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]