Slashdot Mirror

Actually, it was. The last budget passed was FY2012 - it's been continuing resolutions since then. And FY2012's budget had funding for "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology". Pulling that spending out of the CR is actually not allowed - as it is a change to the budget. In this case, Pelosi and Schumer are trying to do an end-run around the laws relating to continuing resolutions.

That budget had $800 million for "Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology"; no where near $5 billion. The proposed budget passed by the Senate had $1.3 billion for border security, a significant increase. But there was certainly nothing in the budget bill you link to anywhere near $5 billion. The bill instead shows a decreasing level of border security construction over a three year period.

Actually, it was. The last budget passed was FY2012 - it's been continuing resolutions since then. And FY2012's budget had funding for "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology". Pulling that spending out of the CR is actually not allowed - as it is a change to the budget. In this case, Pelosi and Schumer are trying to do an end-run around the laws relating to continuing resolutions.

What they want is a system that manages immigration. A system that is humane and gives migrants a path to citizenship that rewards being a productive member of American society. They see that when immigrants are given the opportunity they are often hard working and valuable, and being economic benefits.

There is one, and the USA invites around a million people a year. The process is not as easy as some would like, but it is far more open than most nations. That's just general LEGAL immigration, and honest asylum and emergency sheltering situations add quite a bit more.

See Wireless Priority Service

https://www.fcc.gov/general/wi...

https://www.dhs.gov/wps-faq

Clearly, VZN shouldn't be hindering Public Safety connections.

But this is the opposite of Net Neutrality. What is needed here are in fact tiers. The highest tier is Network Management, but this is a minuscule amount of traffic and typically OOB (but that traffic has to flow somehow and they aren't running OOB-only fibers between towers). Next, a Public Safety tier that should always have priority over non-PS traffic up to their purchased throughput. Then, the rest can slug it out with contention and "fairness" rules that doesn't allow any single type of traffic and/or source/destination starve out other traffic.

We have this with traditional voice calls via the Government Emergency Telecommunication Service (GETS) which allow Public Safety to preempt other calls during a crisis, and we should have the same for Internet traffic - or they shouldn't use the Internet but instead have private networks build adjacent to the Internet (but no doubt using the same cell towers and backhaul). But you have to have GETS service on a per-line basis, and you pay per-call when using GETS. It's not important until it is.

Enact VoterID.

We already need identification for all sorts of things in society: buying alcohol, tobacco, registering a car, getting a job... Proving who you are to vote is not difficult at all.

In a growing number of states, Real ID standards are mandated. Without a RealID-compliant license, for example, one cannot do something as routine as getting through airport security.

For certain political parties to claim it is "racist" to require ID to vote because certain minorities cannot get an ID is, in itself, racist.

The problems VoterID would solve would far surpass the crap ideas floated by the Democrats in the Senate.

To conflate it all is disingenuous.

I don't see anything being conflated at all.

Under U.S. law, anyway, "asylee" is not synonymous with "refugee;" it's a subset of refugee, with different legal procedures and consequences. See https://www.uscis.gov/humanita... , http://www.alllaw.com/articles... , https://www.dhs.gov/immigratio... , https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... , and--if you want the statute-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... .

Here's the breakdown: family-based green cards, rapefugees, anchorbabies, etc: 0.9 million/year
Skill-based green cards (EB1-EB3): 0.1 million/year. (actually less, since the relatives of "skilled" immigrants also go here. EB2-3 categories also require employer sponsorship, which in practice means indentured servitude)

So no, it is not "already skill based." Here have a look: stats under Obama (info for 2015 is the latest available).

If this is skill-based, then I am your uncle.

Yes, it is an unreasonable search.

FTA: The effort is in response to a years-old mandate from Congress that DHS implement a biometric system for recording the entry and exit of non–U.S. citizens at all air, sea, and land ports of entry.

The Supreme Court can strike down illegal laws, or more specifically, ones in conflict with the US Constitution. So, just having a Congressional Order doesn't make it ethical, legal, right, or enforceable.

Additionally, this is clearly outside of the purview of the DHS. From their Mission Statement on their own web site:

The Department's border security and management efforts focus on three interrelated goals:

        (1) Effectively secure U.S. air, land, and sea points of entry;
        (2) Safeguard and streamline lawful trade and travel; and
        (3) Disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal and terrorist organizations.

It's stated elsewhere on their website that their duty is "control of Customs". Any dictionary will define Customs for you: "the flow of goods into."

Someone leaving, possessing a human face, is not bringing anything into the country, and there is no law in place that states that departing people are subject to inspection. That duty is on the shoulders of the destination country. And BTW, possessing a human face... it's a part of your body, not an "item" being brought into the country.

This will get to the Supreme Court in a few years. How they rule (knowing the judges) is anyone's guess.

I used to help at an English school in Korea, which also put together travel packages for the teachers and students to visit the U.S. This was back in the days before the automatic 90-day travel visa for holders of S. Korean passports.

The children, males, and older (married) Korean women had no problem getting travel visas. But we had a high percentage of rejections for young females. Our theory was that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service thinks young, unmarried women want to visit the U.S. in hopes of finding a husband, and obtaining U.S. citizenship that way. So it gives them a higher bar to hurdle if they apply for a tourist visa.

Each year aprox. one million legal immigrants of various statuses are admitted into the United States, so as a matter of fact, yes, we do welcome them with open arms. A desire to know who you are welcoming is prudent.

You mean the Terrorism School of America run by RSHA? Because that's what they're doing. They're refining the garden-variety cuba-and-a-million-dollars terrorists into actual threats to life and liberty. There were once devils we knew, but the TSA trained them to be something we don't know anymore. Fuck the TSA in the ass with a rusty grill brush.

This stuff needs to be in LOCAL control, not some national program's control. You need to make sure that the fire fighters who roll in from half a state away will have communications equipment that will be interoperable with the local system.

You just contradicted yourself. The only way to make sure that interoperability is to do it at a level well above the local.

What you get when you have full local control of designing communications is every agency on a different frequency and access method (CTCSS, DCS, NAC) and nobody can talk to anybody else when an event requires mutual aid. That's why the National Interoperability channels were allocated. And yet, you see what happens when there is only local control -- many agencies STILL have not programmed these channels into their radios despite them being available for what, more than a decade? Our two-county local area is three years into creating a mutually agreed set of channels and names so first responders showing up at a neighbor's event know how to communicate. Three years!

But my point is that the fixed parts of this system should be LOCALLY controlled and maintained.

Wrong. Local maintenance is very expensive, and no public safety agency is going to have a budget to pay for a tech to maintain a bunch of LTE sites. It's hard enough to pay for a regional company to maintain the existing voice systems already.

And local "control" means you will wind up with a bunch of independent, non-interoperable systems like we already have when one agency relies on 700MHz trunked and a neighbor is still using 150MHz analog voice. Someone has to either equip everything with dual band radios, or have immediately deployable bridges. Who pays for the bridge and the training necessary to put it into use when needed, the 700MHz user or the 150MHz?

However in ALL cases it would be a great advantage if first responders didn't have to worry about the radios they carry actually working outside of their local area..

History and politics has proven that this social problem cannot be solved by local measures. It isn't a technical issue, it is poly-sci.

For 3 years, the US government has been trying to make (state-issued) DL cards like passports; only a few states have complied.

Uh, that's what I was arguing against. Leave DL cards only for driving, rather than as a photo ID, so that DMVs in sanctuary states like CA are free to issue them to illegals, w/o making them recognized ID for anything else. Instead, overhaul what the SS card is and let that be the universal ID that people use whenever they are travelling within the borders.

Passports will be needed, since there are a lot of countries that are not geared to use something like this as a substitute.

According to whom? If a US DMV is issuing such identity to non-citizens, then it obviously isn't a representation of immigration status. To be fair, this is the government's fault. They should give people a kick up the arse for using a DL as a green card, or an SS card as an identity card.

The latter - SS number for ID - has been there for the last 30 years, so it's probably there to stay. Which is why I suggested overhauling the SS card. Once it's there and loaded w/ all the information, any establishment that wants proof of ID will require to see that, instead of a DL or a college ID card.

.... why not make SS cards like DL cards ...

For 3 years, the US government has been trying to make (state-issued) DL cards like passports; only a few states have complied.

... and thereby making the appearance of legalizing them ...

According to whom? If a US DMV is issuing such identity to non-citizens, then it obviously isn't a representation of immigration status. To be fair, this is the government's fault. They should give people a kick up the arse for using a DL as a green card, or an SS card as an identity card.

Trump has done one thing others have not been able to, and that's cut through the baloney. So quickly too. Microsoft participated in this lawsuit now, but yet they said or did nothing when DHS put travel restrictions from these very same countries last year.

Let's be honest. This is not about stopping a handful of employees traveling from these countries. It's about taking on Trump in order to protect the importing of cheap labor from abroad. You know the old saying "even the pope is replaceable." If your company is so reliant and dependent on employees from failed terrorists states like Somalia, then there is something really wrong with your company.

Posting as anon to prevent the doxing.

Easy: because that's the list the DHS was already using for about a year (yes, an Obama year) for travel restrictions:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

Exactly the same list. If you take out Iran, it's also the list of places where we're waging clandestine wars: Trump's first casualty was a SEAL killed in Yemen. We have drones and/or special ops attacking people in those countries. They are hostile territory. Trump is simply acknowledging that fact. As for Iran, they have shot down one of our spy drones.

When you have a memory longer than a goldfish's, you see the world differently than Twitter does.

The US population grew by about 3 million people from 2015 to 2016, which comes out to about 250,000/month.

To be clear, you mean the twelve months from January through December 2015, right? Your numbers look off to me.

[1] says that the US population grew by almost 4M from births in 2015, [2] says 2.6M people died, [3] says 750K naturalized, and [4] says 70K refugees were admitted. That gives about 2.2M "official" population growth. Obviously that doesn't count illegals, who are probably harder to count with any degree of accuracy.

1998 births was much the same, according to [5]. I imagine the majority of those have started to, or soon will, enter the workforce about now. And a similarly large number will leave the workforce too.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
[3] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[4] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[5] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

The US population grew by about 3 million people from 2015 to 2016, which comes out to about 250,000/month.

To be clear, you mean the twelve months from January through December 2015, right? Your numbers look off to me.

[1] says that the US population grew by almost 4M from births in 2015, [2] says 2.6M people died, [3] says 750K naturalized, and [4] says 70K refugees were admitted. That gives about 2.2M "official" population growth. Obviously that doesn't count illegals, who are probably harder to count with any degree of accuracy.

1998 births was much the same, according to [5]. I imagine the majority of those have started to, or soon will, enter the workforce about now. And a similarly large number will leave the workforce too.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
[3] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[4] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[5] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

The only one I hear claiming that is Clinton

Really? Here, let me help you out with that.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Continuing...

she has the poorest record of telling the truth of any politician ever

Have some nice charts

Anyway, as for this hack: I actually doubt this was the US. One, the US generally gives "won't confirm or deny" statements in situations like this, rather than outright denial. Second, Ukraine has an awful lot of computer talent on their own, and all the motive in the world. A lot of people in the US don't realize that the industry that's booming the most in Ukraine right now is IT; they're a popular outsourcing destination for Europe.

Do you really think that DHS is supposed to ignore a threat to the US? Space weather is not a new thing: See: https://www.dhs.gov/publicatio... . The Department of Commerce (i.e. NOAA) has been working on space weather for a long time. The Air Force has a whole group devoted to it. All these things have gone through the funding cycles and been part of the budget for a while. The executive order tells the different departments to coordinate and who does what to respond; this is all in implementation to a National Space Weather Strategy document which went through the normal cycle of drafting, public comments, and approval.

The idea that this came out of nowhere, is not funded, or is not part of the legally directed activities of the executive branch is just insane.

Is there any actual evidence that "the scary russians" are to blame for this?

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow--the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/...

Not a hoax, I found a link to it on the dhs website.

• Problem statement from DHS: In the current environment, information technology systems are built to operate in a relatively static configuration. For example, addresses, names, software stacks, networks and various configuration parameters remain more or less the same over long periods of time. This static approach is a legacy of information technology systems designed for simplicity in a time when malicious exploitation of system vulnerabilities was not a concern
• Solution approach from DHS: Moving Target Defense (MTD) is the concept of controlling change across multiple system dimensions in order to increase uncertainty and apparent complexity for attackers, reduce their window of opportunity and increase the costs of their probing and attack efforts. MTD assumes that perfect security is unattainable. Given that starting point, and the assumption that all systems are compromised, research in MTD focuses on enabling the continued safe operation in a compromised environment and to have systems that are defensible rather than perfectly secure.
• “[MTD] Enables us to create, analyze, evaluate, and deploy mechanisms and strategies that are diverse and that continually shift and change over time to increase complexity and cost for attackers, limit the exposure of vulnerabilities and opportunities for attack, and increase system resiliency.” – Trustworthy Cyberspace: Strategic Plan for the Federal Cybersecurity Research and Development Program published by the Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, December 2011
• Links to additional reading material
  1. 1. DHS overview: https://www.dhs.gov/science-an...
  2. 2. Morphisec's blog on MTD: http://blog.morphisec.com/movi...
  3. 3. Details on Morphisec's solution (one of many in this space): http://www.morphisec.com/how-i...
  4. 4. The "Morphinator" project sponsored by the Army for shape-shifting networks: https://gcn.com/articles/2012/...
• It is the combination of at least 6 key initiatives that will fundamentally disrupt and transform the cyber defense capabilities of our critical infrastructure and beyond:
  1. 1. "Shift left" by applying Continuous Delivery, Architecture-as-Code, and other

Like I said,

https://oig.ssa.gov/whistleblo...

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/index....

https://oversight.house.gov/su... (the "Blow the Whistle" link)

The actual FCC noticel [FCC notice] has:
(6) Plans With Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations.
Plans to incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of the licensee's security architecture. Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat information sharing, and any use of anticipated standards for ISAO-based information sharing.

What's an ISAO? Here's what the DHS has to say. Short summary: Big Brother.

https://www.dhs.gov/science-an...

S&T's Prepaid Card Reader Aids Law Enforcement in Seizing Fraudulent Cards

During arrests of criminal couriers, law enforcement officers rarely find bundles of cash wrapped in rubber bands anymore. Instead, they find stacks of plastic cards — bank credit and debit cards, retail gift cards, library cards, hotel card keys, even magnetic-striped Metrorail cards — that have been turned into prepaid cards.

The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate’s Electronic Recovery and Access to Data (ERAD) Prepaid Card Reader is becoming a vital tool for law enforcement seizing these cards and funds associated with criminal activity.

'The FBI and Homeland Security are working with the campaigns to tighten security and prevent cyber intruders from penetrating their defenses'

"The Department of Homeland Security today appointed a senior Microsoft Corp. executive to head a section charged with protecting the federal government's computer networks from cyber attacks." ref

"Overall, we identified 1,085 instances of high-risk vulnerabilities on the MOE [Mission Operating Environment]" ref

The TSA ended the managed inclusion program for which this app was built and deployed.

They ended it when a notorious felonwas allowed to go through the pre-check line.

Here are some references from reputable sources. The US State Department estimates about 21 million human trafficking victims, of which about 20% are forced into the sex trade.

https://blogs.state.gov/storie...
http://www.unicef.org/protecti...
https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campa...

Here are some references. The US State Department estimates about 21 million human trafficking victims, of which about 20% are forced into the sex trade.

https://blogs.state.gov/storie...
http://www.unicef.org/protecti...
https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campa...

I was told the only interview location was at the airport. How dod you get interviewed away from it?

It probably varies by region. But I had the same experience as the grandparent: I interviewed at an off-site location.

The TSA has a handy locator site that lists all of the facilities offering PreCheck interviews. Besides government facilities, a lot of them seem to be operated by IdentoGo.

Let's see, one is legislative response to certain localities violating federal immigration law and giving identical identification cards to non-citizens as citizens, the other is a national database of biometric data on their entire population.

Are you really that stupid?

Also, your link does not say what you think it does.

http://www.dhs.gov/faq-regardi...

"For example, it is illegal to attempt to enter a Federal facility with weapons, explosives, incendiary devices, and illicit drugs, even if it is legal to possess a firearm or drugs in a state or city."

What about the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the government?

They aren't competent enough to orchestrate something like that. They also weren't competent enough to stop it, despite getting plenty of notice about some of the orchestrators. That doesn't make them any less responsible.

It's hard to believe that the same government that built the SR71 blackbird and operated it in secret convincing many "useful idiots" that 'they aren't UFO's' is so incompetent that they couldn't stop a bunch of extremists from flying a plane into the largest buildings of the largest US city. How can any other security theatre be justified as effective in the wake of such a bungle.

Rather than theorize I ask if it is possible that the US military could develop drone aircraft technology in 2001 and deploy it onto a tanker aircraft? Is it possible to order remote crews to participate in an exercise that they will run from the pentagon as the bad guys flying a simulated plane into a building. Is it possible to order a missile crew to launch a missile as part of their exercise, who don't know it is aimed at a drone crew in the pentagon. Is it possible to use a hitman to take out the missile crew so there are no leaks.

OR

Is it possible to convince a few loonies to get on a plane and fly it into buildings so there are no leaks.

Of course not, it's all just speculation. Usually the simplest explanation fits which is really appealing to the dogmatic skeptic masses who want to believe they are just a little too smart to be deceived. No one would ever do such a thing because it would provide the justification is to clamp down on *your* freedoms to protect you from the extremists who hate you having those freedoms. You would somehow have to convince everyone that brainwashing a population is impossible, which of course it is because now we have a simple mathematical model to prove it.

There certainly are plenty of conspiracy theories about other things however I've never seen a forensic investigation of the crime scene that was 9/11 so I doubt that we will ever know for sure on this one.

What I do know is that in the wake of "the conspiracy that wasn't" several laws that clamp down on *your* freedoms to protect you from the extremists who hate you having those freedoms reshape democracy into autocracy. Perhaps the conspiracy was "what if we could steal democracy from the people, how would we do that?".

Freedom, democracy, accountability have been demonstrated as the ultimate weapons against *any* terrorism because you might not have anything to hide, but you sure have got a lot to loose.

The UK does not need visa approval for US travel.

It's a visa by another name. https://www.gov.uk/foreign-tra... says 'may' but you're not getting on an aircraft without going through the bullshit: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/

So basically, the program has cost only 8% more than what they estimated it would cost. They've just been able to keep the drones aloft for a lot fewer hours than expected (cost of pilots being traded off for cost of maintenance crew). The reporter, trying to exaggerate things to make his story sound bigger than it really is, then converted that overall cost into cost per flight hour and compared on that basis since it showed the biggest cost overrun.

Quick rule of thumb. Cost (dollars) is an amount. $/hr is a rate (first derivative of the amount). If you see an article claiming something about an amount (cost overrun), but then shows comparisons of a rate, that's a big red flag. Something deceptive may be going on, and you should do some number checking to figure out what the real story is.

You're 'effing looney! Cost per year is also a rate. When a DHS audit reports that OpEx was $62.4M/yr to complete less than 1/4 of the work/yr that the program was anticipated to do, you cannot simply dismiss the fact through amount-versus-rate mumbo jumbo. When the program office reports that its OpEx was only $12M/yr while asking to double the size of its fleet, whether you characterize those figures as amounts or rates, that's a big red flag.

First item: the cost per flight hour was not calculated by a reporter. It was calculated by the DHS Office of Inspector General, which is perfectly capable of calculating an OpEx. And yes, the period is only FY2013.

Second, you cannot treat OpEx as a fixed cost, spread that OpEx over an anticipated time of operation, compare that to a boondoggled OpEx spread over a much shorter actual time of operation, and declare "the program has cost only 8% more than what they estimated it would cost." If your security service only covered 1/4 of its shifts with its personnel budget, and dropped the other 3/4 for lack of funds, you're not going to congratulate them for staying within budget. And that was not an estimate of what it would cost -- it was a post-hoc analysis of cost that was presumably used in their push for expansion of the program.

Your comment proves that you can lead a horse to an OIG report, but you apparently can't make him read it (hint: it was the very first link). The breakdown of the respective calculations appears on page 8. In short:

OIG calculation: (Maintenance, Satellite Link, Fuel, Sensor Operations, Operational Support, Engineering Services, Base Overhead, and Depreciation @ $45,399,538 + Personnel @ $17,125,546) / 5102 flight hrs = $12,225/flight hr

program calculation: (Maintenance, Satellite Link, and Fuel @ $12,043,508 + Sensor Operations, Operational Support, Engineering Services, Base Overhead, and Depreciation @ $0 + Personnel @ $0 ) / 4880 flight hrs = $2,468/flight hr

Something deceptive may be going on, and you should do some number checking to figure out what the real story is.

In my checking, the best point of all was found on page 5 under the heading "UAS Flight Hours":

According to OAM's UAS CONOPS, by FY 2013, OAM anticipated four 16hour unmanned aircraft patrols every day of the year, or 23,296 total flight hours. However, the unmanned aircraft logged a combined total of 5,102 flight hours, or about 80 percent less than what OAM anticipated. According to OAM, the aircraft did not fly more primarily because of budget constraints, which prevented OAM from obtaining the personnel, spare parts and other infrastructure for operations, and maintenance necessary for more flight hours.

Double the size of my drone fleet! Because I already am flying 80% below my own anticipated capacity due to budget constraints. Nevermind that my actual operating costs are also almost 4x higher than what I'm telling you. We can fix that in post.

Take a moment to review NERC EOP-005-2: System Restoration from Blackstart Resources. If you live in North America, plans described in this document are your only real line of defense from the chaos and harm that may arise from grid-down disaster. Here is a peek at some software tools used by the industry and Black Start specific enhancements in progress [2013].

Note that NERC's Compliance and Enforcement process is voluntary. This means no one's going to jail for failure to implement these measures... and there are many in the industry who prefer it that way. We have witnessed the growth of the Department of Homeland Security way past its original mandate. Indeed there is a slow motion power grab in progress.

If you distrust large corporations and the consortiums they form then you're already suspicious. But few can argue that the grid is not resilient or well designed. In most cases frequency and voltage give operators all the feedback they need. But it has not ever been shut off completely, and the electrical equivalent of post-9/11 'ground stop' is neither practical nor possible to test black start capability... NERC does do regular computer simulations of country-wide restarts.

So if you are fortunate to live near one of the ~7,304 operational power plants in the United States (for example) and know some people who work there, you might pose these questions:

Has your plant participated in EOP-005 drills?
Has there ever been a country or region-wide drill where procedures are acted out in real time?
Do you feel the time presently devoted to this scenario is adequate, and plans are in place?
Do you have confidence that the grid could be restarted successfully?
Are there any 'old school' approaches to this problem you feel are not addressed or trained adequately?
To what extent are these black start procedures reliant on computers and functional computer networks?
What kinds of grid-wide inter-plant communications are in place for coordination when the grid is down?
Would any coordination efforts rely on carrier networks (telephone, cell, Internet) being up?

The very first BBC episode of Connections The Trigger Effect explores how we have become reliant on modern technology without needing to understand its intricacies, and uses the Northeast Blackout on November 9, 1965 and peoples' reactions to illustrate this.

If Black Start should fail or become delayed indefinitely, National Geographic: American Blackout is a documentary that dramatically explores effects of an extended grid outage. It is a tame outage -- no Winter freeze or volcanic ash --- with cyberattack as its rather specious scenario. At present the operational controls of power plants are diverse and there is a great deal of manual control, and a coordinated attack could only target the grid monitoring systems and communications between plants.

I know when I travel to Asia, South America, or Europe, I need to present my passport at all hotels I stay at

Sounds like you've never travelled to Asia, South America or Europe... Because you only use your passport as a method of ID at hotels. A Hotel needs to know that you are the person you claim to be. I travel to a few places in SE Asia on a regular basis. They know who I am and dont bother asking for ID any more. So much so I've even got a rapport with a few customs officers at Perth. Also, I was also required to present ID at every US hotel I stayed at. The most convenient form is the Passport as they're fairly standard from country to country. I had more than a few US bartenders squint at my Western Australian drivers license for a while before they served me.

When I worked in Belgium, Chile and China, I had to register with the Government and provide the local police station with my information

When I travel to the United States, I have to Register with the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation in order to board a flight to the US. No ESTA, no entry. It costs about $4 and there are a variety of middlemen who charge upwards of $20 to do the same thing (so make sure you go to the DHS website). This form asks for a variety of information, not just for ID purposes, but personal questions as well (like "Do you have gonorrhoea") feel free to go through it yourself. At least they've stopped asking if I'm a Nazi.

Also when I was coming back to the US from South America a few years back I had to provide proof of an outgoing flight and my hotel prior to being permitted to board a flight in Panama.

I don't think that tourists need to provide their passports at hotels, nor do visa holders need to register with the local police station.

Next time, stop writing after "think".

As an Australian traveller, the US is an oddity. There are few places in the world where I need to fill in an application form to visit.

"Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Chief Information Officer (CIO) has determined that Microsoft will be the Department-wide standard desktop operating system, e-mail system, and office automation tool." ref
--

'thousands of low-level employees and contractors with access to the nation’s most sensitive secrets have been cut off.'

I'll just gas up and fly my own jumbo jet

Private aircraft are still subject to governmental inspection.

In billions. Total=$61B
Departmental Operations 748,024
Analysis and Operations(A&O) 302,268
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 145,457
U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) 12,764,835
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) 5,359,065
Transportation Security Administration(TSA) 7,305,098
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 9,796,995
U.S. Secret Service (USSS) 1,895,905
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 2,857,666
Office of Health Affairs (OHA) 125,767
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 12,496,517
FEMA: Grant Programs 2,225,469
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) 3,259,885
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 259,595
Science &Technology Directorate (S&T) 1,071,818
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 304,423

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...

Your point is taken, but that's not actually the case.

Fees are $0.10/page, search is $16 to $28/hour depending on the type. You are notified in advance if the fees will be over $25.[1]

Also, the request has to be "not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester" [1], which may or may not be the case here.

[1] http://www.dhs.gov/foia-fee-structure-and-waivers

Your math is comparing apples to oranges.
Specifically you are comparing the cost to apprehend PLUS all the fixed costs of the agency vs the cost to apprehend with a drone.

That's actually exactly how the drone costs were calculated. They took the cost to operate the drones, then added all the fixed costs of the personnel, equipment, and miscellaneous agency overhead. That inflated the drone costs from $2,468 per hour to $12,255 per hour. It's actually your deportation cost which is missing some of the costs they attributed to the drones.

So OP's math was (inadvertently) in fact apples to apples.

That's what I was thinking. Equipping every border patrol unit with a commercial version of the ubiquitous quad-copter

For a given payload, rotary-wing aircraft consume about 2-4x as much fuel as fixed-wing aircraft. The quad-copter is actually an even bigger disadvantage since it's got 4 engines vs 1 on the Predator. (Fewer engines = more efficient. It's why airlines have been transitioning to twin-engine airliners.)

Also, if you read some of the linked docs in TFA, the $28,000 per arrest figure is the cost of the drone + personnel + equipment + overhead. The operating cost of just the drones themselves is about 1/5th that ( $2,468 per flight hour vs $12,255 per flight hour). So since the bulk of the cost is in the support personnel and equipment, changing the type of drone won't alter the cost per arrest much. The vast majority of the cost is still agents and their equipment - whether they be flying a Predator, a quad-copter, or have boots on the ground in the desert border.

It's built by Boston Engineering, not Boston Dynamics.

Also, it was developed as BIOSwimmer for the DHS orignially, the GhostSwimmer (PDF warning) for the navy is just a modified version.

Oh, and it's designed to resemble a tuna, not a shark.

Exactly. Don't forget the war on toiletries in baggage. Or how something is OK when the US Federal Govt does it, for example, the way waterboarding is called torture only when done by other governments.

So, not long ago, America's major newspapers basically decided that waterboarding was somehow okay. American waterboarding, that is! In the same time frame, the same newspapers made it clear that if any other country practiced waterboarding, it was torture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

This sort of "Laugh at China" story is designed to make the US look smart, and the rest of the world stupid and to help people miss how stupid our own government is being. But if you look around, you'll find some great ways to spend those student loans:

"Purdue University Graduate Certificate Program in Veterinary Homeland Security"
http://vet.purdue.edu/biosecur...

Maybe graduates can work for the tax black hole that is Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/food-agricu...
http://www.dhs.gov/reference-n...

Exactly. Don't forget the war on toiletries in baggage. Or how something is OK when the US Federal Govt does it, for example, the way waterboarding is called torture only when done by other governments.

So, not long ago, America's major newspapers basically decided that waterboarding was somehow okay. American waterboarding, that is! In the same time frame, the same newspapers made it clear that if any other country practiced waterboarding, it was torture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

This sort of "Laugh at China" story is designed to make the US look smart, and the rest of the world stupid and to help people miss how stupid our own government is being. But if you look around, you'll find some great ways to spend those student loans:

"Purdue University Graduate Certificate Program in Veterinary Homeland Security"
http://vet.purdue.edu/biosecur...

Maybe graduates can work for the tax black hole that is Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/food-agricu...
http://www.dhs.gov/reference-n...

This is exactly why foreigners are not to be trusted with being able to make decisions regarding global travel safety. This is all just Panikmacherei.. Until it is reported on the the DHS website http://www.dhs.gov/how-do-i/fi... then there is no reason for concern, and so far there is nothing. So there is noting to worry about at this time; so please everybody, go crawl back under your little rocks. This whole article is a waste otherwise useful internet space.