| Monday
September 24, 2001
First, several from Roland Dobbins,
who seems to read everything:
The new jingle:
Whatever happens, we have got
The B-52, and they have not.
[Unfortunately we have only about 50 of them, and
100 heavy bombers of any kind in service... JEP]
If it weren't for the anti-SDI sentence, I'd sing,
"Hallelujah!".
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens
Your papers, please:
http://www.drudgereport.com/id.htm
And we are in the best of hands...
http://www.kxtv.com/news-story/September2001/092201/CONDIT-COMMITTEE.htm
Another excellent Dennis Powell piece:
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3784/1/
Roland Dobbins
On the subject of "your papers":
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison sees the recent terrorist
attack as an opportunity to make a buck (or a few billion) by using his
database software to keep track of us, while the British government wants
to re-introduce national ID cards.
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/09/23/2235219.shtml
Ellison Wants National ID Card, Powered By Oracle
Posted by michael on Sunday September 23, @06:19PM from the
symbol-of-the-beast-is-ORCL dept.
cplater writes: "This article discusses Larry
Ellison's call for a U.S. national ID card, and his offer to provide the
software for such an initiative." There's an advertising slogan to be
proud of: 'Oracle, the Big Database behind Big Brother'. Or 'Oracle, the
All-Seeing Eye'. Or 'If it's good enough for Orwell, it's good enough for
your company'.
Update: 09/23 23:22 GMT by M: Richard Jones writes
"The British Home Secretary is considering compulsory identity cards,
despite the fact that such cards would not have made any difference in the
recent terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The British have
generally opposed their reintroduction since the wartime system of
identity cards was abolished in 1952."
[While most of the Slashdot discussion contained the
usual arguments against and for National ID cards, these posts about
Social Security Numbers and the INSPASS system are worth noting.
It helps if you change the default sort from
"Oldest First" to "Highest Score First" to read these
threads.]
Re:National ID is Good, IF DONE PROPERLY...
(Score:5, Informative) by EABinGA on Sunday September 23, @08:05PM
(#2339204) (User #253382 Info)
"The god damn SSN isn't used properly (my
f------ video store demanded I give them my SSN or I could walk out the
door w/o a membership"
I'll bet you did not have to show your SS card to
the clerk. Few people ever ask to see an SSN card; they believe whatever
you say.
If someone absolutely insists on getting your Social
Security Number, you may want to give a fake number. There are legal
penalties for providing a false number when you expect to gain some
benefit from it. For example, a federal court of appeals ruled that using
a false SSN to get a Driver's License violates federal law.
Making a 9-digit number up at random is a bad idea,
as it may coincide with someone's real number and cause them some amount
of grief. It's better to use a number like 078-05-1120, which was printed
on "sample" cards inserted in thousands of new wallets sold in
the 40's and 50's. It's been used so widely that both the IRS and SSA
recognize it immediately as bogus, while most clerks haven't heard of it.
There were at least 40 different people in the Selective Service database
at one point who gave this number as their SSN. The Social Security
Administration recommends that people showing Social Security cards in
advertisements use numbers in the range 987-65-4320 through 987-65-4329.
There are several patterns that have never been
assigned, and which therefore don't conflict with anyone's real number.
They include numbers with any field all zeroes, and numbers with a first
digit of 8 or 9.
Follow this link [cpsr.org] to see more details on
the structure of SSNs and how they are assigned.
Re:National ID is Good, IF DONE PROPERLY...
(Score:1) by astr0boy (ross@underscore.ws) on Sunday September 23,
@08:34PM (#2339285) (User #265689 Info)
"my f------ video store demanded I give them my
SSN or I could walk out the door w/o a membership"
i work in a video store, the reason a ssn is
required is: if someone steals a video the cops wont go after or allow prosecution
unless there is a ssn or drivers license #. We use ssn's because they are
less likely to be fake (it's insane how many fake ids there are).
INSPASS (Score:3, Informative) by Animats (slashdot-replies@downside.com)
on Sunday September 23, @08:33PM (#2339282) (User #122034 Info | http://www.animats.com)
The US has an official ID card now, called INSPASS [
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/howdoi/inspass.htm
]. If you have one, you can go through an automated express lane when
entering the US at major airports and some border crossings. Getting one
requires going to an INS office, showing a passport, being fingerprinted,
photographed, and having a hand geometry scan. The systems at airports
currently validate identity with a hand geometry scan only, but that may
change as the technology improves.
This is the system most likely to be expanded into a
national identity check system. At the very least, we'll probably see that
level of physical identification at all INS-controlled entry points.
Re:INSPASS (Score:2) by beanerspace
(abuse@[127.0.0.1]) on Sunday September 23, @11:59PM (#2339789) (User
#443710 Info)
Such a system would have not stopped the terrorism
of September 11th.
I was on the original INSPASS development team. Even
back then, there was always talk about expanding it to a National ID Card.
INSPASS is a voluntary program that expires after a
year. Hand Geometry is a "good guy" system. Meaning, I say
"Hi, I'm Bob Smith" and it reads a paultry 14 char. signature
and says "yup, you are, go on through".
Moreover, the signature is encoded in a machine
readable OCRB text type. The same print used on your passport. The big
reason, people didn't want "hidden" information on the card.
But as I mentioned earlier, there was always talk
about such a card. We prototyped a system back in 1994, which captured a
fingerprint and a face. It put the information on a smart card, and
printed the face on the card. We took it around to several security (esp.
airline security) trade shows. No one was interested. Even when we linked
it to printing baggage tags.
But what really killed it was internal fighting with
Govt types. At the airport, the system check out the "good guy"
against a database run and managed by U.S.Customs. Problem is, Customs is
Treasury and INS is DOJustice. Unless Bush stops the petty infighting
either by putting them under one roof, or by edict, such a system will be
difficult to maintain.
THen there are the Govt types who wanted to
"design" the ultimate system or card. No lie, one proposed
system captured one's face, finger and hand, then encoded the data on a
single card that included OCRB type, a Mag Stripe, a 2d Bar Code, a 1d Bar
Code and a smartcard/chip ... oh, with just enough room to squeeze in your
face.
Unless such idiocy can be removed from the process,
I'm very doubtful such a system will stop any bad guys.
Robert Racansky
Mr. Heinlein used to say that when a government
demands a national identity card, it is time to move on. On the other
hand, concern over illegal immigration moves one toward such an ID, and if
it is to be done it ought to be done so that it is difficult to fake. We
already have passports, Gary having failed in his attempt to issue
International Passports (which were in fact honored in India at one time:
I used to have one). I have mixed emotions on this entire subject, but
then I grew up in a simpler time.
On a technical subject
Jerry,
It's taken awhile, but it turns out that the best
solution to the Creative Labs soundcard lockup problem is to disable the
"higher-brain" functions of the Soundcard, that are enabled by
the AudioHQ software (I think).
MS has officially recognized that there is a
compatibility problem with this soundcard in article Q296838, and the best
fix I've discovered is to rename the devldr32.exe file, which will
effectively disable the advanced features of the sound card but will
prevent your computer from locking up on shutdown. (sigh)
Perhaps this is the kind of the thing that the
Driver Certification lab MS has established for Windows XP is supposed to
prevent?
-= Scott =-
Which is useful information if you need it.
And from Dan Spisak some good news
Jerry,
It looks like Deep Space 1 was successful in its
comet fly-by, pretty amazing considering the whole concept of DS1 as a
test bed for unproven technologies in space. More information can be found
here:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/release_2001_189.html
Nice to know we can still pull things like this off.
-Dan
And indeed it is good we can still do some things
right.
He tells us on another subject:
Jerry,
I was perusing The Inquirer and came across this
story there which I think you will find worthwhile to refer to people who
still believe that the video of the Palestine people rejoicing after the
WTC bombing was recorded 10 years ago:
http://www.theinquirer.net/240901204.htm
I think that this issue can be finally settled at
least, some closure is better then none I say.
-Dan
But it is now clear that there was celebration,
in Gaza and Nablus as well as Damascus and Daghdad. In Nablus film was
confiscated, and the celebrations were broken up by Yasser Arafat's
police, while Arafat went off to give blood and express public sorrow. The
tapes and films were not returned, but a few got out.
I suppose the real surprise is that there was
less of this sort of thing than you might have expected, but 60 Minutes
last night had for once a good report on arab views of the matter.
And from Racansky:
I just watched a "Fox Undercover" segment
(Fox News Channel, 23 Sept. 2001, 08:20 - 08:30 MDT / 10:20 - 10:30 EDT),
where reporter Deborah Sherman was testing the security at an airport.
Most of the tests involved smuggling harmless items
through the checkout points to see if the guards would notice them.
However, she also went through a stack of boarding
passes that an employee had carelessly left lying around, and entered a
restricted area after gaining an employee's door code.
For some reason, I have the feeling that any other
citizen would have been arrested for doing the same thing. At the very
least, Ms. Sherman should have been charged with theft and trespassing.
Does the First Amendment protect only journalists
when they break the law? If so, why?
Believe me -- the last thing I would ever do if I
did something illegal would be to tape it for broadcast on television.
-Robert Racansky Denver, CO
SEMI-SARCASM MODE ON
Did Ms. Sherman's cameraman even have a permit to
carry that concealed camera?
Even though only it is (probably) only a small
percentage of journalists who break the law, their inability to
"police their own" requires some form of reasonable,
common-sense, journalist control.
Media outlets should be required to get a Federal
Journalism License, to ensure that they really are in the business of
journalism-for-profit.
News agencies should be required to have their
employees submit to an FBI criminal background check every time they
broadcast or write a story. Usually, these checks are done within a few
minutes, but may sometimes take days.
This would not violate any one's First Amendment
rights, since the reporters would still be free to investigate and
broadcast their stories. The above reasonable, common-sense proposal would
only ensure that they do so in a lawful manner (except in designated
"camera free" zones, such as schools, airports, and other
government installations, since even law-abiding reporters who have passed
an FBI background check may suddenly turn into uncontrollable criminals in
these areas).
Just think: If the government had intervened against
the right-wing "hate radio" personalities which President
Clinton said motivated Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bombing might
have been prevented.
Since most reporters are law abiding citizens, they
should have nothing to worry about, and embrace these regulations which
are good enough for millions of law-abiding people such as myself.
SEMI-SARCASM MODE OFF
To say that I have no love for the mainstream media
is an understatement. However, government control of the press is a
really, really, really bad idea.
However...
If I have to beg the FBI for permission to exercise
my Second Amendment rights, and have information about me put into a
government data base, then why should I give a damn if the same thing
happens to other people -- especially if many of those people are the same
ones who think that controlling _me_ is such a great idea.
When the ACLU will defend the right of child
molesters to advocate their illegal activities (http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n083100a.html),
but not my right to talk freely at a gun show about conducting a legal
transaction at another time and place, the First Amendment becomes less
relevant to myself and millions of law abiding citizens like me.
SEMI-SARCASM MODE ON
If the law is supposed to apply to everybody
equally, then Deborah Sherman, Venessa Leggett (see below), Vince DeMetri
(see below), David Martin (see below), and countless other members of the
Fourth Estate should be rotting in jail.
SEMI-SARCASM MODE OFF
Oh, wait, Ms. Leggett is in jail, because the court
decided that she is not a journalist, and therefore not entitled to First
Amendment protections.
SARCASM MODE ON
Maybe Michael Moore is right. Maybe the problem with
America is that we do not have a "dominant, state controlled
media." [Interview on the REM web site. Link has since gone bad:
http://www.murmurs.com/news/newsstory/index.asp?newsid=2382 ].
At least government control of the media would keep
reporters honest, just as it does everyone else.
SARCASM MODE OFF
PPS:
R.W. Bradford wrote an article documenting more law
breaking by reporters in LIBERTY magazine ("License to Steal"
May 1997), available at http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/59bradford.html
See also David Kopel's "Redefining
Justice" [NATIONAL REVIEW Online, 27 August 2001] at http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel082701.shtml
This is about Venessa Leggett, a scholar who is currently in prison for
refusing to become an FBI informant. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
decided that Ms. Leggett is not entitled to the special protection that
journalists enjoy before the law; therefore, the government may abuse her.
While the government's treatment of Ms. Leggett is
abusive and shameful, it's hard for me to get really upset about it, for
the reasons stated above.
Racansky Robert wrote:
> Do CBS reporters think they're above the law?
And if so, why? > > CBS reporter Vince DeMetri claimed to be an
agent from the Bureau of > Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) to
gain access to the World Trade > Center [full story below]. > >
Los Angeles Sheriff's deputies and the BATF tried to arrest James Beck in
> Santa Clarita, CA, last month for impersonating a federal officer.
This > led to a shootout, a dead deputy, and Beck's house being burned.
(The > BATF was involved because Beck was also suspected of illegally
> possessing firearms as a convicted felon). > > In 1989, on a
program about "assault weapons," CBS reporter David Martin >
broadcast his illegal conversion of a semi-automatic rifle to a >
full-automatic rifle ["48 Hours". March 16, 1989]. CBS received
a letter > of reprimand from the BATF [REASON magazine. November 1995.
> http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.html]. When David Koresh was
suspected of > illegally converting firearms to machine guns, the BATF
sent 76 agents > armed with machine guns and helicopters to arrest him.
> > And don't even get me started about those "Press Vehicle
Only" parking > spots... > > http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/9/15/215548
> > Saturday, Sept. 15, 2001 10:51 p.m. EDT > CBS TV Reporter
Arrested at Disaster Site > >
I have mixed emotions here, but one of the oldest
principles of English Common Law (and Roman Law for that matter) involves mens
rea, guilty intent. Motives are important, and not only can but should
be taken into account by juries, and therefore by prosecutors. I think the
court and jury system, while far from perfect, is one reasonable way to
protect this kind of right: and I do think that the right of journalists
to test a government protection system is important to us all. Perhaps I
am wrong here, but I think intent is important; and in the case of a
'fake" journalist having clearly inappropriate intentions, again I
think the jury system may be applicable.
Hi Dr. P -
After I'd quit searching, I stumbled across the
lyrics at http://www.acronet.net/%7Erobokopp/scottish/lykewake.htm
Charles Barnett
He refers to the old drinking song that Poul
Anderson, Gordy Dickson, and I used to sing at conventions. This is the
complete words, and thanks.
Regarding the IRA and extradition:
Re: comments on US not extraditing provos, I think
that's a reference to the Joe Doherty case, where a convicted provo spent
8 years being held on immigration violations before the extradition court
battle was settled. Some politicians were opposing his return to the UK.
I don't have a good link on the case, but this bit
of Provo propaganda seems to have most of the facts: http://liamhughes.home.mindspring.com/doc.html
Karl Gallagher
Note that the person in question was being held
in jail.
TOP
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
