Saturday, January 07, 2012


As knight follows day? (or as shark follows blood?)
By Dissent, January 6, 2012
Bob Brewin reports:
TRICARE contractor Science Applications International Corp. was hit with a second class action lawsuit filed in a California state court seeking unspecified monetary damages related to the theft of computer tapes containing the records of 4.9 million health care beneficiaries.
The latest suit seeks certification as a class action for all TRICARE beneficiaries in California whose personal identity and health care information were compromised by the theft of the tapes, which occurred in September 2011 in San Antonio. The suit was filed in December on behalf of retired Marine Col. Mark Losack in the Superior Court of California in San Diego by the law firms of Robbins Umeda LLP and Blood Hurst, & O’Reardon LLP.
Read more on NextGov.


News of my favorite agency... “We've been denying that radiation levels are high enough for concern, perhaps we should actually measure radiation levels?”
"TSA recently announced that it is looking for vendors of 'radiation measurement devices'. According to the agency's Request for Information, these devices 'will assist the TSA in determining if the Transportation Security Officers (TSO) at selected federalized airports are exposed to ionizing radiation above minimum detectable levels, and whether any measured radiation doses approach or exceed the threshold where personnel dosimetry monitoring is required by DHS/TSA policy.' A TSA spokeman claims that their RFI 'did not reflect any heightened concern by the agency about radiation levels that might be excessive or pose a risk to either TSA screeners or members of the traveling public.' Concern outside the agency, however, has always been high. TSA has long been criticized for its apparent lack of understanding of radiological safety, even for its own employees. There has been speculation of a cancer cluster, possibly caused by poor safety practices in baggage screening."

(Related) Think of this as justifying a bigger bureaucracy. Never think of it as assisting terrorist planning...
"I live in Boston, and I have noticed the TSA performs random security checks at the Copley T (subway station) and other locations. I routinely travel with a laptop, iPhone, and other gadgetry. What are my rights when asked by one of the TSA agents to 'come over here'? Can I say no and proceed with my private business? What if a police officer says that I 'must go over there and cooperate'? Can I decline or ask for a warrant? Like the majority of the population, I turn into an absolute shrinking violet when pressured by intimidating authority, but I struggle with what I see to be blatant social devolution. Has anybody out there actually responded rationally, without complying? What were your experiences?"
[From the comments:
The best part of your linked article:
"There are notices posted at the entrance to the station that the inspection is in progress."
Terrorist in Boston: "Well, I guess we should bring our bombs to Downtown Crossing instead of Park St!"
I mean, the way they're doing this, they're absolutely guaranteeing they won't actually catch a reasonably non-stupid terrorist.


Apparently, the surveillance cameras are normally not monitored in real time. A $1.5 million loss must be cheaper than real time monitoring.
Romanian Man Charged in $1.5 Million ATM Skimming Scam
… Between May 2010 and this week Laurentiu Iulian Bulat and others allegedly installed card-skimming devices that stole card numbers and PINs on HSBC ATMs in Manhattan, Long Island and Westchester.
The devices recorded information embedded in the magnetic stripe of bank cards as customers inserted them into the ATMs. Pin-hole cameras the hackers installed in the ATMs recorded the PINs as customers typed them on the keypad. The thieves would return to the ATMs within a day or two to collect the stored data and subsequently embed it on blank cards. Then using the videotaped PINs, they withdrew about $1.5 million from customer accounts over about seven months, authorities say.
According to an affidavit filed by U.S. Secret Service Agent Eric Friedman (.pdf), Bulat was caught on bank surveillance cameras on Thursday morning – and on prior occasions – installing the skimmers and pin-hole cameras and made no attempt to hide his face.


Another year end list...
Privacy Litigation — 2011 Year in Review
January 6, 2012 by Dissent
Craig Hoffman writes:
There were no bombshells or truly groundbreaking decisions in 2011. Courts continued to dismiss claims filed in the wake of data breaches based on findings that the plaintiffs had failed to identify any cognizable harm sufficient to achieve Article III standing or to demonstrate actual damages. A few decisions, however, show an evolution in the theories of harm alleged by plaintiffs that are getting plaintiffs closer to advancing past the initial pleading stage. Plaintiffs also continued to rely on statutory claims to obtain standing and recover statutory damages, both in cases involving data breaches and social media.
Read more on Baker Hostetler Data Privacy Monitor. In addition to recapping 2011 cases, Craig identifies a few cases to watch in 2012.


The wife is following this. Since the doberman turned out to be a wimp not to like the attack portion of Schutzhund training (a role taken over by the border collie) he has been shifted to tracking (AKA finding food dropped by the trainer)
Supreme Court will hear dog drug-sniffing case
January 6, 2012 by Dissent
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Florida v. Jardines, a case that presented two questions:
1. Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?
2. Whether the officers’ conduct during the investigation of the grow house, including remaining outside the house awaiting a search warrant is, itself, a Fourth Amendment search?
Certiorari was granted only for the first question.
Background materials on the case can be found on SCOTUSblog. Lyle Dennison provides a helpful summary of the issues:
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to clarify when police may use a drug-sniffing dog at the front door of a house, when police believe the house is being used in drug trafficking.
… In the drug detection case, Florida v. Jardines (docket 11-564), the Court agreed to decide one of the two questions raised. The constitutional issue at stake is whether police must have probable cause — a belief that evidence of a crime will be found — before they may use a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected “grow house,” or a site where marijuana is being grown. The case grows out of a Miami police officer’s use of a drug-detecting dog, “Franky,” in December 2006 to follow up on a “crime stoppers” tip that the house was being used to grow marijuana plants. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that police needed to have probable cause belief in wrongdoing before they could use the dog at the home, on the premise that the drug sniff was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
The state of Florida told the Supreme Court that the state ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent that a dog sniff is a search (sic) under the Fourth Amendment. “This Court,” the state said, “has explained that a dog sniff is not a search because the sole knowledge that the dog obtains by sniffing is the presence of contraband, which a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in possessing in the first place.” The petition cited the Court’s 2005 decision in Illinois v. Caballes, and argued that the Florida courts “are now alone in refusing to follow” that ruling.
In granting review of the probable cause issue, the Court opted not to hear a second question, testing whether police had engaged in a search simply by remaining outside the house while awaiting a search warrant. As is customary, the Court on Friday did not explain the refusal to hear that issue.
Read more on SCOTUSblog.


Another handy dandy math tool? Could be much better, but compared to my student's math skills, it's wonderful.
This new website lets you both learn and solve percentage problems. The site works in a way which means that while you're typing your numbers down, both your own sentences and related sentences will be solved simultaneously before your eyes. This is done as a way to let you understand how percentages work in a broader sense.
This online calculator is completely free to use, and an embeddable widget is also provided.


Think of this as free code examples (Python and C++ so far)
If you’d like to work on software projects that might one day send your code to Mars or on a deep space mission, NASA has some code for you to hack on. The Space Agency recently unveiled a new website, code.nasa.gov, to provide a home for NASA’s various open source software projects.
… Not all of the projects involve space, but if you’d like to try your hand at some code that tweaks images from Mars rovers or creates 3D interactive worlds, head on over to Github and grab a copy of NASA’s code.


Once upon a time, this was the role of “night school”
Website Gives Coding Lessons to Rogue Employees
… Codecademy is a website that gives you programming lessons. Its Code Year program sends weekly coding exercises straight to your email inbox. … Since New Year’s Day, over 200,000 people have made similar resolutions. And according to co-founder Zach Sims, even businesses are taking notice.
Right now, Codecademy focuses on three standard web languages: JavaScript, Ruby, and Python.

(Related)
Stanford University has increased the amount of courses it offers for free online and anyone can participate by enrolling in the January 2012 intake. The courses are run with all the benefits of an online university course, except you do not receive any credit for completion. [Figure a good way to give credit (or increasingly, certification) and you win the “New School Model” lottery! Bob]

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)