Politics

The largest known donor to Rick Santorum’s charity, The Operation Good Neighbor Foundation, is Preferred Real Estate, Inc., which donated $25,000 in 2002. Preferred Real Estate officers and spouses also donated $22,350 to Santorum’s re-election campaign and $6,000 to his Political Action Committee, America’s Foundation. Preferred Real Estate is the developer of the Wharf at Rivertown project in Chester, PA, the site of a former Peco Energy plant, which it bought for $1. Santorum’s campaign web site boasts of winning $8.5 million in federal funding for the Preferred Real Estate riverfront project, in the form of a HUD grant. He also obtained another $6 million in highway development earmarks to build access to the riverfront project from Interstate 95 and U.S. 322. More at the Philadelphia Daily News (via Talking Points Memo).

On September 1, 2005, George W. Bush said, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we’re having to deal with it and will." He was lying. He was specifically warned in no uncertain terms of this possibility, in advance. And the videotaped proof has now been made public: In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, risk lives in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage of the briefings. Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck on Aug. 29 but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared." ...

Bruce Schneier reports on the technical details of how about 100 Greek politicians and offices, including the U.S. Embassy in Athens and the Greek prime minister, were illictly tapped. What was originally referred to as “malicious code” turned out to be eavesdropping code in Vodafone’s mobile phone software that was present for law enforcement interception. The same kind of code is present in U.S. phone switches as required by CALEA. As Schneier points out, “when you build surveillance mechanisms into communication systems, you invite the bad guys to use those mechanisms for their own purposes.”

Michelle Malkin argues that the CFIUS process is a “rubber stamp” and complains about the fact that financing for the Dubai Ports World acquisition of P&O was underwritten by Barclay’s and Dubai Islamic Bank, which were “both cited as probable conduits for bin Laden money." This latter point, at least with regard to Barclay’s, is about as meaningful as claiming that Verizon Wireless is linked to terrorism because a terrorist used a Verizon Wireless phone, and arguing on that basis that Verizon should not be allowed to conduct business in the United States. Barclay’s is a global banking and investment company headquartered in London’s Docklands, operating the fourth largest bank in the UK. On the former point, the CFIUS investigation I am most familiar with involved a fairly extensive review, the rejection of one potential acquirer (the application was withdrawn and resubmitted without that acquirer, so doesn’t count as a CFIUS rejection), and the implementation of significant and ongoing security restrictions and review prior to approval. It wasn’t a rubber stamp, though it did seem clear that most of the government agencies involved were pretty clueless about the technical details (with the exception of the representatives from the NSA and some from the DOD, who were very sharp), and the government ended up outsourcing most of the ongoing oversight of the deal to a D.C.-area private contractor after the acquisition was completed.

From the Agitator: On June 2, 2004, police in the the Washington, D.C. exurb of Manassas Park, Virginia brought in a multi-jurisdictional narcotics tax force and officers from several surrounding cities and counties to conduct a massive, 70-90 officer SWAT raid on the Rack n’ Roll Billiards Club. The raid took place on Ladies’ Night, a Wednesday. Though the intent of the raid was to collect evidence of drug use and drug distribution by David Ruttenberg, the club’s manager, it was conducted under the auspices of an Alcohol Beverage Control inspection. Because ABC is primarily a regulatory agency, the guise of an ABC inspection enabled the raid to take place without a search warrant. ...

Talking Points Memo points out that Cheney sent out three surrogates to assign blame to the victim (who then apologized publicly to Cheney!), contrary to Mary Matalin’s claim on “Meet the Press”–even though she was surrogate #3!

Via Steve’s No Direction Home Page: Apparently presidential wiretapping is frowned upon–when it’s done by Clinton. Some of the reader comments are hilarious, viz.: “Any chance of Bush rolling some of this back?" “As quietly as possible (although it sometimes breaks out into the open, usually with the sound of gunfire and the death of innocents), a “shadow government” has been set up all around us my friend. It’s foundation is not the constitution, but Executive Orders, Presidential Procalamations, Secret Acts, and Emergency Powers." “This is wherein the danger lies in the precedent set by the Clinton criminal administration. God only knows who will be in power next, but there are no checks and balances anymore. This is exactly the SORT of thing I’ve been protesting all along. Libs just don’t see this!" ...

Larry Lessig’s blog has linked to an article by Bill Thompson on the BBC’s website arguing for “net neutrality,” a position that favors FCC regulations to prohibit providers from blocking access to competitors’ services and (in some cases, as in Thompson’s) prohibit them from charging content providers for access to different classes of service. I agree that providers shouldn’t be able to block access to competitors’ services (except, e.g., when necessary for security reasons, or as part of a service like content filtering being provided to a customer who wants it–but see below for my opinion on putting the FCC in charge of enforcement), but I don’t think I agree on the latter point. Thompson argues that classes of service beyond the distinctions which providers currently offer based on overall bandwidth are unnecessary. But he’s clearly wrong on that point–as more and more services which are sensitive to latency are added to the network (like real-time voice and video), the argument for putting those services into a higher class of service becomes stronger. Given the fact that there are currently several million compromised machines which are regularly used to engage in denial of service attacks, it is trivial for ordinary Internet bandwidth to be saturated–taking anything riding over that bandwidth out of service. More and more people are depending on Internet access for voice services, including emergency 911 service. If those services are set up without separating them from ordinary Internet traffic in some way, the risk is created that those services may be unavailable when critically needed. Throwing more bandwidth at the problem doesn’t help when you’re also throwing more bandwidth to that same set of compromised machines, which can multiply that added bandwidth in an attack. One way or another–and likely through a combination of methods, including better filtering mechanisms and separation of different kinds of services into separate virtual channels–action needs to be taken to protect critical services from such attacks. One thing that tends to be glossed over by proponents of “Net Neutrality” is that the most likely way of the policy being enforced is through regulatory action by the FCC. That, I think, is a huge mistake–these are the same people who can’t create regulations to enforce a relatively simple statute like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) without creating loopholes for telemarketers that are not permitted by the statute (e.g., allowing prerecorded or automated voice messages to deliver advertisements when there’s an existing business relationship), and the same people who think it’s more important to take action in response to carbon-copied indecency complaints from the Parents Television Council than to take action against telemarketers actively engaged in fraud. Adam Thierer of the Cato Institute makes some excellent arguments against putting “Net Neutrality” into effect through FCC regulation. Part of the problem is the vagueness of what’s being asked for. If it’s going to be set in place through the law, I would strongly favor that it be done as simply as possible through a statute that gives a private right of action (through injunctive relief or civil penalties for each day that access to a service is blocked for illegitimate reasons) and leaves the FCC out of it. The worst possible thing that could happen would be for the FCC to be given authority to maintain standards of access and turn it into an authority to maintain standards of content–and if you look at who’s running the Commission and how they deal and are planning to deal with content in other realms, you can see that this is a real concern. Disclosure: I work in network security for a global telecommunications company–one which is not an RBOC or cable provider. Our network (like that, I suspect, of most major Internet backbone providers) uses classes of service internally to differentiate voice, video, IP-VPN, and ordinary IP traffic. If the network didn’t use classes of service, the more sensitive classes of traffic would be vulnerable to periodic disruption by Internet denial of service attacks.

Security and cryptography expert Bruce Schneier gave a talk yesterday to the ACLU Washington’s membership conference at which he argued that massive automated wiretapping generates too many false alarms to be useful, as described in the Seattle Times. As a commenter on Schneier’s blog notes, mathematician John Allen Paulos (author of Innumeracy and A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market, both of which I highly recommend), writing in a New York Times op-ed titled “Panning for Terrorists,” makes the same point. The problem is essentially the same one that makes it pointless to engage in programs of blanket drug-testing of grade school children or mandatory HIV testing in order to obtain a marriage license–the population being tested contains such a small number of people who meet the criteria being tested for, which means that even a highly accurate test returns vastly more false positives than true positives. Paulos points out that a 99-percent-accurate sorting mechanism for detecting terrorist conversations, on a population of 300 million Americans that includes one-in-a-million with terrorist ties (300) will identify 297 of them, along with 3 million innocent Americans. That’s 297 true positives and 3 million false positives, producing a new sample population that is .009% terrorists and 99.99% innocent Americans who may be wrongly investigated.

As you already know if you pay attention to the mainstream media, VP Dick Cheney accidentally shot a 78-year-old man with a shotgun while hunting quail with him in Texas. His hunting partner, Harry Whittington, is in stable condition in a hospital in Corpus Christi, after being sprayed in the face (fortunately not in the eyes) and chest with shotgun pellets. Whittington, a lawyer who was appointed by then-Gov. George W. Bush to the Texas Funeral Services Commission, now has a great story to tell his grandchildren. (BTW, the title is a reference to a song here.) UPDATE: Pharyngula points out that the type of “hunting” Cheney engaged in back in 2003 involved having pen-raised animals released for his shooting pleasure. 500 farm-raised pheasants were released for the Cheney party’s entertainment, and they killed at least 417 of them, along with an unknown number of captive mallard ducks. I haven’t seen an indication that this quail hunting incident was of pen-raised quail, but that seems to be common. ...