7 ms·

> "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers." Then apparently the lives of New

> "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers." Then apparently the lives of New Yorkers are protected by security through obscurity, with absolutely no evidence of efficacy and absolutely no auditable evaluation of safety. I'm thinking that a strong education in science should be a requirement for anyone who touches these programs with a ten foot pole.

munin 12y ago
There's a difference between "secrecy" and "security", and when people complain about how releasing some information would hamper / endanger lives, they mean that some amount of secrecy is involved in protecting stuff. Computer nerds often don't understand Kerckhoffs's law this way. The security of a system should not be dependent on obscurity, but some amount of security will depend on secrecy, i.e. your private key / password. So for example, the list of all confidential informants is kept secret. The release of that list of informants would "hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers", in addition to endangering the lives of the informants themselves. Does that mean that it is dependent on "obscurity", or, secrecy? Yes, but that is the way it always is. There will be some information that if disclosed could result in bad things happening. "Education in science" won't help with this basic fact about the universe. Of course, whether or not these vans genuinely represent information that should be kept secret, who knows. Often people believe that too much information should be kept secret, and when you're talking about information in a free society, we probably should accept some danger over granting someone power, but that seems to be a minority opinion...
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  If someone is shooting ionizing radiation at me, on purpose, without my permission, I want to know about it. Especially since I am helping pay for it. If it was me doing it to them, it'd be assault.
  - munin 12y ago
    Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.
    - briandear 12y ago
      The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'entering' the area being targeted. My question is, how many bombs have been discovered? What's the success rate? Probably close to zero; otherwise they'd be trumpeting their successes all over the media to justify further expansion of this type of search. It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. I'd rather have a hijacking once per decade and go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system than go through a proverbial strip search every time I fly. 9-11 didn't happen because of a catastrophic failure of airport security: it was a failure on multiple levels -- from immigration enforcement, intelligence failures, etc. El Al screening methods are most effective, but TSA's political correctness has then treating an 85 year old black woman from Birmingham with the same level of scrutiny as a 23 year old from Egypt with Yemeni entry stamps in the passport.
      - SamReidHughes 12y ago
        > It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "terrorist-looking" do get screened more thoroughly and frequently find themselves subject to "random" inspection.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  I suggest not comparing secrecy and security directly. I suggest the real misunderstandings are the difference between secrecy and privacy, between vulnerability and security.
- tightfleece 12y ago
  According to Kerckhoff, "A [crypto]system should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge." If any amount of your security depends on hiding how the system works, you have a broken system (according to said law). Nobody is arguiung that the van passcodes or personnel files should be disclosed; those specifics are immaterial. We are asking that how the system works, and how that is evaluated, be made public, and be placed under scrutiny. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe this system does anything but provide a vector for corruption.
  - uxp 12y ago
    Additionally, the court is not asking for the schedule and routes of the vans to be released. Knowing where a security guard is at any given time is much more useful than knowing that security guard's name. I don't think that really falls under the obscurity part, but I could be wrong.
kyleblarson 12y ago
I would take that a step further. I think that a strong general education should be a requirement to work in law enforcement.
- psykovsky 12y ago
  Where I'm from it's mostly the bullies who get to join law enforcement...
toothbrush 12y ago
>> "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers." Ha, am i the only one that parsed that as "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to {conduct operations, endanger the lives of New Yorkers}"?
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  Nope. Should be rewritten as a movie review: "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to ... endanger the lives of New Yorkers."
higherpurpose 12y ago
Same goes for NSA's "protection" through mass surveillance. "These programs work" - they said. Except for when they were actually audited and the auditors found no evidence of the programs "working". But whether they work or fail, they always seem to ask for more surveillance powers and bigger budgets. Mike Masnick also had a good article on this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150109/06555029648/uk-intelligence-boss-we-had-all-this-info-totally-failed-to-prevent-charlie-hebdo-attack-so-give-us-more-info.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150109/06555029648/uk-in... I think it's more a problem of following the leads they do have. 9/11 attackers were known to be planning an attack, the Charlie attackers were also known (not through their surveillance, but from a tip from another country). But they didn't follow through.
eli 12y ago
Don't be silly, there are obviously some secrets the government should be able to keep in the interest of security. The names of whistleblowers, the missile launch codes.
pdkl95 12y ago
What I want to know is if this could be considered willful negligence. In the past (i.e. before ~WW2) knowledge about the harmful effects of some types of radiation was not "common knowledge, even among otherwise educated people. After the bomb (esp. after the Crossroads Baker and Castle Bravo test that introduced a lot of the world to the term "fallout") and the changes seen in medicine (x=ray, cancer treatments, fears about cancer in general) I would guess that most of the population is at least aware that ionizing radiation can be dangerous, even if they do not understand the specifics. Radiophobia and the anti-nuclear movements have certainly amplified the fears about anything involving "radiation". The fact that "radiation" means "always very dangerous" to many people is evidence of this attitude. So I suggest that trying to claim ignorance about the potential dangers of pointing an active x-ray emitter at someone should be handled the same way as we treat claims of being ignorant about guns. For most cases, claiming "I didn't know that guns were dangerous" is going to be dismissed as an obvious lie or gross negligence. Is there any reason a jury should treat "I didn't know that using an x-ray beam was dangerous" as a valid get-out-of-jail explanation? Note: I understand that low-level operators may not have been told how the machine works (such things would be for a court to decide). Responsibility flows upwards, and if it was a commercial product, some Professional should have had to sign off on the design. In any case, someone had to authorize these scanners... which I call mens rea. [edit] A valid defense, of course, would be to have the results of some very rigorous safety analysis that showed there was no danger. Preferably by a 3rd party. If this study existed, I suspect it would have already been shown to the public.

munin 12y ago

There's a difference between "secrecy" and "security", and when people complain about how releasing some information would hamper / endanger lives, they mean that some amount of secrecy is involved in protecting stuff. Computer nerds often don't understand Kerckhoffs's law this way. The security of a system should not be dependent on obscurity, but some amount of security will depend on secrecy, i.e. your private key / password. So for example, the list of all confidential informants is kept secret. The release of that list of informants would "hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers", in addition to endangering the lives of the informants themselves. Does that mean that it is dependent on "obscurity", or, secrecy? Yes, but that is the way it always is. There will be some information that if disclosed could result in bad things happening. "Education in science" won't help with this basic fact about the universe. Of course, whether or not these vans genuinely represent information that should be kept secret, who knows. Often people believe that too much information should be kept secret, and when you're talking about information in a free society, we probably should accept some danger over granting someone power, but that seems to be a minority opinion...

spiritplumber 12y ago
If someone is shooting ionizing radiation at me, on purpose, without my permission, I want to know about it. Especially since I am helping pay for it. If it was me doing it to them, it'd be assault.
- munin 12y ago
  Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.
  - briandear 12y ago
    The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'entering' the area being targeted. My question is, how many bombs have been discovered? What's the success rate? Probably close to zero; otherwise they'd be trumpeting their successes all over the media to justify further expansion of this type of search. It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. I'd rather have a hijacking once per decade and go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system than go through a proverbial strip search every time I fly. 9-11 didn't happen because of a catastrophic failure of airport security: it was a failure on multiple levels -- from immigration enforcement, intelligence failures, etc. El Al screening methods are most effective, but TSA's political correctness has then treating an 85 year old black woman from Birmingham with the same level of scrutiny as a 23 year old from Egypt with Yemeni entry stamps in the passport.
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      > It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "terrorist-looking" do get screened more thoroughly and frequently find themselves subject to "random" inspection.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I suggest not comparing secrecy and security directly. I suggest the real misunderstandings are the difference between secrecy and privacy, between vulnerability and security.
tightfleece 12y ago
According to Kerckhoff, "A [crypto]system should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge." If any amount of your security depends on hiding how the system works, you have a broken system (according to said law). Nobody is arguiung that the van passcodes or personnel files should be disclosed; those specifics are immaterial. We are asking that how the system works, and how that is evaluated, be made public, and be placed under scrutiny. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe this system does anything but provide a vector for corruption.
- uxp 12y ago
  Additionally, the court is not asking for the schedule and routes of the vans to be released. Knowing where a security guard is at any given time is much more useful than knowing that security guard's name. I don't think that really falls under the obscurity part, but I could be wrong.

kyleblarson 12y ago

I would take that a step further. I think that a strong general education should be a requirement to work in law enforcement.

psykovsky 12y ago
Where I'm from it's mostly the bullies who get to join law enforcement...

toothbrush 12y ago

>> "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers." Ha, am i the only one that parsed that as "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to {conduct operations, endanger the lives of New Yorkers}"?

mgkimsal 12y ago
Nope. Should be rewritten as a movie review: "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to ... endanger the lives of New Yorkers."

higherpurpose 12y ago

Same goes for NSA's "protection" through mass surveillance. "These programs work" - they said. Except for when they were actually audited and the auditors found no evidence of the programs "working". But whether they work or fail, they always seem to ask for more surveillance powers and bigger budgets. Mike Masnick also had a good article on this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150109/06555029648/uk-intelligence-boss-we-had-all-this-info-totally-failed-to-prevent-charlie-hebdo-attack-so-give-us-more-info.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150109/06555029648/uk-in... I think it's more a problem of following the leads they do have. 9/11 attackers were known to be planning an attack, the Charlie attackers were also known (not through their surveillance, but from a tip from another country). But they didn't follow through.

eli 12y ago

Don't be silly, there are obviously some secrets the government should be able to keep in the interest of security. The names of whistleblowers, the missile launch codes.

pdkl95 12y ago

What I want to know is if this could be considered willful negligence. In the past (i.e. before ~WW2) knowledge about the harmful effects of some types of radiation was not "common knowledge, even among otherwise educated people. After the bomb (esp. after the Crossroads Baker and Castle Bravo test that introduced a lot of the world to the term "fallout") and the changes seen in medicine (x=ray, cancer treatments, fears about cancer in general) I would guess that most of the population is at least aware that ionizing radiation can be dangerous, even if they do not understand the specifics. Radiophobia and the anti-nuclear movements have certainly amplified the fears about anything involving "radiation". The fact that "radiation" means "always very dangerous" to many people is evidence of this attitude. So I suggest that trying to claim ignorance about the potential dangers of pointing an active x-ray emitter at someone should be handled the same way as we treat claims of being ignorant about guns. For most cases, claiming "I didn't know that guns were dangerous" is going to be dismissed as an obvious lie or gross negligence. Is there any reason a jury should treat "I didn't know that using an x-ray beam was dangerous" as a valid get-out-of-jail explanation? Note: I understand that low-level operators may not have been told how the machine works (such things would be for a court to decide). Responsibility flows upwards, and if it was a commercial product, some Professional should have had to sign off on the design. In any case, someone had to authorize these scanners... which I call mens rea. [edit] A valid defense, of course, would be to have the results of some very rigorous safety analysis that showed there was no danger. Preferably by a 3rd party. If this study existed, I suspect it would have already been shown to the public.