Category: Security


A common trope in comment threads across the Internet on articles about Facebook’s recent, myriad, astounding privacy fuck-ups is “Just don’t post anything on the Internet that you don’t want your employer or grandma to see. LOL DUUUUHH.” This isn’t terrible advice, but it completely misses the point.

There’s nothing on my Facebook profile that would be actually embarrassing or harmful if it became accessible by the public. But I keep my privacy settings as high as I can because I’m only interested in sharing that information with my friends. It wouldn’t be *terrible* if someone I wasn’t friends with saw it. I’m just not interested in sharing with marketeers or random Internet people. It’s none of their business. And that’s reason enough.

Take another security context. I’m not opposed to strip-searches or backscatter X-rays at the airport because I’m secretly hiding weapons or drugs. I’m opposed to them because my body is simply none of the TSA’s goddamn business. I’m opposed to unwanted exposure for its own sake, not because I’m fearful for the consequences of whatever’s exposed. And, again, that’s reason enough to be opposed.

Additionally, in the words of Cory Doctorow, “In any other context, making public something previously promised to remain private [as Facebook has done] is called ‘lying.’” Facebook has broken a promise made to its millions of users that they would empower them to control who saw their content. It’s broken its own freaking list of Principles for site governance. Facebook has lost its users’ trust; we have no faith in Mark Zuckerberg’s integrity or that of the rest of the company. It deserves to die.

An article ran in the Star Tribune today about the Kelsey Smith Act, a bill being presented in the MN legislature that would require phone companies to triangulate and disclose the location of a cell phone whenever the police ask for it. No court order or subpoena needed.

It’s being billed as a way to find kidnapping victims. And indeed, triangulating cell signals is an important tool for finding lost people—that’s how James Kim’s family was found. But no court oversight whatsoever? Making it possible for the police to get the whereabouts of any cell phone owner, regardless of whether or not there is a real emergency? Creepy!

What’s so bizarre isn’t that people are willing to hand over that kind of authority to the cops, or don’t think through the privacy implications of their proposals. It’s that discussion of the privacy implications of this bill is nowhere to be found in the article. There’s just no mention. It’s presented as this common-sense bill that will save children. Are privacy advocates so few and far between that the writer completely failed to think of the civil liberties angle of the story? Or was it edited out?

I imagine that would work as a title for a majority of my posts…

Anyway, first, a book! Cory Doctorow’s new novel, “Little Brother” (like “Big Brother” from 1984, ha ha), just came out. Like all his other work, Cory’s made it available for free under a Creative Commons license. Though, if you like it, buy a copy for a friend, or for a poor teacher or librarian!

It’s the kind of book I wish I’d had sophomore year of high school. Plenty of characters, including well-meaning ones, espousing the same old passive, scared-as-hell, “the world is different now therefore all rights violations are justified” authoritarian* arguments. It’s a daring portrait of resistance to that worldview and its enforcement. Despite the sci-fi label, virtually all of the tech in the story is current. As is the political climate described…which means it really hits close to home.

I really want to believe the “the answer to all questions is 9/11!!!” meme is waning, what with the dissolution of Giuliani’s campaign. I wish that the country was starting to grow a pair**, defend the Bill of Rights, and weigh the costs and benefits of security policies with the rational awareness that terrorism is a micro-risk among the myriad security problems our country has, like car accidents, identity theft, levees stuffed with newspaper, and basic infrastructure falling down. But I think that’s a bit too optimistic.

So go read.

Second, I just discovered this Minnesota band Cloud Cult thanks to The Current. (Yeah, I know, late to the party.) I’m currently obsessed with the single from their new album, “Everybody Here Is a Cloud.” Here’s the video–shot with random fans in Como Park!

***

* Is there a better term for “anti-civil libertarian”?

** I can’t think of a non-gendered way of putting this idea: “grow some balls”? “man up”? There’s “grow a spine,” but to me that implies standing up for yourself, as opposed to refusing fear in general.

Link. Basically, twenty friends decided to celebrate my favorite founding father’s birthday by going to his monument at midnight and having a dance party. In order to not disturb other visitors (yes, the monument’s open 24 hours), they used iPods instead of a boombox. Park cops show up, tell them to get out, one girl asks “why?” (just that, why) and is immediately arrested and hauled downtown. She’s since been released, with a charge of “interference with agency duties”, whatever that is (just screams “catch-all”…).

“Nobody puts Baby in a corner [cell]!”

I participated in something similar last year–the Harvard free culture conference Dance Conspiracy where we danced around the streets of Cambridge to someone’s laptop broadcasting short-range radio. You’d think that enough flash mob-style dance events have happened by now to make them clearly non-dangerous (as if they were ever legitimately scary to begin with; it’s a bunch of happy people dancing, for Christ’s sake! It’s like the opposite of terrorism!)

To hell with the War on Fun. When I go back to DC, dancing at the Jefferson Memorial is at the top of my list of things to do.

So, as you may already know, yesterday there was a bomb threat at Malott Commons. The dining hall was closed for breakfast and lunch, Motley Coffeehouse and the Scripps Store were closed, cops were on campus all day, and at dinner there were mandatory bag searches. So it goes.

Well, the first odd thing about the event was the description they got of the suspect: “white male, tall, dirty blonde, unkept hair almost like dreadlocks, somewhere between 20 and 40, with blisters on his hands.” I have no idea how they got a description of the guy within hours, given that the threat was made via a phone call. Furthermore, how can they have specific details like his hairstyle or blistered hands–yet have an age range from 20 to 40? If this were fiction it’d be unbelievable.

Anyway. That evening, the Store held its weekly manager meeting and we found out that Scripps College was expecting us to search everyone’s bags as they entered the Store. More specifically, the email said that the Motley would be doing this too, so we should send two managers to bag-search training at 7:30 AM Wednesday. Funny enough, the Motley got a very similar email, implying to them that the Store had already agreed to do this. Funny thing, playing two student businesses off each other. Surely the Motley managers would never come over to the store meeting and actually COMMUNICATE with their peers about this issue!

Well, they did. The Store had been willing to roll over this issue (my stalwart opposition to security theatre notwithstanding) because bag searches were somewhat more feasible for us. We only have one door and we get far fewer customers than the Motley does. However, as we talked with them our serious discomfort with being put in the position of searching our peers’ bags for bombs gained voice. The Motley had much more to lose (besides the higher volume of traffic, they have more baristas needing hours and they have perishable items) but as an activist-oriented establishment they also had a more vocal conscience. Since Dean Wood had apparently dismissed all of the Motley head manager’s emails out of hand, we decided to write a joint missive:

Dear Dean Wood,

Tonight representatives from the Scripps Store and the Motley Manager teams met to discuss the planned bag searches. We have the following concerns:

* We feel strongly that our businesses should be open tomorrow to promote a sense of normalcy on campus. We believe students are looking for this.
* Beyond this, we have financial concerns including perishable items, lost wages, and lost income.
* However, we feel that if it necessary that bags be searched for hazardous items then this is a situation serious enough for professional security staff to handle.
* Many of our employees have only been on the job a few weeks. Never are our employees trained for this type of customer interaction.
* We do not feel comfortable with other students searching our items. As students we feel this is probably representative of our peers.
* We do not feel students should be made into security guards, both in terms of infringing on our peers’ privacy and in being in a position which could possibly compromise our personal security.
* We feel that taking on security responsibilities will impinge on our already-busy schedules and impede our academic lives.

We want to be flexible and accommodating in this stressful time, and to work together to ensure the security of our community.

If the bag searches are truly “overkill” then perhaps they are not necessary. If you do feel this is a necessary measure to ensure our security then we believe professional staff should lead these measures.

Managers from both organizations will meet with you tomorrow morning in DOS to further discuss these issues. Please feel free to email us any thoughts or responses tonight as well.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

The Motley and Scripps Store Manager Teams

There were other concerns besides those listed. Practically speaking, only one or two managers from each business would be attending this 7:30 “training” session. Everyone else–the other managers, the baristas, the cashiers–would have to learn by word-of-mouth, each shift training its successor. TSA training via an all-day game of “telephone” is a terrible idea!

Furthermore, what if we did find a bomb? What the hell are we supposed to do? If Scripps College is going to turn students into security guards, it MUST do so with the understanding that our discovering and handling a bomb is a possibility. (Otherwise, why are we doing the searches?) If that is the case, if any of us were to get blown up while performing this duty, beside the base moral negligence involved the college is setting itself up for the MOTHER of all liability lawsuits–not only were we blown up on their watch, the college actively put students in harm’s way by being too cheap to hire professionals. What do you think parents would think about that?

So. 7:30 AM.

The Motley had already decided to close. They begin opening at 7:15 and had to make a decision before then. They already get lines out the door on a regular basis–what employees are they supposed to spare to search all of those people? Furthermore, you can’t expect the Mot to just roll over when it comes to civil liberties and the sense of community on campus.

As for me personally, I had already determined to be a conscientious objector on this issue. I would still perform my shift as faux-security guard–we would have enough schedule issues meeting this mandate *without* me flaking on my fellow managers–but I would refuse to touch anyone’s bags.

Still we met with Dean Wood, in order to try and have our concerns addressed–or at least respected. Didn’t happen.

Dean Wood compared attending a half-hour bag-searching training session and being drafted into security guards on-the-cheap to students volunteering for the Scripps search-and-rescue team. “During certain times, you have to do things you don’t want to do.” Well, we want to save lives. We want to save our peers from fires and floods and earthquakes. (That’s why we volunteer to do such things!) I don’t want to rummage through my classmates’ purses. If I did, I’d work for the TSA. They pay a helluva lot better than $8.25 an hour (and I wouldn’t have to pay $40,000/year to come to the airport!).

Dean Wood said that she didn’t expect anyone to bomb Malott Commons. The bag searches were purely a deterrent. “Because they do bag searches at the airport, people know they can’t get guns or knives through.” (Except that you can, 90% of the time…) She’s right–if the guy was actually serious about attacking Scripps, and wasn’t a suicide bomber, perhaps us 20-year-old faux-security guards might possibly maybe make him bomb Garrison instead. Yay?

Regardless, every security measure–including purely theatrical ones–must have its benefits outweigh the costs. We’ve mentioned plenty of costs of this policy. Don’t they matter?

Nope. Dean Wood said our concerns about students searching students “are not valid.” That was it. That’s precisely all the time she gave to the bulk of our concerns. It doesn’t matter if actual students aren’t comfortable with this policy, the imaginary “students” that the administration apparently works for clearly want their anti-terrorism protections and private belongings placed in our hands.

We could have compromised. They aren’t doing bag searches for the mailroom–they’re just requiring you to have your keycard to get in. If that’s the standard, we could easily just require a 5C (or even just Scripps) ID for entrance into the Motley and the Scripps Store. I’m pretty sure no Scripps student is going to fit the profile of a 20-to-40-year-old dreadlocked male. That would be far more practical than searching all of our customers. But I guess there’s no interest in reaching a reasonable middle ground.

Anyway. Dean Wood told us that both the Store and the Motley would be closed again today. She said that things would “probably” go back to normal tomorrow; I guess we’ll see.

I’d like to think that our concerns had some sort of impact on this administration–before this they were talking as if these extra security measures would last the week. Perhaps the prospect of shutting down two major campus organizations for that long motivated some people to come within shouting distance of their senses.

But fundamentally, Dean Wood doesn’t give a crap about students as “strong women” (read: adults, not children). This refrain has been affirmed time and time again with virtually any (non-passive) interaction with the administration. Try and change a policy, any policy, on this campus. See how it goes. It went this way with the anti-styrofoam campaign, it went this way with Killer Coke, it went this way with movements to promote the unionization of dining hall workers, it continually goes this way with organizations such as the Motley that have to work with the Scripps administration on a regular basis. At Scripps College, students might be encouraged to radically question the authorities outside the bubble, but we are expected to cheerily follow the whims of the authorities within it.

The Motley and the Scripps Store management teams’ problems with violating your privacy and dealing with potential BOMBS with only a half-hour’s worth of training? “Those concerns are not valid.”

Tee hee. Hahahaha. BAHAHAHAHAHA

School shooting is now a meme, the dead horse called political integrity is being beaten again, and torture is now not only practiced by the US, but legal too (coughgotohellColemancough)! Damn it’s been a good week!

I think my homesickness has just been cured.

[Edit: In case you couldn't figure out what's wrong with the picture, that's okay. Neither could the Associated Press.]

“Every time Bruce Schneier writes a fully general halt-checker, God kills a passenger pigeon. This is why passenger pigeons are extinct.”

Bruce Schneier facts. Like Chuck Norris facts, only better.

This, of course, is Schneier’s actual site. Less humorous, perhaps, but a great read.

On a somewhat related note, an interesting discussion of the feasibility of the liquid explosives plot, by a chemistry student. Read and think.

So I’m sure y’all have heard of the latest airport security hullabaloo–the British government foiled a potential terrorist plot and arrested some 21 people. And then decided that having done this, the public was LESS, not more, secure (??), and banned all carry-ons except for some very specific items:

* Pocket size wallets and pocket size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards etc (not handbags);

* Travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and travel tickets);

* Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (e.g. diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic;

* Spectacles and sunglasses, without cases;

* Contact lens holders, without bottles of solution;

* For those traveling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger);

* Sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags);

* Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (e.g. tampons, pads, towels and wipes) tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs;

* Keys (but no electrical key fobs)

(all of the above must be in a clear plastic bag)

So far, American officials have not taken such draconian measures. Instead, they are making passengers throw out all their toothpaste, lip gloss, and Starbucks in the name of National Securityâ„¢. There have been no reports yet of any exploding trash cans at checkpoints, but one must question the wisdom of *intentionally mixing* a whole buttload of potentially explosive liquids in the middle of a crowded security line… My Nalgene and I are grateful that I flew yesterday.

There are rumors, however, that the TSA may extend its restrictions to be as recockulous as the Brits’. All I can say is that, if extended, these measures had better be short-term (read: a week or less) and in response to a very specific threat (like, if they know that members of the plot are still active, at large, and planning to carry out the attack imminently). Other than that, it’s simply not worth it. To paraphrase Cory Doctorow, even if they strapped down, stripped naked, and tranquilized air passengers, one cannot underestimate the amount of semtex and roofing nails a dedicated man can hide in his colon. The point is–we will never be 100% safe. Giving up our liberties in pursuit of an unattainable goal is stupid. Beyond a certain point, the trade-off isn’t worth it. A mature, level-headed “home of the brave” (and its government) would recognize those simple, simple facts and SUCK IT UP. But, alas, the Bush administration is neither Churchill nor FDR.

I don’t trust the people who search checked luggage with my Zachary. They steal things and the administrative procedures for getting reimbursed are terrible. I sure as hell am NOT getting on a eight hour long transatlantic flight without at least a goddamn book. If carry-on items were a reasonable security trade-off yesterday, they should be a reasonable security trade-off now–short of a very specific, short-term reason to think otherwise. They can take my carry-on luggage from my cold dead fingers, dammit.

Creative Commons License
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Powered by WordPress.
Theme NewRiver by Karen Rustad, based on Motion by 85ideas.