very important component of homeland security. Just because some of their duties are more mundane (like stopping counterfeit imports) doesn't mean they don't belong under DHS. Here are the agencies that fall under DHS.

The problem isn't their classification under DHS. The problem is that most Americans are woefully uneducated about what the DHS is and what its duties are. The formation of the DHS was a huge step away from the fractured nature of these federal agencies. Now that they are under one umbrella, they can more effectively share information and resources. In the past, ICE and the FBI, for example, sometimes competed for "turf." Not anymore -- they both ultimately answer to the same bosses.

The article said the patent expired, but that the investigation was about trademark violation. The two have nothing to do with each other. The article is entirely slanted with its presentation of facts
As others point out, these were customs officials, just because they fall under DHS doesn't mean this is terrorist related accusation, its customs doing their job.
I did not see any conclusions in the story about the validity of the trademark claim. Just that her supplier told her that they weren't infringing (what do you expect them to say?) I just did a quick search and found a live Trademark #76351080 "Magic Cube" word mark that falls under G[oods] & S[ervices]: Manipulative puzzles. It is possible there is a legitimate trademark claim
From the story, the agents didn't shut the store down, they asked to removed the suspected item from the shelves. I don't think that is excessive.
The "goverment is always evil and wrong" attitude is killing the country. Be wary of goverment, but don't spout out wild claims until all the evidence is in.

...that this story called the agency the "Secret Service", instead of the "Department of Homeland Security" like the last article did (since the Secret Service, and myriad other law enforcement and protective agencies are now a part of DHS), otherwise we might have even more than the normal level of utterly useless paranoid police state drivel.

But hey, the Rubik's Cube case was a hell of a lot more scary when you invoke the name of the evil, Nazi-like "DHS" and sensationalize it like that!

They were, but now they're part of the Department of Homeland Security

We'd all take the Secret Service a lot more seriously if they updated their name. Back in 1865 it may have been way cool to call your treasury cops a "secret service", but now it alternates between quaintness and confusion Since they're now part of DHS, how about "Homeland Enforcement"? Make a great TV show!

Now the DHS seems to see its role as more than a simple anti-terrorist investigative agency.

The DHS was never intended to be just an anti-terrorist agency and it never had a narrow charter. The whole idea was to put everything relating to domestic security under one roof. Among the many former departments and agencies that it includes are Customs, Immigration, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service.

So, what law enforcement agency do you think looks into copyright and trademark violations? Especially now that most of them are now part of the HSA?

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

From the Homeland Security site:

How does the mission of the Department of Homeland Security differ from those of other agencies? The new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has three primary missions: Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters.

Another page on what exactly they do...

Something's not adding up.

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

From the Homeland Security site:

How does the mission of the Department of Homeland Security differ from those of other agencies? The new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has three primary missions: Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters.

Another page on what exactly they do...

Something's not adding up.

how long before DHS will shut it down in the name of security?

Duh !!

"Mount St. Helens Alert Status Increased"

So are we at a Significant, High, or Severe risk of volcano attacks?

When will these government agencies learn to stick to their knitting?!?!?

Nasa is the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration." The surface of the earth is neither aeronautical nor space (duh, it's a surface).

Now if the Department of Homeland Security were offering this, I think it would make sense!

US-VISIT law: "It does not apply to U.S. citizens"

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/content_mult i_image/content_multi_image_0006.xml

...watch legislation arrive to clamp down on who can own PBX equipment, and what it can be used for.

I can't believe this got modded as insightful--because it's absurd

Not now, we are only on YELLOW Alert.

Department of Homeland Security says that we're at code yellow "Significant risk of terrorist attack". This confirms the story!

Of course, my experience may not be typical. If you want more than my anecdotal comments to go by, the TSA Security Checkpoint Wait Times query will let you see what the average and max wait times are at a specific airport on given days of the week and times of day. I didn't check every single date/time combination, but most of them appear to show averages in the 15-minute range with peaks of about 30 minutes.

And call the airline in advance to find out what kind of help they can offer you since you have special needs.

I think a lot of people have forgotten 1789. Doesn't "Department of Homeland Security" sound a lot like "Committee of Public Safety?"
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Now everyone can have a laptop that outwardly reflects the level of threat from terrorists - possibly deterring future attacks!

... is a preview of the site's front page in a few days, courtesy of your friends at dhs.gov.

:)

Following one of the Homeland Security links, and searching for the particular kind of duct tape that I should run out and buy, I found this (PDF!) page that has a spooky image of Tom Ridge. If you don't see it when the page is loading, then drag the scroll bar up and down.

Leftover artifact from composing the document, or high-tech method of watching us at our desks? You decide! I think I saw his eyes move!

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Flown_the _Flag_Full_Page.pdf

#1: US-Visit . This security program requires that most foreign visitors traveling to the United States on a visa have their index fingers digitally scanned and a digital photograph taken, so that immigration officers can verify their identity before the visitors are allowed entry into the United States - yeah right! that should stop Osama Bin Laden from getting in !!

#2: British gas - privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill. - yes, this can happen only in good ol' england

Also rans:

1. Vodafone - which blocks customers from logging onto adult websites through their phone handsets
2. Lloyds TSB - which has been demanding that customers present themselves at their local branch office with proper photo ID or face having their bank accounts frozen.

The self-service check-in option at the airport is a $DEITYsend, too: not checking any bags? Why muck around behind people who have never before seen the inside of an airport? Identify yourself to the kiosk with a credit card or frequent flyer card, get the boarding pass and go.

That also sounds very convient if you are a terrorist. Now all one would have to do is hack a computer system and board a plane. I don't think the Department of Homeland Security would like that too much.

Security is more important than convience.

This must be the "chatter" the CIA and NSA picked up on when Homeland Security raised the threat level from Mango Orange to WillyWonka Fireball Red. Now if you don't mind, I need to go back to homedepot for duct tape and plastic tarps.

I don't see how this applies to your email. The google cache is caching public data, whereas your email is private. Naturally Google has the technical ability to cache your private email (since it's on their servers) but I'm not sure they'd be on solid legal ground.

Well of course, your email is private (although that's debatable), and Google isn't supposed to index any of it. But all the same, I don't like the concentration of easily cross-referenceable data into the hands of one company, as good as it appears to be, for various good reasons.

True, Yahoo says it's so but can anybody find the actual CERT or DHS press release?

I've just spent a very unrewarding half hour clicking around the CERT and DHS sites and found nada, zip. If either of those bodies really made this inflammatory recommendation, they confided it only in Yahoo, that I can find.

Try this: Department of Homeland Security and this: US-CERT

It's easy to bash Microsoft, but I think we should give credit where it is due. After all, Microsoft has acted very quickly to fix this problem; users who have patched their version of IE can no longer access the Department of Homeland Security's webpage.