Much respect to the the reporters committee for freedom of the press for their kickass FOIA letter generator .
FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit
Department of Justice
Room 114, LOC
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear FOI Officer:
Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of Any and all documents (including but not limited to) memos, electronic mail, presentations, briefings, meeting notes, guidelines and policies relating to "Tor", "onion routing", "onion router", and "anonymous/anonymizing proxy/proxies" . I am interested in anything that matches this description between the dates 01/01/2002 and 02/01/2007.
*edited*
Transportation Security Administration
TSA-20, West Tower
FOIA Division
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Dear FOI Officer:
Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of All documents including but not limited to) memos, electronic mail, presentations, briefings, meeting notes, guidelines and policies relating to the storage and or data deletion policies for the data from chemical/explosive analysis of passengers, passengers bags, items and personal possessions. In particular, I am requesting information on how long TSA keeps the data generated by the machines that perform the explosive residue analysis on the swabs that TSA agents wipe on passenger's bags/objects. I am also requesting information on how long data is kept from the "puffer" machines used by TSA (these are typically made by either GE or Smiths), which shoot air at passengers and then analyze the particles that are dislodged. In addition to this data, I also request any and all information relating to how the information is matched or associated to specific passengers, in what format, and held in what databases, if it is at all. The scope of this request is for all information matching this description between the dates of 01/01/2003 and 02/01/2007.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Friday, February 02, 2007
Tor: Lies or Ignorance?
I went to a symposium on Search and Seizure in the digital age at Stanford last week.
One topic that kept popping up was the so called "Creepiness Factor" of various surveillance technologies. Just like the 'ol government standard for obscenity, we can't quite define creepy surveillance, but we know it when we see it.
One of the last speakers of the day was an Assistant US Attorney - based in Silicon Valley, and who focused on cyber crimes. I'm fairly sure that his name was Matthew Lamberti. Fairly early into his talk, it was plainly obvious that his opinions did not mesh too well with the rest of the room - at least after he quite proudly announced that he didn't think it was in any way creepy to go through someone's trash. Facial expressions around the room quickly changed.
After his talk was over, I walked up to him, introduced myself, and asked him what he thought of Tor.
(I'm paraphrasing here)
"What's that", he asked.
I explained that it was an anonymity preserving system that enabled hundreds of thousands of Internet users to browse the web and communicate anonymously.
He replied that he wasn't familiar with the technology, so he really couldn't answer my question.
----
Back in November, when I met with the Cybercrime specializing Assistant US Attorney in Indianpolis, his eyes lit up at the mere mention of Tor, and he proceeded to give me a long lecture on the evils of the technology, and how Indiana University has no business doing anything that even comes close to anonymity-promoting research.
I find it shocking, yet amazing that an Assistant US Attorney who works out of the San Jose DoJ office - who prosecutes Internet/IP crime cases all the time - in possibly the most high-tech areas in the country, and who has never heard of Tor.
Are the Indianapolis DoJ more Internet Savvy than those in Silicon Valley? Did I catch Mr Lamberti on an off day, or what?
And that's where my latest FOIA request will come in handy ;-)
One topic that kept popping up was the so called "Creepiness Factor" of various surveillance technologies. Just like the 'ol government standard for obscenity, we can't quite define creepy surveillance, but we know it when we see it.
One of the last speakers of the day was an Assistant US Attorney - based in Silicon Valley, and who focused on cyber crimes. I'm fairly sure that his name was Matthew Lamberti. Fairly early into his talk, it was plainly obvious that his opinions did not mesh too well with the rest of the room - at least after he quite proudly announced that he didn't think it was in any way creepy to go through someone's trash. Facial expressions around the room quickly changed.
After his talk was over, I walked up to him, introduced myself, and asked him what he thought of Tor.
(I'm paraphrasing here)
"What's that", he asked.
I explained that it was an anonymity preserving system that enabled hundreds of thousands of Internet users to browse the web and communicate anonymously.
He replied that he wasn't familiar with the technology, so he really couldn't answer my question.
----
Back in November, when I met with the Cybercrime specializing Assistant US Attorney in Indianpolis, his eyes lit up at the mere mention of Tor, and he proceeded to give me a long lecture on the evils of the technology, and how Indiana University has no business doing anything that even comes close to anonymity-promoting research.
I find it shocking, yet amazing that an Assistant US Attorney who works out of the San Jose DoJ office - who prosecutes Internet/IP crime cases all the time - in possibly the most high-tech areas in the country, and who has never heard of Tor.
Are the Indianapolis DoJ more Internet Savvy than those in Silicon Valley? Did I catch Mr Lamberti on an off day, or what?
And that's where my latest FOIA request will come in handy ;-)
No ID on United: Piece of Cake
A trusted friend of mine flew out of San Francisco on a domestic United Airlines flight yesterday.
He realized earlier in the day that he had forgotten his wallet, and emailed me for advice/info. I sent him a pointer to the Appeals Court ruling in Gilmore vs. Gonzales, as well as a few news articles that tell you what to say at the airport.
He said he didn't have a single problem. The United check-in employee didn't bat an eyelid when he was told that my pal didn't have a single piece of ID. The employee typed in a few keystrokes on his computer, and out came a special SSSS boarding pass.
Likewise, at the TSA checkpoint, the person checking his pass shouted "secondary" and then let him bypass the entire security line. He was also able to successfully (and without any pushback from TSA) decline to go through the evil puffer machine, and instead opt for a hand pat down.
Total time to go through security: Less than 10 mins.
The knowledge that you were able to fly without presenting your papers: Priceless.
He realized earlier in the day that he had forgotten his wallet, and emailed me for advice/info. I sent him a pointer to the Appeals Court ruling in Gilmore vs. Gonzales, as well as a few news articles that tell you what to say at the airport.
He said he didn't have a single problem. The United check-in employee didn't bat an eyelid when he was told that my pal didn't have a single piece of ID. The employee typed in a few keystrokes on his computer, and out came a special SSSS boarding pass.
Likewise, at the TSA checkpoint, the person checking his pass shouted "secondary" and then let him bypass the entire security line. He was also able to successfully (and without any pushback from TSA) decline to go through the evil puffer machine, and instead opt for a hand pat down.
Total time to go through security: Less than 10 mins.
The knowledge that you were able to fly without presenting your papers: Priceless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)