DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
boingboing.net
boingboing.net
Rather like conflating the Tamil Tigers and the Lions Club.
That is hilarious.
I know humor is underappreciated here, but that deserves a million upvotes.
I cannot speak for what process the DHS or the TSA use, but what is done in the industry to ensure the person they're transacting with is not on some blacklist (which is mandatory, as per OFAC regulations) is using fuzzy string matching algorithms. Usually it's some variant of measures like the Jaro-Winkler distance [1], which is commonly used to compare names, or phonetic algorithms like Soundex [2], which we know is used by the US government for the census.
Unfortunately, these algorithms tend to work reasonably well for western names but not so much for picking up the subtleties of other languages and cultures, like "islah" (which apparently means "reform") vs. "islam". It wouldn't surprise me if the the DHS simply relies on automatic discovery algorithms and does not have a team of sufficiently trained people with both the language skills on call to do manual checks.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaro%E2%80%93Winkler_distance [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundex
It doesn't explain the subsequent incident where the government (apparently) placed her daughter on the no-fly list as well, and then went on to (apparently) lie about it in court.
There is no excuse to the government allegedly lying in court, but I have a hard time imagining anyone would do such a stupid move in their right mind. What could one hope to achieve by putting the daughter on the no-fly-list in the first place? That the key witness missing her flight would cause her testimony to be ignored? That stalling the process by a few days would tip the balance in their favor? That the consequences of the plot being discovered (which depended on the Malaysian airline keeping its mouth shut) do not considerably outweigh its benefits? Also noteworthy is that this particular case is an appeal to a first decision back in in February 2012 that the DHS won, for reasons completely unrelated to Dr. Ibrahim being or not being able to board the flight: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1438741.html
EDIT: Judge Alsup wasn’t willing to take any action today on unproven allegations or unverified documents. But he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”
http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/04/no-fly-trial-day-2-dr-...
I don't see anything absurd here. It's still not clear that cellphones are "safe".
>>Mobile phones are tested to ensure their emissions fall within FCC limits considered safe. The limits, however, fail to reflect the latest research or actual conditions under which mobile phones are used, liked being held in a pocket directly against the body while talking through an earpiece, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The FCC last month agreed to consider revising its 17-year-old guidelines.
I'm glad the FCC at least were open to thinking about it. I treat my cellphone as a possible biohazard and keep it away from my body. It's almost always in my backpack; about a foot away from my body and I almost never make voice-calls; I'm all SMS. I put in less than 45mins/month on voice-calls.
Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense?
Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?
Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold.
Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a...
This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Why would you argue that to be a number of any significant size?
There seems to be three possibilities here: A:you believe that killing randomly selected people will prevent more deaths than it causes.
B:you believe that killing a people does.
C:You believe that more people have died of brain cancer from cell phones than have been saved by them (in which case, statistics would be nice maybe? I might not look at your responce, so maybe not worth it to you.)
D: Some other interpretation of what you said that I haven't thought of.
A seems absurd, B seems absurd and possibly problematic, C seems false, but less obviously, D is essentially "other".
Is your claim that em radiation from cell phones (for signal purposes) can alter DNA molecules, Or is your claim that it can e.g. Allow mutant cells to grow or some such ( make it more likely for the cancer to spread and such, instead of being destroyed by the immune system (accuracy?))?
Go read what he had to say about the ordinance. It is more than reasonable.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042323_brain_cancer_risk_cell_pho...
EDIT: ouch, those downvotes...
Regardless, Alsup's decision in this case did not assume that there is no chance that cellphones cause cancer. He left himself open to that possibility. Hence more than reasonable.
Above that, infra-red light, which starts at around 300 Ghz, is again used for cooking, and it also is used for changing channels on your TV.
What do you think is special about mobile phone, wi-fi and microwave oven frequency ranges?
(edited for clarity and stuff)
Taken further, there's no need for anyone to be alarmed until concrete evidence is brought to light.
>Since falling prey to a violent reaction to his cell phone in 2002 he has spent the last 10 years researching the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on health. He now offers a complete solution on how to live a healthy life in our increasingly electromagnetic world.
dubfan, what you said might just be the biggest understatement I've heard all year.
"Electrical sensitivity" is the realm of quacks and the mentally ill, so I'm pretty unconvinced when someone who believes in that starts talking about the EM risks of cell phones.
Of course, that takes decades, and can't be proved before X is widely used - but it allows us to reason about the [lack of] deadliness of various wierd cultural habits, diets, etc.
It's that the DHS lawyer specifically told the judge that she wasn't and the daughter was lying before the documentation was produced.
The only way I see out of that accusation is by claiming that the airline was lying to the daughter.
That's potential disbarment territory afaik.
Prenda Law is another example of lawyers getting a little too clever and running up against a judge who is as sharp as a razor and not keen on legal fraud.
He'd be doing much better in the private sector, even as an associate in a law firm.
Dude shows up literally _everywhere_ www.google.com/search?q=Paul+G+Freeborne+attorney
* https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
* DADT (don't ask don't tell)
Should that be "It was finally declassified"?
I italicized the word "it" for the purpose of identifying that word as the part that changed. Is the italicization being interpreted as derogatory vocal stress?
I think most people (including me) didn't consider the 'I was declassified' interpretation because there was little else in the parent to suggest it, and because the phrasing was odd. Usually it is information that is declassified rather than individuals.
But if one was to ask for clarification, I think your second comment would be a good pattern: "I'm genuinely confused: did you mean X or Y?" Putting the burden on yourself as reader often comes off better than implying that the writer made a mistake, even if the real problem is that writer made a mistake.
(This isn't to mean that you shouldn't ever bluntly correct writers when they are wrong, just that in the absence of a pre-existing relationship it often doesn't go over well with the writer)
Thanks for the feedback on my other points.
And, yes, I do mean "how" and not "hoe". Autocorrect. More like automistake.
It's pretty scary that this is such a common occurrence with government orders.
Is there even an example of dystopian science fiction this crazy?
I don't think we can take that as a given. Saying that they are at least intended to appear to exist for a reason seems like a safer starting point.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/02/uk_immigratio...
Apparently it's also called "smurfing".
But Judge Alsup noted that the document with the DHS instructions to the airline was not supported by any sworn testimony or evidence of its authenticity. “You have to have a sworn record before I can do something dramatic.” Judge Alsup said he would consider the document if and when Ms. Mustafa Kamal arrives in San Francisco and can testify as to its authenticity.
...
Judge Alsup wasn’t willing to take any action today on unproven allegations or unverified documents. But he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”