As Expected, ICE Seizes 313 Websites In Its Role As The NFL's Private Police Force

from the government-overreach dept

Earlier this week, we predicted that either today or tomorrow, we'd hear about ICE and the DOJ once again seizing a bunch of websites... and here it is. This morning, ICE announced that it had seized another 313 websites based on its highly questionable legal theory concerning taking down websites without any adversarial hearing. Of course, lately it's moved away from doing site seizures concerning websites that deal with content/copyright issues, and focused instead on those it claims are selling counterfeit merchandise. Along those lines, ICE announced that it arrested a few people with counterfeit Super Bowl merchandise.

Of course, this is all for show. Waiting until just a couple days before the Super Bowl is pretty ridiculous, since if people were going to buy merch, they already did so. This is just ICE, once again, generating headlines for the corporations it seems to think it represents. As is his usual MO, ICE boss John Morton talked up just how "successful" this operation was, based on his own metrics, claiming "This just takes good old-fashioned police work, people getting out on the streets."

Funny, then, that he completely leaves out the parts where they seized legitimate merchandise and hassled the seller. It appears that, sometimes, ICE just isn't very good at "good old-fashioned police work." And that's especially true when it seems to be taking orders from big companies, rather than the public it is supposed to be protecting.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, dhs, doj, domain seizures, homeland security, ice, merchandise, super bowl, trademark
Companies: nfl

Feds Seize Legit 49ers Merchandise, But Apparently Unconcerned About Actual Fraud In Ticket Sales

from the priorities dept

Sometime in the next few days -- perhaps Thursday or Friday -- expect that ICE and the DOJ will announce excitedly how they've seized another hundred or so websites that they'll claim were selling counterfeit NFL merchandise -- and maybe a couple sites that were planning to embed streams of the game. It's become a Super Bowl Weekend tradition because the feds have nothing better to do, apparently. Two local stories that came out this morning, however, suggest that the feds' priorities are out of whack. According to a CBS morning radio report in San Francisco, Homeland Security raided a guy selling 49ers merchandise on the street corner at a gas station. They told him that they knew he was selling counterfeit material and seized it... only to find out soon after that the merchandise was legit. Way to do your research, Homeland Security: Meanwhile, at the same time, there was actual fraud going on, as someone who spent $5,900 on Superbowl tickets on Craigslist was scammed and sent a note that just said "Goo Ravens!!! LOL" instead. Amazingly, the guy who sent that put a return address on the package and had spoken to the buyers a bunch on the phone. So you would think that, perhaps instead of swooping down on legitimate vendors selling legitimate goods, perhaps law enforcement could be out there arresting folks like this scammer instead. But, I guess that kind of stuff isn't as important to big companies like the NFL.

Filed Under: 49ers, counterfeits, dhs, ice, scalping, scams, super bowl

DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network

from the look-at-that dept

Following on the story of IP addresses assigned to the major Hollywood studios using BitTorrent to distribute copyright-covered works, Torrentfreak and Scaneye are back pointing out that the same thing is true of all of the major labels and various parts of the US government. That last part is interesting, because they show that IP addresses assigned to the Justice Department, Homeland Security and Congress are all being used by people to distribute popular works covered by copyright. Here, for example, is just a snippet of the content being shared via IP addresses assigned to the Justice Department: Again, the same caveats to yesterday's article apply -- but the key issue remains. If the big content industry folks, along with government officials in the Justice Department are using evidence like IP addresses to make their case of infringement, it would seem like they ought to clean up their own homes first.

Filed Under: congress, dhs, doj, file sharing, homeland security, ip addresses, justice department
Companies: riaa

The DHS: Selling Fear And Uncertainty; Buying Sno-Cone Machines And Latrines-On-Wheels

from the blowing-money-fast dept

The Department of Homeland Security's stated aim of protecting the US from terrorism has been used as an ends to justify a variety of "means," many of which do little more than wreak havoc on civil liberties while spending a ton of taxpayer money. All sorts of questionable "solutions" to the terrorist problem have sprung from deep within the DHS, including $430 million spent on tuning its radios to a new frequency (which didn't "take"), alerting various law enforcement agencies on the dangers posed by food trucks and hotel guests, and so-called "Anti-Terror Centers" that failed to generate any useful anti-terrorist intelligence.

The above list is but a mere sampling of the wasteful and useless "programs" created under the DHS' purview. Now, a new report [PDF] by Sen. Coburn is exposing even more wasted tax dollars and questionable actions by the DHS. "Safety At Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in U.S. Cities" was published earlier this month by Coburn's office and is addressed to the taxpayers.

In the opening statement, Coburn points out that throwing money at the "problem" isn't working.

We cannot secure liberty and guarantee security simply by spending more and more money in the name of security. Every dollar misspent in the name of security weakens our already precarious economic condition, indebts us to foreign nations, and shackles the future of our children and grandchildren... We can only defend our freedoms by ensuring the dollars we spend on security are done so in a fiscally responsible manner, meet real needs, and respect the very rights we are aiming to preserve and protect.

Making a point about the rights that have been steadily sacrificed in the name of "security" over the past decade-plus is a step in the right direction. Sacrificing liberty for security isn't popular with US citizens, but we have been given little choice but to keep funding the very machinery that endeavours to remove our rights. Attempting to dig deeper into the damage being done usually results in the invocation of "state secrets" and FOIA requests are delayed, dodged or redacted to the point of abstraction.

Coburn's report deals with both issues, the rights erosion and the reckless spending. He points out that recent cuts to the program, trimming its coverage of major cities roughly in half, have resulted in some aggressive lobbying to restore funding to its previous levels. But, after reading what the money was being spent on, it's a wonder the funding wasn't pulled sooner.

The results of the investigation find that taxpayer money spent on homeland security grant programs has not always been spent in ways obviously linked to terrorism or preparedness. Importantly, this does not mean money was spent outside the bounds of what was allowed. The decision by officials in Michigan to purchase 13 sno-cone machines and the $45 million that was spent by officials in Cook County, Illinois on a failed video surveillance network have already garnered national attention as examples of dubious spending. Both were defended or promoted by DHS.

Other examples have not received as much attention. Columbus, Ohio recently used a $98,000 UASI grant to purchase an “underwater robot.” Local officials explained that it would be used to assist in underwater rescues.

Keene, New Hampshire, with a population just over 23,000 and a police force of 40, set aside UASI funds to buy a BearCat armored vehicle. Despite reporting only a single homicide in the prior two years, the City of Keene told DHS the vehicle was needed to patrol events like its annual pumpkin festival.

Thirteen sno-cone machines and an armed vehicle capable of protecting a town from the terrors of the local pumpkin festival. Any study of government waste will turn up examples of "blank check" spending, where money is thrown at any number of ridiculous purchases simply because the money was available to spend. Just as common is the fact that no one of any import ever seems to question the money being spent before it's actually spent. Any sort of reflection on the waste is almost always limited to hindsight.

More disturbing than sno-cones and festivals patrolled by BearCat is the propaganda created with taxpayer funding that actively exhorts citizens to report their neighbors for a variety of nebulous reasons.

Some urban areas used their awards for local outreach, holding conferences, creating websites and posting videos on how citizens can spot signs of terror in their own neighborhoods. A video sponsored by the Jacksonville UASI alerted its residents to red flags such as people with “average or above average intelligence” or who displayed “increased frequency of prayer or religious behavior.”

Broadly defined "suspicious behavior" is a great way to make every citizen a suspect... and justify every violation of personal privacy. If you need warrantless wiretaps or a reason to indefinitely detain US citizens, all you have to do is start listing everyday activity as "suspicious." The report also points out how ill prepared the nation would actually be in the event of catastrophic terrorist attack, thanks to the fact that FEMA itself receives funding through the UASI program, money that has been spent in an equally careless fashion.

In part, FEMA has done very little oversight of the program, allowing cities to spend the money on almost anything they want, as long as it has broad ties to terror prevention. In fact, according to a June 2012 report by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, “FEMA did not have a system in place to determine the extent that Homeland Security Grant Program funds enhanced the states’ capabilities to prevent, deter, response to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies before awarding more funds to the states.” Moreover, the agency failed to issue preparedness goals, intended to shape the use of UASI funds, until last year—nine years after the program was created.

At this point, despite several billion dollars worth of expenditures, the DHS and its affiliated agencies are still pretty much unable to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack. A lack of accountability may do wonders for politicians "bringing the money back home," but it does absolutely nothing to achieve the stated aims of an agency created directly in response to a terrorist attack. The report states very bluntly that the initial intent of the program has become little more than a new source of pork.

Dealing with the risk of attack requires understanding our limitations and focusing on the best things we do to prevent one—a concept referred to often as “buying down risk.” For programs like UASI that means establishing a framework for conducting a risk analysis and allocating resources where they are most likely to make the biggest difference.

Unfortunately, DHS and Congress have often let politics interfere, diluting any results. Instead of sending funds where they can have the biggest impact, money is spread around to parochial political interests. This ensures fewer complaints and broad political support, but does not necessarily mean we are safer.

As long term, well-funded programs tend to do, the UASI program has become little more than a charade played out to the tune of billions. Instead of focusing the funding and intelligence in areas most at-risk for a terrorist attack, expanding from seven urban areas to 66 over the course of the decade. Now that the list has been trimmed down to 31, the complaints -- and the dubious assertions -- are flowing back into Washington DC, in hopes of turning the money spigot back on.

Describing it as “a mistake,” on May 19, 2011, Rhode Island’s congressional delegation sent a letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano objecting to the Department’s decision to end UASI funding for the Providence metro area saying that Rhode Island is home to 1 million residents and is at greater risk of a terrorist attack because of its proximity to Boston and New York...

Often, those lobbying for large awards cited unlikely worst-case scenarios to inflate the threats they face. Legislators and some in the responder community from smaller cities argued that funds should be disbursed not only to obvious targets like New York City, but also to smaller locations. Some argued that since “terrorist attacks tend to start in smaller locales” and sometimes remote U.S. towns, these areas also need homeland security grants to help protect their communities...

This argument was made by officials from the Oxnard/Thousand Oaks area in California. Arguing against legislation offered by several lawmakers to limit the number of UASI-funded urban areas to 25, officials from the Oxnard/Thousand Oaks UASI asserted that “since most terrorists do not live or plan their attacks in the same city that is being targeted, [eliminating funding] may actually decrease the protection of other […….] Urban Areas.”

Oxnard/Thousand Oaks has been incredibly active in the "give us more money" arena, stating that it is "a safe community, but the threat is present all the time." This despite the fact that after receiving its initial funding, the governor went out of his way to assure the community that "no new information" about an "actual terrorist threat" had been received. It also asked for nearly $100,000 in additional funds to upgrade alarms and CCTV, stating that "minor security incidents have periodically occurred." During this same period of "periodic security incidents," the violent crime rate in Thousand Oaks dropped to an all-time low.

Here's a few more examples of what money can buy when no one's paying attention:

• Texas took in $1.1 billion in homeland security spending in 2011, which covered such purchases as a $24,000 latrine-on-wheels, a hog catcher for Liberty County, body bags, garbage bags, Ziploc bags and two 2011 Camaros at $31,000 a piece.
   
• A HALO Counter-Terrorism Summit held at a resort and spa, with an entrance fee of $1,000 per person paid with UASI funds. Counter-terrorism training was back-burnered in favor of tech demonstrations by visiting contractors. The only training that took place was a mock exercise utilizing "Hollywood magic" and a set with special effects, pyrotechnics and "state-of-the-art structures." The "terrorists" being "countered?" Zombies.
   
• In Louisiana, Jefferson Parish spent $45,000 on license plate readers -- which have been used solely to catch car thieves. Ascension Parish received $2,700 for a teleprompter, which was characterized as a "national priority to expand regional collaboration."
   
• The FDNY claimed $143,000 in "backfill" overtime expenses based on estimates rather than actual hours worked.
   
• The 13 sno-cone machines mentioned earlier? $6,200. Allowable because FEMA stated that could serve a dual purpose -- filling ice packs in an emergency.
   
• $45.6 million to Chicago for Project Shield, a network of surveillance cameras covering 128 municipalities. The program was ultimately shuttered.

There's much, much more in this thorough report, which details exactly how much money is being spent on a program with no end in sight that uses fear as leverage for additional funding. What started as a hurried response to a once-in-a-lifetime event has now become a vehicle for pork barrel spending, rights erosion and hundreds of "security" fiefdoms with their hands out.

 

Filed Under: dhs, sno-cones, terrorism

Apparently All That Stuff About Needing SOPA To Go After Foreign Sites Was Bogus

from the just-saying dept

Tim covered the story of ICE doing its annual censorship binge in seizing domain names without adversarial hearings (as we still believe is required under the law). However, there were a couple of additional points worthy of a followup. First off, if you remember, one of the key reasons why we were told SOPA was needed was that for all of ICE's previous domain takedowns it was "impossible" for it to take down foreign domains. Except... as ICE's own announcement here shows that was completely untrue. It seems to have had no difficulty finding willing law enforcement partners around the globe to seize websites without any due process:

...recognizing the global nature of Internet crime, this year the IPR Center partnered with Europol, who, through its member countries, executed coordinated seizures of foreign-based top-level domains such as .eu, .be, .dk, .fr, .ro and .uk. This effort is titled Project Transatlantic and resulted in 31 domain name seizures.

"This operation is a great example of the tremendous cooperation between ICE and our international partners at the IPR Center," said ICE Director John Morton. "Our partnerships enable us to go after criminals who are duping unsuspecting shoppers all over the world.

Yeah. Apparently it's possible for ICE to censor those sites if it actually does a little work and calls up its law enforcement pals. Another example of why SOPA was never necessary in the first place.

The other issue? ICE's own release shows that ICE appears to have no understanding of the intellectual property laws it's seeking to enforce. From that release:

During this operation, federal law enforcement officers made undercover purchases of a host of products; including professional sports jerseys, DVD sets, and a variety of clothing, jewelry and luxury goods from online retailers who were suspected of selling counterfeit products. If the copyright holders confirmed that the purchased products were counterfeit or otherwise illegal, seizure orders for the domain names of the websites that sold these goods were obtained from federal magistrate judges.

Note the confusion (or ignorance) here. Counterfeits are about trademarks, not copyrights. Most of what they discuss are items covered by trademark. But then they say "if the copyright holders confirmed that the purchased products were counterfeit." Yes, there may be some copyright claims mixed in here (especially with "DVD sets"), but for the most part this is about trademark. Why say "copyright holders" unless you're either willfully misrepresenting what's happening... or ignorant of the law you're supposedly helping to enforce?

We've complained before about ICE boss John Morton's apparent deliberate conflation of copyright and counterfeits in the past -- but usually it's just lumping them together. To confuse the two here, in an official release from a government group that's enforcing the law, suggests some serious problems. ICE is either ignorant of the law it's supposedly enforcing... or maliciously misrepresenting itself. That seems like a problem.

Filed Under: copyright, dhs, domain seizures, foreign sites, ice, sopa

Annual Cyber-Monday ICE Take Down Blitz 2012

from the nice-use-of-ICE-resources,-guys dept

It's cyber-Monday, the day when many of us basically go to Amazon.com and get a bunch of gifts for friends and family because going to the store this time of year is as dangerous as a North Korean prison camp. I say "many of us" partially to account for anyone out there who doesn't celebrate Christmas and partially to account for the hardworking folks at America's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who instead spend the day posing as shoppers to shut down internet sites that they think are selling infringing or counterfeit products and replacing their web pages with handy little ICE "naughty" badges (Just like Santa would do! Yay!). We covered their exploits last year as they went about taking down 150 domains, sans the websites in question being able to tell their side of the story. It's like justice, minus any of that annoying rights of the accused crap!

Well, ICE is at it again, this time taking down only 132 websites, in their effort to stop commerce they decide they don't like.

"This operation is a great example of the tremendous cooperation between ICE and our international partners at the [Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center]," ICE Director John Morton said in a statement. "Our partnerships enable us to go after criminals who are duping unsuspecting shoppers all over the world. This is not an American problem, it is a global one and it is a fight we must win."

As with last year, ICE appears to be focusing on trademark infringers and counterfeiters, but they haven't released the list of sites seized yet, so we can't be sure there aren't any Dajaz1-type screw-ups in there as well. Still, the question remains why they have to do this en masse on one day instead of going through the more tedious, though transparent, process of taking the sites to court. Yes, the article states that they are getting court orders to take down the sites, but why not actually drag site owners into the courtroom and give them a chance to represent themselves before shutting down their ability to operate entirely? Is it likely that most, if not all, of these sites are infringing some way? Perhaps, but given that we've seen ICE take down innocent sites in the past, why not err on the side of caution and actually follow the justice process?

I also find Morton's comment about this not being an "American problem" quite amusing given the annual cyber-Monday take down blitz. If this isn't an America-focused event, why is it being conducted on cyber-Monday, a predominantly American marketing term?

Filed Under: copyright, counterfeiting, dhs, domain seizures, free speech, ice, trademark

The DHS And FBI Present: You Might Be A Terrorist If... (Hotel Guest Edition)

from the glass-container-in-the-pool-area?-threat-level-upgraded-to-'orange' dept

As we seem to be told repeatedly, seeing something and saying something is perhaps the greatest duty an American citizen can perform in service to this country. It's simply not enough anymore to install an American flag in the front yard and purchase domestic vehicles. Now, every citizen should be keeping his eye out for (and on) his fellow citizens. The price of freedom may be eternal vigilance, but the price of security is endless paranoia.

To that end, the DHS and the FBI have joined forces to compile a list of oddities that might well indicate you are sleeping one paper-thin wall away from death personified (via Bruce Schneier's fine blog). 

Possible indicators of terrorist behaviors at hotels: The observation of multiple indicators may represent—based on the specific facts or circumstances—possible terrorist behaviors at hotels:

- Not providing professional or personal details on hotel registrations—such as place of employment, contact information, or place of residence.

[Place of employment? Seriously? "Alan Smithee, 123 Main Street, Anytown USA 5578H. Occupation: Death Hug Merchant."] 

- Using payphones for outgoing calls or making front desk requests in person to avoid using the room telephone.

[Payphones? Are terrorists unaware of "burners?"]

- Interest in using Internet cafes, despite hotel Internet availability.

[This seems to suggest that the Feds have already let themselves in the back door on the (sometimes prohibitively expensive) hotel wi-fi.]

- Non-VIPs who request that their presence at a hotel not be divulged.

[Let me get this straight: normal, "non-VIP" people will just have their information divulged to whoever asks, simply because they're not "important" enough to deserve privacy? Perhaps that should be posted on a sign somewhere up by the check-in desk: "All guests are created equal, but some are more equal than others."]

- Extending departure dates one day at a time for prolonged periods.

[Something only a terrorist would do. Let me give you a real life, happened-to-me example: in town to visit the famous Mayo Clinic seeking medical help for my wife. What started out as three days turned into seven days, with the stay at the hotel being extended one day at a time. Open-ended hotel stays: not just for terrorists anymore.]

- Refusal of housekeeping services for extended periods.

[This I believe. No one wants to make their own bed.]

- Extended stays with little baggage or unpacked luggage.

[Unless the staff have been instructed to do a little snooping in every room, how would anyone know how much baggage someone brought and never unpacked? No doubt this will soon make its way onto propaganda posters: "HAVE YOU PACKED ENOUGH? Traveling light is traveling with terror."]

- Access or attempted access to areas of the hotel normally restricted to staff.

- Use of cash for large transactions or a credit card in someone else’s name.

- Requests for specific rooms, floors, or other locations in the hotel.

[Close to the parking lot, ground floor. Convenience or criminal intent?]

- Use of a third party to register.

- Multiple visitors or deliveries to one individual or room.

[Ruthless cabal or post-prom drinking party?]

- Unusual interest in hotel access, including main and alternate entrances, emergency exits, and surrounding routes.

[IN CASE OF FIRE, PLEASE REMAIN IGNORANT.]

- Use of entrances and exits that avoid the lobby or other areas with cameras and hotel personnel.

[Like the one nearest your vehicle?]

- Attempting to access restricted parking areas with a vehicle or leaving unattended vehicles near the hotel building.

[During your stay at the hotel, please remain in your vehicle at all times.]

- Unusual interest in hotel staff operating procedures, shift changes, closed-circuit TV systems, fire alarms, and security systems.

- Leaving the property for several days and then returning.

- Abandoning a room and leaving behind clothing, toiletries, or other items.

[You'd think the Feds would be happy to have CLUES and EVIDENCE just laying around.]

- Noncompliance with other hotel policies.

[Ah. The handy catch-all. If the other points don't directly implicate you, then maybe something from this list will!]

So, to be a standup, non-terrorist citizen, here's what you need to do:

Pack for two weeks if you're staying for two days. Park your vehicle a safe distance away from the hotel, perhaps across the street or at another hotel. Leaving your vehicle dangerously unattended, walk directly through the main entrance with hands open and displayed in a non-threatening manner.

When registering, present as many forms of ID as possible. Be sure to mention where you work EVEN if no one asks. Brag if you have to. Hand out business cards to the staff. Let the desk clerk know that your stay here is no secret and that your room number should be given to anyone who asks, including those who don't ask. When asked if you have a room preference, answer with a bright, but unfrightening, "I've never had a 'preference' in my life! I'm easy to please and an American citizen!"

Head directly to your room, carefully avoiding eye contact with doors marked "Employees Only." Immediately unpack all of your luggage. Make several phones calls using ONLY the in-room phone. Call the front desk several times so as to avoid appearing suspicious. Return to your unattended vehicle and clone yourself using existing, but non-potentially-dangerous technology. Make no sudden movements and keep your ID and passport displayed prominently. Return one of yourselves to your hotel room, again using the front entrance in a non-threatening, flag-waving manner.

Stay in your room. Use the provided wi-fi. Avoid sites that use any form of encryption. Be careful not to stay in your room too long. When venturing out for something to eat or a non-suspicious conversation with the suspicious staff, avoid stairwells, hallways, exits/entrances, and connecting roads. On second thought, just stay in your room. This will make it easier to avoid being caught up in the middle of a personnel shift change.

If you must leave your room, smile and wave at each and every security camera. Lift your shirt to display lack of weapons, explosives or identifiable scars and tattoos. If purchasing anything from the hotel, use only credit cards, checks or DNA. Return to your room using the most surveilled route. Use the in-room phone to order room service. Turn down the delivery when it comes, stating that you're trying to keep visitors and deliveries to a minimum. Apologize for not having any cash to tip with, but explain that this lack of cash directly contributes (not monetarily, of course) to the safety of everyone in the hotel. Repeat this apology to housekeeping when they arrive, being sure to answer the door before they get to the second knock. Try to ignore their just-out-of-earshot griping about having to clean around the scattered contents of four large suitcases. Smile in a non-threatening fashion and shrug as if to say, "LOOK AT HOW MUCH I DON'T HAVE TO HIDE."

If you find that, despite your careful planning, your stay is going to be extended indefinitey, switch hotels. Pack all of your belongings carefully. Police the room for any stray socks, unused condoms or stealable toiletries. Turn the coffee maker OFF (if applicable). Leave in an unhurried fashion, but don't dawdle. Return to your attended vehicle and (most likely) dead clone. Drive to another hotel, preferably one a non-suspicious distance away and repeat the process. Once you return to your hometown, turn yourself into the nearest authorities for a thorough post-travel debriefing.

Filed Under: dhs, fbi, hotel, surveillance, terrorism

If You Eat Something, Say Something: DHS Sounds The Alarm On The 'Terrorist Implications' Of Food Trucks

from the basically-any-form-of-transportation-is-a-threat----start-walking,-citizen dept

It's interesting (or maybe just kind of sad) that various government agencies see possible terrorists everywhere but rarely, if ever, catch one. Despite the large number of personnel being thrown at the problem (along with lots of money), actual terrorists seem to be in limited supply.

But these agencies haven't let their lack of success temper their vision of a nation under constant imminent attack. Public Intelligence recently posted a Powerpoint presentation from the NYC fire department (FDNY) discussing the unique safety issues mobile food trucks present. Along with some actual concerns (many food trucks use propane and/or gasoline-powered generators to cook; some *gasp* aren't properly licensed food vendors), the presenter decided to toss in some DHS speculation on yet another way terrorists might be killing us in the near future.

That's right. Instead of serving up a quick hot meal, these food trucks will be serving up death, and lots of it! Under the heading "Terrorist Implications," the FDNY lists the exact reasons we should be concerned, most of which begin with the word "high." While any terrorist organization worth its twisted ideology would do well to nail down as much of this list as possible, so would any vendor who wished to stay in business. The question is: how do you differentiate between the two? One answer might be to sort through the data collected by all the food truck terrorism incidents up to this point. (American's fusion centers would like to remind you that zero incidents only means we're due, rather than indicating a terrorist-free trend.)

But there's more! The next slide continues to lay out the "Terrorism Implications," this time reminding first responders that food trucks have large quantities of deadly liquids (propane, gasoline) and are "easily concealed" (which I assume refers to the potential explosives, rather than the truck itself... but you can never be TOO sure). Also, food bombers will usually be in the proximity of "crowds" (gasp!) and "sidewalks" (wha...?). Dammit, now the terrorists have gone too far! It's one thing to blow up our crowds. It's quite another to ruthlessly attack our infrastructure, the very thing that keeps our precious crowds from milling about on the lawn and/or street!

But (dear lord) there's even more! According to the DHS, food carts make "excellent surveillance platforms" because of all the "high" stuff they can park next to for long periods of time. (Has anyone considered knocking on the door and having a quick look around, especially during business hours?) And I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to just park wherever they want for indefinite periods of time, at least not in New York City. There are 8 million laws in the Naked City, none of which are accommodating to the small businessman/woman "stealing" customers away from established restaurants paying exorbitant amounts per square foot every month.

But beyond that, why go through the expense of constructing a food truck when you can just rent a U-Haul, fill it full of explosives and ram it into the nearest high-rise/government building? Unless the DHS figures these terrorists are in it for the long haul, suckering people in with weeks or months of delicious ethnic food before parking across the nearest heavily-trafficked sidewalk and blowing everything up in an explosion of propane and proprietary blends of herbs and spices. Also, does it not occur to them that if you want to keep your terrorist activities hidden, it's probably not the smartest thing to set yourself up as a vehicle that people line up to look inside?

The DHS' unfocused "terrorvision" continues to see a threat in every situation and the department seems to be busying itself crafting a response to every conceivable "threat." The problem with this "method" is that it turns any slight variation of "everyday activity" into something suspicious. The number of "terrorist implications" grows exponentially while the number of solutions remains the same. This Powerpoint is another example of good, old-fashioned fear mongering, utilizing public servants to spread the message.

At no point does this presentation offer anything resembling preemptive action or deterrents. All it does is paint a picture of food trucks as potential threats before concluding with, of all things, common sense safety tips aimed at dealing with food truck fires. The final slide paints the picture in the clearest terms, letting the viewer know exactly whose agenda is being pushed:

Prepared by Lt. Timothy Carroll
FDNY Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness

The priorities are all screwed up. Terrorism is the first concern. Everything else is secondary. Considering this is an FDNY presentation, you'd think that "Disaster Preparedness" would be the priority. After all, they are the first response. But instead that honor goes to the vague menace of terrorism, a constant battle with no winners and, for the most part, no combatants. Every day without a terrorist act is a "win" that perpetuates the "need" for more counter-terrorist "efforts."

All that being said, the easiest way to tell that this "Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness" is all bluster and FUD is to take a look at its logo. Yep: MF EAGLE.

Filed Under: dhs, fdny, food trucks, nyc, terrorism

DHS: Our Reports To Congress Are Successful Bullshit

from the yeah,-we-already-kinda-figured dept

Okay, it's official. I no longer believe that our Department of Homeland Security is an actual government agency with important work to do. No, I now believe that it is a series of highly subtle performance art pieces designed to make us laugh at the sheer audacity of dumb government. We already know about the agency's boss, who is in charge of cybersecurity, not bothering to use the internet. And then there is the DHS's highly touted fusion centers being both a waste of money and a detriment to the very freedoms they're supposedly protecting.

But Tim K writes in about a rather stunning admission by DHS officials of a bogus DHS report on a water pumping facility. It essentially amounts to: "sure the report is a complete lie, but it was a successful lie." Don't believe me?

Officials behind the false claims told Senate investigators that such reports weren’t meant to be “finished intelligence” and that despite their report’s inaccuracies and sloppy wording they considered it to be a “success.”

“[It did] exactly what it’s supposed to do – generate interest,” DHS officials told Senate investigators.

Now, let's do some quick background on this report, less because it informs you and more because it's hysterical. About a year ago, a water pump failed in an Illinois water facility. In response, almost immediately, an Illinois fusion center (part DHS, part Illinois State Police) circulated a report blaming a hacking attack from Russia. Not soon after that report was circulated, the greater DHS office rebuffed the fusion center's hacking allegation as absolute nonsense. It pointed out, as does the linked article, that the allegation was pure conjecture based on the fusion center's inability to do even the most basic investigation.

Someone did access the water district’s SCADA system from Russia, but it was a water district contractor who was asked to access the system by water district employees, as Wired first reported. They had called him to seek his opinion on something while he was on vacation in Russia, and he had logged into the system remotely to check on some data for them.

When the pump broke five months later and someone examined the network logs to determine the cause, they found an IP address from Russia listed in the logs next to the username and password of the contractor. No one ever bothered to call the contractor to see if he had logged in from Russia; they just assumed someone in Russia had stolen his credentials.

It's worth noting that the water pump busted 5 months after this Russian IP logged in. In other words, none of this makes a lick of sense, except if it's the case of someone looking for a convenient scapegoat. "Hackers! Russians!" is apparently what these people went with, for reasons unknown to this author.

But the DHS report circulated to Congress, which DHS says is a success even though it's bullshit, was written up after they called out their own fusion center for making stuff up. I think most reasonable people would suspect that such successful excriment is part of the fear mongering around so-called cyberwars and the trumped up need for Congress to pass some kind of cybersecurity bill. But even the least cynical person would at least expect the DHS to correct their report and alert Congress to the pure made-up-iness of it. DHS has thus far declined to do so, because, paraphrasing DHS itself, the lie is more effective than the truth. Yay, government!

Filed Under: congress, cybersecurity, dhs, fear mongering, fud, homeland security