Slashdot Mirror

The very law that defines an extended border explicitly requires probable cause. The judge is just upholding exactly what the law says. This is the same law the ACLU cited in justification of their constitution-free-zone claim.

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/287-1-definitions-19608292

The constitution free zone appears to be an invention that incorrectly combines the rules for the border with the definition of "extended border" in the law linked above. I don't think this was just a confusion though, instead I think this mix up was intentional by the ACLU in order to generate hype and outrage (I have to admit that constitution-free-zone is a brilliant marketing term that they invented).

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf

The extended border is concerned with search for the purpose of immigration and customs control (ie, someone flies a plane over the border and lands in the desert, and as far as immigration goes it can be be searched the same as if it were stopped at the border). However it does not mean that any federal agent can have a warrantless search of any house in Los Angeles County, not even a border control agent could do this.

Now, in this case, the accuracy rates vary from 80-98% by most accounts, with much of the variance down to the competence of the tester

Perhaps this is true for specific incident testing (i.e. the tester has details of a specific crime and is attempting to determine if the interviewee committed it), but that is not the subject of this story: this is about security clearance tests, where a wide range of potentially incriminating subjects are being checked. This is, unfortunately, at odds with the most accurate method used for polygraph tests: reaction to questions that the interviewer is specifically interested in are compared with reaction to "control questions", which are equally pointed questions that the interviewer knows the answer to. Control questions, to get good accuracy, are not simple "is your name John Smith" type questions, they are questions that should produce similar responses to the questions you actually want the answers to. Unfortunately, for security clearance tests, such questions don't tend to be available, so there is no reliable way to calibrate. As a result they're less accurate: 10% false positive rate and 17% false negative according to a 2000 metastudy.

If funding is cut off, they will simply revert back to this, not that they ever stopped doing things that way.

Term limits are stupid. Just look towards Mexico to see how effective they are. Corruption sees the law as damage and will always route around it.

Authority has gone rogue, and instead of trying to stop it, most people are looking for a piece of the action. That's just nature at work.

Doesn't involve a judge though. Just the DEA.

Wrong. If there's a subpoena, there's a judge.

Not necessarily. The DEA gained the ability to issue 'administrative subpoenas' in 1970, and uses them routinely and on a nontrivial scale. All they have to do is assert that the material is 'relevant to an investigation' and out it goes. No muss, no fuss, no tedious judicial oversight.

Historic information filling in the back story to this years cyber comments has consequences....
http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2013/08/cyber-offense/
“We believe our [cyber] offense is the best in the world,” - Gen. Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command.
Lets go down the list cold:
A mission count, the citation needed for the aggressive aspect and the words GENIE and TURBINE.
More people will understand terms like Tailored Access Operations (TAO).
More firms will be careful about their shopping for routers, switches and firewalls from US product lines. That would be nothing new after 30 years of crypto warnings of useless hardware and software been sold world wide from 'trusted' brands.
The harvest aspect is fun ins scope and costing, how is the US getting all that data back without skilled admins at some point working out what their expensive systems are doing :)
The use of sites more within to the US (Georgia, Texas, Colorado) may point to more domestic operations - also not really new.
Overlapping missions notes will be very interesting to US legal teams and law reform groups.
So over all a few new names, terms and a hint that some hardware and software encryption is mostly expensive junk- something books and magazines noted many years ago.

Until you read that Saddam et al were trying to weaponize camel pox. That virus was chosen because it was assumed that the local (middle eastern) population would have been exposed and thus largely immune to it. Never know, they might have been able to get it to work.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/bw/program.htm

Yes but for training, as contractors/mercenary/NGO like roles i.e. counter-terrorism operations.
See (Office of Security Cooperation—Iraq) OSC-I funding, institutional level staff helpers, past Foreign Military Sales staff numbers (some nice Abrams/F-16/Stryker sales numbers?).
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21968.pdf hints at numbers on page 35 onwards.
From 'At the time of the withdrawal, there were about 16,000 total U.S. personnel in Iraq, about half of which were contractors."
"However, staff cuts discussed below have left the total number of U.S. personnel in Iraq at about 10,000 as of mid-2013"
So very, very few US troops in Iraq, just some "U.S. personnel".
A lot of troops are ready in the region as always.

Lists where tried in the 1990's and seem to be filtered.
http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2013/08/quantum-leap/ seems to hint at the "exploiting open sources of information, particularly social media"
"utility of social media in exploiting human networks, including networks in which individual members actively seek to limit their exposure to the internet and social media"
Go to your local library and search for a few good local political journalists emails.
Spend a few days looking at real, local political scandals, deals, foreign intrigue or any interesting issues.
Note as many names as you can, brands, firms, lawyers names, journalists. Create a new draft email and account with one of the big US technology giants that the NSA likes.
Start shaping your draft message. Be as creative as you can about new information, a family member willing to talk.
Anonymity, hint at a bank, a document, past low level political access that 'helped'.
Pad out the intro and local aspect with a time line, what was in the press, how a journalist was on the right track, regional terms.
Save the draft.
Read and save your message from the account via clean computer (MAC and wifi unused) in the state capitol days later.
Keep a camera near your door if you ever get a 'unrelated' visit.
Speak loud and ask the person at the door to speak up too :)
i.e. make your message flow like a real whistelblower might. Great practice for a work of fiction.

From:
http://www.afr.com/p/national/transcript_interview_with_former_KnS7JDIrw73GWlljxA7vdK
"I personally think Snowden is a very troubled, narcissistic young man who has done a very, very bad thing."
"ideological embrace of transparency as a virtue."
"Likewise, at what point does a cultural tendency towards transparency flip-over to become a deep threat inside your system?"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/1/secrets-are-hard-to-keep-in-the-whole-wired-world/
"“a romantic, absolute attachment to transparency; [a belief] that secrecy in any form is wrong.”
https://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.html
"The great urban legend out there then was something called "Echelon""
"It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about."
"If FISA worked just as well, why wouldn't I use FISA? To save typing?
No. There is an operational impact here, and I have two paths in front of me, both of them lawful, one FISA, one the presidential -- the president's authorization.
And we go down this path because our operational judgment is it is much more effective."
Interesting how the press picks up on the "FISA statute itself says that it will be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be pursued"
and is then told : "I'm not asserting anything. I'm asserting that NSA is doing its job."
http://freebeacon.com/china-military-preparing-for-peoples-war-in-cyberspace-space/
"Cyber warfare may truly be called a people’s warfare"
...cyber reconnaissance, jamming, and attack”—from space vehicles.

Actually, Hayden knows exactly what he's talking about.

And by all means, no one is thinking about ways to defeat the US.

If you read the article it states that General Alexander addressed the legal basis.

The problem isn't always that they answer the questions they wish you had asked, but rather that people prefer to ignore the answers that are given if they aren't the preferred answer. Some people don't want intelligence surveillance to be legal at all, so they ignore the legal basis for doing it and chant about violations of the 4th amendment.

That is before you get to the problem of some people being willing to "defend freedom" to the last drop of blood from their neighbor, or the next city over, just so long as no surveillance passes anywhere near them. All it takes to ethically satisfy them is to chant, 'Die well, my countryman! Die bravely! Make us proud!" So much for the right to life as the basis for the other rights and liberties.

People disregard General Washington's wisdom at their peril.

In a letter to one of his officers written in 1777, Washington wrote that secrecy was key to the success of intelligence activities:

"The necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged-All that remains for me to add is, that you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon Secrecy, success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, & for want of it, they are generally defeated, however, well planned...." [letter to Colonel Elias Dayton, 26 July 1777]

For some mind numbingly stupid reason people keep wanting to reveal US intelligence operations to all, citizen or noncitizen alike. That isn't likely to end well. There is no putting the genie back into the bottle once it has escaped. You generally have to find a new genie, and that can take years, or decades.

Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.

Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.

Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.

Or a sucker.

I think that General George Washington was wiser than the people that you get your ideas from.

In a letter to one of his officers written in 1777, Washington wrote that secrecy was key to the success of intelligence activities:

"The necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged-All that remains for me to add is, that you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon Secrecy, success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, & for want of it, they are generally defeated, however, well planned...." [letter to Colonel Elias Dayton, 26 July 1777]

The issue isn't that the national intelligence leadership isn't willing show anybody, and almost certainly isn't that they have no proof. They simply won't show you - CanHasDIY, and people similarly situated. Why? Because you have no security clearance, you have no "need to know" based on the rules of handling classified information, you have no responsibility that requires it, you perform no oversight of them.

Being a citizen and a voter is not a magic pass to personally supervise federal employees, nor does it entitle you to know all of the nation's secrets. You get to vote for your Congressional representatives, and inform them of your views. You can even volunteer for them, or form groups to lobby. But it is up to the representatives in Congress to pass the laws governing government activity, and to perform oversight of the government. That is it, unless you actually have a job that entitles you to greater responsibility in that regard as recognized by law and regulation. If you don't like that, you can always run for office.

Now as to evidence, I might be able to help a little, but no more than is in the news:

Snowden leaks give edge to U.S. rivals, officials say

Among the disclosures from Snowden that were published in the Washington Post and the Guardian was that Skype, the Internet calling service, was among the systems that provided data to the NSA's secret PRISM database. That disclosure contradicted a widespread belief that calls made via Skype were difficult or impossible to intercept.

Some suspected terrorists the NSA was tracking are no longer using Skype, U.S. officials said. Others have stopped using email, said one U.S. official who has been briefed on the damage.

"The Skype thing was really bad," the official said.

The full damage from Snowden's revelations has yet to be seen. I think that neither General Washington, nor Benjamin Franklin - a spymaster in his own right, would be amused.

George Washington: Spymaster and General Who Saved the American Revolution

Upon his appointment as Commander-in-Chief on June 15, 1775, Washington immediately began efforts to build an intelligence capacity to assist in obtaining information on the British Army. He accomplished this by creating, directing, and managing spy networks, along with deception, and misinformation efforts in order to mitigate and offset the British military advantage. An additional benefit of serving in the British Army was Washington’s appreciation of their military capability. He knew at the outset of the American Revolution that he could not defeat the British Army in Europe

Hate replying to myself, but thought I should also point out that 6-day rural delivery is still required under one of the USPS Appropriation bills.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41024.pdf "The U.S. Postal Service’s Financial Condition:Overview and Issues for Congress ".

One of the most horrific things that the Bush Administration did post 9/11 was declare that, in effect, you cease to be an American Citizen once you leave the confines of the USA.

If you would, please expand on that. I don't think that is correct, at least not at face value.

If I had nothing better to do with my time, I'd dig out exact details. Most of the readily-available discussion of this is found on left-leaning websites, and I don't like using biased sources. However, recent attempts to expand that declaration by the Obama administration make references to the original declaration which can be pursued by anyone who's interested.

Here are 2 of the more objective items I dredged up.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42337.pdf

Salon, of course, is more sensationalist, but here's their take on it: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

But whether or not literally American law extends beyond the borders of the USA, there is no doubt that effectively it does so. You can see that in the influence that the USA has had on shaping foreign copyright laws, as a prime example.

Countries negotiate all sorts of treaties, defense, trade, human rights. I don't think there is much special about that.

In the case of making the world's copyright laws an extension of the constitution of the Kingdom of Disney, a lot of people have noted that Don Corleone could learn a thing or two about negotiation from the USA.

Then, of course, there's the matter that apparently a mere hint from certain quarters was capable of major interference with the free international travel of an elected head of state.

Yes, it would resemble the outcome of this 1986 Trident II test, which I have seen captioned as "Navy Successfully Tests New Self-seeking Missile" in this still photo.

Maintaining a nuclear arsenal is really pricy. They're full of dangerous things.

Which is why it makes sense to leave them where they are. Decommissioning is even more pricey.

And dealing with the decay that you let build up because you were too lazy to maintain them is more costly still. No, 'let them sit' is a stupid fucking idea. Far more cost effective and safe to reprocess them into reactor fuel.

The U.S. does *not* do reprocessing. It has not done reprocessing since 1977, in order to avoid creating additional weapons grade material, which might fall into terrorist hands and/or lead to nuclear proliferation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/us.html

They require LOTS of upkeep. You have to guard them. (They have the power to destroy the world after all) The infrastructure to maintain your active arsenal is massive and costs piles of money, which seems silly for something you hope to never use.

Most of the cost is military. Personally, I think guarding holes in the desert is a much finer jobs program than bombing people in the Middle East. Safer for the people who get the make-work jobs, too.

You should probably try becoming part of this century before telling us about nuclear stockpiles. We don't have nukes sitting in holes in the desert anymore,

Wrong. We have 450 land-based Minuteman III ICBMs with MIRV'ed warheads, meaning approximately 1440 warheads which are currently land based. Try doing a simple google search before you spout incorrect information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Land-based_ICBMs

which is why we don't need as many. We just launch them from subs that no one knows where they are so they can't be taken out.

Again, incorrect. Submarines are detectable, even at maximum depth, using space-based side looking synthetic aperture radar (SAR):

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LE13Ad01.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/detection.pdf

Everyone who we care about knowing knows about our subs, just as we know about theirs.

[...]

I would suggest you take a basic economics and a history course, then learn WHY TARP actually happened rather than what your friends told you. You first need to understand that the magical failed banks failed because laws were changed that suddenly ... on PAPER ... made them insolvable. They were never actually doing bad, they just suddenly became illegal to operate.

TARP was needed due to de-regulation, after which banks jumped into the market for creation of derivatives, and created a bunch of worthless derivatives and sold them for real money. These were primarily collateralized debt obligations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Purpose

The ability to create CDOs prior to the repeal of Glass–Steagall was based primarily on a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/885/1034/144081/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Securitization.2C_CDOs.2C_and_.E2.80.9Csubprime.E2.80.9D_credit

[...Pu-239 uses...]

Or the operate on other things, which even

Encryption standards that actually work are kept secret, except maybe one-time pads..

They believe in transparent government. But they also believe in personal privacy.

Wikileaks has been a bit "uneven" in its respect for privacy.

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

...calling WikiLeaks a whistleblower site does not accurately reflect the character of the project. It also does not explain why others who are engaged in open government, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection activities are wary of WikiLeaks or disdainful of it. . . .

WikiLeaks says that it is dedicated to fighting censorship, so a casual observer might assume that it is more or less a conventional liberal enterprise committed to enlightened democratic policies. But on closer inspection that is not quite the case. In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.

Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.

In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.

On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior. ... more

They believe in transparent government. But they also believe in personal privacy.

Wikileaks has been a bit "uneven" in its respect for privacy.

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

...calling WikiLeaks a whistleblower site does not accurately reflect the character of the project. It also does not explain why others who are engaged in open government, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection activities are wary of WikiLeaks or disdainful of it. . . .

WikiLeaks says that it is dedicated to fighting censorship, so a casual observer might assume that it is more or less a conventional liberal enterprise committed to enlightened democratic policies. But on closer inspection that is not quite the case. In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.

Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.

In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.

On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior. ... more

Their names are out there. Why do you need their addresses? Are you going to pay their families a visit at home? Is that in any way relevant to anything at all?

The government keeps telling me that if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide. Well, I suppose that needn't apply to our betters in government, for anything they do must be right by definition.

Their names are out there. Why do you need their addresses? Are you going to pay their families a visit at home? Is that in any way relevant to anything at all?

I have a fantasy in which 1 million well-armed patriots surround this guy and tell the NSA / CIA / FBI / federal marshals that they're on the wrong side of the Constitution and can't have him.

The man has taken refuge inside the Communist Chinese city of Hong Kong. He has brought them a laptop full of Top Secret* data from deep inside of the NSA, no doubt only part of which he has revealed. I expect that the intelligence services of the People's Republic of China will get the rest.

I think your fantasy is coming true. As of now he is protected by millions of Chinese Communist patriots in the People's Liberation Army. Hurray?

I think the question at this point is, will the damage that Snowden did to the national security of the United States be as bad as the Walker spy ring, or worse?

Spies cost US security dearly. Senate panel says harm greater than previously disclosed

US naval intelligence has reached a similar conclusion about the consequences of the Walker-Whitworth spy operation. ``Naval intelligence analysis has led us to conclude that the Walker-Whitworth espionage activity was of the highest value to the intelligence services of the Soviet Union, with the potential -- had conflict erupted between the two superpowers -- to have powerful war-winning implications for the Soviet side,'' says William O. Studeman, director of naval intelligence, in an affidavit submitted in the Whitworth case and included in the appendix of the Senate report.

Mr. Studeman noted, ``Recovery from the Walker-Whitworth espionage will take years and millions of taxpayers' dollars. Even given these expenditures, we will likely never know the true extent to which our capabilities have been impaired....''

* CLASSIFICATION LEVELS "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

Oh yeah, because no one outside the government could possibly know how to fake classification markings...

That is the general pattern.

Here is the classified information non-disclosure agreement.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

Still not true.

Because most companies do not subscribe to that level of detailed checking due to the cost involved.
In fact, unless you are applying for a very sensitive job for a Government Contract or something, no private employer checks court records.

Its just too expensive and error prone. How many Will Smiths do you think there are in the world
with a DOB that matches the actor? How many courthouses are there to check?

Its a site trying to sell a service, but I could have just as easily linked to the NCIC site itself, or
the FBI's page about NCIC.

Some Government Contracts require NCIC checks, but even these are not done
by employers, but by the appropriate government agencies.

The issue of regulation is already one of the biggest problems for GMO

Not in the U.S. From fas.org

FDA is responsible for regulating the safety of GM crops that are eaten by humans or animals. According to a policy established in 1992, FDA considers most GM crops as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM crops. In such cases, GM crops are designated as “Generally Recognized as Safe” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and do not require pre-market approval

Emphasis mine. It's the same but it's patent worthy.

Here is the court order:

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/052413-eff.pdf

One possible "response" they could provide is "piss off".

You'll also note the Rule 7(i) Security Clearance information proviso for the EFF counsel; so even if they get to see the information, it doesn't meant that you get to see the information, or that they can subsequently re-disclose.

The old long-range AN/FPS-7 air defense search radar at the radar site we used to do our grocery shopping at sure left a ring of little dead birdies on the ground around its tower. I think the little dudes would perch on the catwalk railing around the frog's egg and get lightly toasted by a radar sweep.

But that's a exceptional case, since that was several megawatts of S-band pulse power.

The problem is the average citizen can't, legally, get his/her hands on some SAMs. Plus, do you know how much a Stinger costs on the second-hand market? There is the whole import problem too. A directional EMP (if there is such a thing) would probably rank in the top ten list of weapons Joe Citizen is NOT allowed to own.

Sorry, but you can buy one right now. OK, for the "directional" bit to mean "directional enough to take out drones at altitude", you'll need to provide your own larger parabolic dish made of metal (foil or mesh), and for the models with reasonable power you'll need to get around their "Sold only to qualified research companies and personnel" policy (note this is a company policy, not a law as you suggest) or buy the unrestricted plans and build your own.

Shooting them isn't an option either. Most are too high, too fast, and shooting at them with automatic weapons would draw massive amounts of attention.

Not too high or fast, really. You have a good point about automatic fire, of course, but keep in mind that many current law-enforcement operators are using drones low & slow enough to be targeted with shotguns, whereas the linked document refers to larger and faster military threats, and to countering them with military weapons that don't get the multi-projectile advantage of shotguns. Given <100m altitude, semiautomatic shotguns are as good at filling volume of air with lead as fully-automatic assault rifles.

Nukes do the most damage if detonated in the air above the target. The effects of a nuke detonating in a harbor would be blunted by the shoreline and water. It could potentially do a lot of damage, but nowhere near what a nuke detonated hundreds of meters above the center of a city would do.

No, the problem pretty much is guns. There are more guns than citizens in the US; it's the fucking supply of guns and the easy access to them that is the problem, not the culture that glorifies them. I can buy a gun legally 24/7 in my state without ever disclosing my identity to the seller, and pretty soon I'll be able to print a durable, functional version of my beloved Mac 10. Until the gun-show and private-sale loopholes in gun laws are closed, and 3D-printing gets the draconian regulation it needs, easy access to guns is what you need to be worrying about. The existing supply of guns in the US is enough to meet any foreseeable demand for them in our violence-saturated culture, even if Glock, Beretta, Sig, and S&W go out of business tomorrow.

And, why would China retaliate against the US? They have a large land army, but there's an ocean separating them from the US. The US Navy is far and away the strongest in the world, China's doesn't realistically pose a threat. As for nukes, there's MAD, but it'd be insane for China to fire their 240 nukes toward the US with 32 times that number being fired back. (Plus the technology gap, the US has had a lot more time to develop them.)

No, China would be upset if the US destroys North Korea, but there's not much they would do about it. They'd lose a huge chunk of their economy to lose a very one-sided war. Maybe in a few decades the situation would be different, but China is a developing country and not a superpower.

From TFA in April 2013

You have criminal organizations trying to get into your personal computer and steal your personal stuff. And by the way, the Chinese are probably on your computer, the Russians are probably on your personal computer, the Iranians are already there,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R.-MI). told Fox News.

From a June 1998 prepared statement by former Senator Fred Thompson, then chairman of Governmental Affairs Committee, given during the 1998 Congressional Hearings on Intelligence and Security

This Is well understood by our potential adversaries, whether it be other nations, terrorists, drug cartels, or organized crime groups. They can reach deep into our homeland from the sanctity of their's This is not just a theory. We know for a fact that terrorist and organized crime groups are developing information weapons. A recent Newsweek article claims there are about ten countries, in addition to China and Russia, with Information warfare programs, including Libya, Iraq and Iran -- none of which are considered friends of the U.S., and all of which sponsor anti-American terrorists.

Well, as far as the ME goes, two down, one to go.

captcha:avenge

It's more complex than that. You want a laser in a frequency you can generate easily, focus well with optics, and that will not be absorbed by water vapor, gas, or dust. Higher frequencies don't necessarily net you any kind of energy efficiency yield (while per-photon energy is higher in higher frequency, you can just produce more photons for the same energy cost, so there is not efficiency gains from the physics). This [PDF warning] report gives quite a lot more technical details (including, yes, they do use IR), but not all of them.

Have you looked at the data? 33% of those who earn engineering degrees in the US are foreign born. The highest racial group earning these degrees is white, followed strongly by temporary foreign residents. Even foreign born Africans, outpace minority American graduation rates in these fields. It's not a race issue, it's a cultural issue coupled with poor focus on engineering and science from K-12.
In college when I looked around at my graduate research group, this information didn't really shock me. No wonder tech companies complain they need foreign visas to get the best candidates. A huge number of those who have the skills are foreigners learning at universities in the US.

Come on! It's a jellyfish. If you're going to arm it, arm it with stingers.

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2013/03/mass_shootings.html

go ahead.. triple the number if you want. Then divide by how many people have lived since 1983. More people have probably doing home depot repair projects.

You should know soon enough--although the administration doesn't want the recipients of NSLs getting too specific, the FBI has to cough up a yearly total. It provided a count for 2011 (16,511 NSLs, covering 7,201 people) on April 30 of last year, so if they stick to that timing we should get last year's total in another month or so.

The Democrats have been saying for the past 30 years would not work?

"The report to this bill specifically notes the possible threat from the North Korean Taepo Dong II missile, which the report claims may have the range to hit Alaska. Since this weapon is in development, we do not in fact know that this missile will be capable of that range. But with North Korea in such dire straits economically and the growing possibility of its opening, with reunification with the south increasingly likely, should we spend billions on a missile defense system that probably won't work to counter a threat that may never exist?" - John Kerry

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1995/s950804f.htm

While it doesn't seem that it was stated that they are the greatest threat it was stated that the DHS views them as a threat. After it came out there was massive backpedaling from that statement though. For sources see:
The Washing Times
CNN
The actual DHS report courtesy of Fox News
The actual DHS report courtesy of FAS if you don't like fox
CBS news

Looking at his bio, most of his work for FAS seems to be arguing against missile defense. He seems to be a bit of an activist. Basically, he comes across as a bit of an ostrich about Iran's nuclear program: nuclear weapons are bad, and war is bad; therefore if the Iranians are seeking nuclear weapons, it justifies ballistic missile defense (which he's against) and possibly an attack (which he's against) to stop Iran from reaching their goal; therefore Iran must not be seeking nuclear weapons. Not exactly a scientific chain of argument, but it seems to be the path he's on (based on that last link, and two of his other articles that I read through).

Neptunium-237 is weapon-usable as well.

Stock options are taxed when they are exercised, not when the underlying stock is liquidated.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31458.pdf

Yes - but you do realize that "Federal Court" and "Federal Building" are not exactly synonymous?

I started googling for more info, and found this PDF:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41138.pdf

Among odds and ends I found were a "federal building and post office", and several "federal building and federal court". The Pentagon and the US Supreme Court are both federal buildings. It seems that my own definition wasn't very accurate - even some warehouses are classified as federal buildings!

I'm afraid you've got some bad data. Allow me to refer you to this document from the IAEA which lists a number of activities connected with the design, fabrication, and testing of nuclear weapons, and developing nuclear materials. That 24 hour IAEA supervision you refer to isn't consistent with what is in the document - they are concerned about the growing number of hidden Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggest you read the Annex, from which I've extracted some relevant information. Sections C4 and forward are especially interesting. Attachment 2: Analysis of Payload, is a bit hard to explain if you want to maintain the fiction of Iran's peaceful intentions.

The short of it is that the Iranians are engaged in activities consistent with designing and testing the components for a nuclear warhead to fit on one of their existing missiles, and building secret uranium processing facilities to provide the nuclear material for the warheads. There isn't publicly available evidence to show that they have started manufacturing any real warheads, or that they as yet have enough nuclear material. They seem to be limiting themselves to putting the infrastructure in place. . . . for now.

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran
IAEA Board of Governors
Date: 8 November 2011

ANNEX - Possible Military Dimensions to Iran’s Nuclear Programme

A. Historical Overview

Between 2003 and 2004, the Agency confirmed a number of significant failures on the part of Iran to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the processing and use of undeclared nuclear material and the failure to declare facilities where the nuclear material had been received, stored and processed.2 Specifically, it was discovered that, as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s, Iran had used undeclared nuclear material for testing and experimentation in several uranium conversion, enrichment, fabrication and irradiation activities, including the separation of plutonium, at undeclared locations and facilities.3 . . .

. . . The Agency continued to seek clarification of issues with respect to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly in light of Iran’s admissions concerning its contacts with the clandestine nuclear supply network, information provided by participants in that network and information which had been provided to the Agency by a Member State. This last information, collectively referred to as the “alleged studies documentation”, which was made known to the Agency in 2005, indicated that Iran had been engaged in activities involving studies on a so-called green salt project, high explosives testing and the re-engineering of a missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a new payload.10 All of this information, taken together, gave rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. . . .

. . . Between 2007 and 2010, Iran continued to conceal nuclear activities, by not informing the Agency in a timely manner of the decision to construct or to authorize construction of a new nuclear power plant at Darkhovin16 and a third enrichment facility near Qom (the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant).17,18 The Agency is still awaiting substantive responses from Iran to Agency requests for further information about its announcements, in 2009 and 2010 respectively, that it had decided to construct ten additional enrichment facilities (the locations for five of which had already been identified)19 and that it possessed laser enrichment technology.20 . . .

C. Nuclear Explosive Development Indicators
C.1. Programme management structure

. . . the green sal

I'm afraid you've got some bad data. Allow me to refer you to this document from the IAEA which lists a number of activities connected with the design, fabrication, and testing of nuclear weapons, and developing nuclear materials. That 24 hour IAEA supervision you refer to isn't consistent with what is in the document - they are concerned about the growing number of hidden Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggest you read the Annex, from which I've extracted some relevant information. Sections C4 and forward are especially interesting. Attachment 2: Analysis of Payload, is a bit hard to explain if you want to maintain the fiction of Iran's peaceful intentions.

The short of it is that the Iranians are engaged in activities consistent with designing and testing the components for a nuclear warhead to fit on one of their existing missiles, and building secret uranium processing facilities to provide the nuclear material for the warheads. There isn't publicly available evidence to show that they have started manufacturing any real warheads, or that they as yet have enough nuclear material. They seem to be limiting themselves to putting the infrastructure in place. . . . for now.

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran
IAEA Board of Governors
Date: 8 November 2011

ANNEX - Possible Military Dimensions to Iran’s Nuclear Programme

A. Historical Overview

Between 2003 and 2004, the Agency confirmed a number of significant failures on the part of Iran to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the processing and use of undeclared nuclear material and the failure to declare facilities where the nuclear material had been received, stored and processed.2 Specifically, it was discovered that, as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s, Iran had used undeclared nuclear material for testing and experimentation in several uranium conversion, enrichment, fabrication and irradiation activities, including the separation of plutonium, at undeclared locations and facilities.3 . . .

. . . The Agency continued to seek clarification of issues with respect to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly in light of Iran’s admissions concerning its contacts with the clandestine nuclear supply network, information provided by participants in that network and information which had been provided to the Agency by a Member State. This last information, collectively referred to as the “alleged studies documentation”, which was made known to the Agency in 2005, indicated that Iran had been engaged in activities involving studies on a so-called green salt project, high explosives testing and the re-engineering of a missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a new payload.10 All of this information, taken together, gave rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. . . .

. . . Between 2007 and 2010, Iran continued to conceal nuclear activities, by not informing the Agency in a timely manner of the decision to construct or to authorize construction of a new nuclear power plant at Darkhovin16 and a third enrichment facility near Qom (the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant).17,18 The Agency is still awaiting substantive responses from Iran to Agency requests for further information about its announcements, in 2009 and 2010 respectively, that it had decided to construct ten additional enrichment facilities (the locations for five of which had already been identified)19 and that it possessed laser enrichment technology.20 . . .

C. Nuclear Explosive Development Indicators
C.1. Programme management structure

. . . the green sal

Shew, that's a relief. I think we can all rest easier now now the Jules has settled this matter for us.

I'll say.

IAEA Releases New Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Iran’s Top Atomic Official Says Nation Issued False Nuclear Data to Fool Spies
China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms

A US made nuke, good!
A NK made nuke, evil!

Got it!

Somehow I doubt it. Maybe this will help:

Good US, made nuke, OK. Evil NK, made nuke, evil.

Do you still get it?

... when one is marked as UNCLASSIFIED - sensitive, and the other is not marked with a classification at all (that I saw)? If it's not marked with a classification level the I believe that it is automatically unclassified and deemed suitable for public.

Here is an interesting paper on understanding government classification of information.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bagley.html

I would assume that usually it's overlooked because the differences are failry insignificant (according to the U.S. Congress's own investigation into the issue). Out of the countries the U.S. Congress looked at (most of which were included in this report), only 6 out 20 had any difference in how they recorded live births and even in those 6 countries the number of "excluded" births was insignificant. For instance, Norway doesn't count any live "births" where the fetus is less than 12 weeks old. If you understand anything about pregnancy, you understand that live births under those conditions are extremely rare.