Whoops.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

The TSA's CLEAR program where people can spend $100 to be "pre-screened" at airports and bypass security had a security hit recently when a laptop (doesn't this get old) with customer data was stolen.

Well gosh, how could they ever have seen that coming?

Anyway, Schneier covers the story and links to the TSA's response as well as taking a moment to denounce the program again along with most of what the TSA is doing for airport security. Since I've met the privacy officer for the TSA and know he knows what he's doing, the only reason I can come up with for this is that they're not listening to him when he's telling them not to put this kind of data on laptops unencrypted.

Give us your laptop. Or else.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Schneier covers the recently released US policy for laptop seizure:

The U.S. government has published its policy: they can take your laptop anywhere they want, for as long as they want, and share the information with anyone they want

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Schneier covers two videos explaining why it's a bad idea to say anything to police when arrested or investigated.

The first video is a law school professor explaining why he's proud to say he will never talk to a police officer under any circumstances. Here are some highlights:

• There are tens of thousands of federal crimes. Many of which are so broad, you could be convicted under completely bogus circumstances.
• Example: If the IRS just wants to "Ask you a few questions" you say no unless they grant you immunity
• There is NO way it can help you. But even if you tell the absolute truth and are totally innocent, there are many ways it can hurt you.

The neat thing is that he gave up half his time to an expert law-enforcement interviewer. The second video is of that expert interviewer explaining some of the tips and tricks he uses to get people to talk. Highlights include:

• Any cop can follow you for a time and find a legitimate violation to pull you over for
• He'll come into the room with a stack of papers with a videotape on top (so they think there's a video) and just start doing paperwork. Because people hate silence, eventually the suspect will start talking
• He brings in a tape recorder and eventually says, "I want to talk to you off the record" and he turns it off. The thing is there's no such thing as "off the record" and every word in an interrogation room is recorded.
• While you may technically be innocent until proven guilty, a jury assumes that if you're sitting next to a defense attorney, you have a reason to be there.
• If you didn't know already, police are allowed to lie in interviews

The last thing he stressed which seemed supported by the rest of his talk was that he never tries to send an innocent person to jail. Which so long as the interviewer your talking to has that same viewpoint is very comforting. Since you can't know their intentions, I think it's safer to take the first guy's advice and not talk to the police without representation.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

The Georgia law caps fees for freezing or unfreezing credit records at $3, lower than most states, and requires the service to be free for people over age 65. The law also requires credit bureaus to lift the freeze within 15 minutes when a customer makes a request to buy big-ticket items like cars and TVs using credit.

Not bad at all. The only way the terms could have been better is if the freezes were entirely free.

Judge protects people from dirty traps

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Just to prove once again that California is one of the most progressive states for protecting consumers, a judge there has ruled against Sprint in a class-action lawsuit involving Early Termination Fees.

The lawsuit claimed that the fees did not offset the cost of phones and were instead used only to lock people into a contract. The judge agreed.

Go California!

George W. Bush

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

This makes me sick.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

Some DNA lab workers have found that, while DNA is truly unique, the process of looking at only a small set of "loci" to make a match between people has flaws. In one case, a match was made in DNA testing between one person who was black and one who was white.

Not surprisingly, the FBI has been hard at work to cover up these finding:

In July 2006, after Chicago-area defense attorneys sought a database search on behalf of a murder suspect, the FBI's Callaghan held a telephone conference with Illinois crime lab officials. The topic was "how to fight this," according to lab officials' summary of the conversation, which later became part of the court record. Callaghan suggested they tell the judge that Illinois could be disconnected from the national database system, the summary shows. Callaghan then told the lab officials that "it would in fact be unlikely that IL would be disconnected," according to the summary.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

There's still no way in Hades that I'll ever vote for McCain, but Obama has been sorely disappointing recently. First he voted for Telco immunity despite his promises to filibuster any such attempt. Now Republicans have cleverly used web technology to alert them (and us) to changes on his website. Specifically to the pages that list his policies.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

Schneier on the terrorist watch list:

The U.S terrorist watch list has hit one million names. I sure hope we're giving our millionth terrorist a prize of some sort. Who knew that a million people are terrorists. Why, there are only twice as many burglars in the U.S. And fifteen times more terrorists than arsonists. Is this idiotic, or what?

George W. Bush

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

Here's a take that I'm ashamed to admit I hadn't considered: Members of Congress may be protecting Bush because of votes they made previously that might seem to have supported his illegal activities. While it might not end in prosecution, it could end their Congressional careers.

So, of course key Congressional Democrats who were made aware of these illegal torture and surveillance programs are going to protect the Bush administration and other lawbreakers. If you were Jay Rockfeller or Nancy Pelosi, would you want there to be investigations and prosecutions for torture programs that, to one degree or another, you knew about? If you were Jane Harman, wouldn't you be extremely eager to put a stop to judicial proceedings that were likely to result in a finding that surveillance programs that you knew about, approved of, and helped to conceal were illegal and unconstitutional?