Steven Hoffer - A few Virginia parents would probably like to know what local school administrators are smoking.
Seventh-grader Adam Grass and three other students at Hickory Middle School in Chesapeake, Va., were suspended last week after being caught with what teachers initially thought was a bag of marijuana but turned out to be a stash of oregano, The Virginian-Pilot reports.
Unfortunately for the disciplined boys, now facing expulsion, there isn't much of a difference between Italian herbs and Mary Jane, at least in the state's eyes. According to school board member Christie Craig, Virginia has a zero-tolerance policy against "imitation controlled substances."Adam is a straight-A student and National Junior Honor Society candidate, achievements his father, Patrick Grass, doesn't want to see go up in smoke all because of a childhood prank.
"I know times have changed, and you can't do [just] anything in schools anymore," Grass said. "But I think there needs to be a certain amount of common sense applied to their policies."
The elder Grass also explains that his son was merely holding onto the oregano for a friend, meaning he's really just an innocent spice trafficker.
"So he was in possession of it for maybe 30 seconds," Grass said.
Seeking legal council, the Grass family turned to the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute, which specializes in defending people who believe their human rights and civil liberties have been violated.
The organization's president and founder, John Whitehead, calls the oregano bust yet another case of an overenforced zero-tolerance policy. ...
via Virginia Middle School Students Suspended for Oregano Possession.
Two of oregano's compounds, thymol and carvacrol, have potent antibacterial properties. In fact, a study in Mexico found that oregano was more effective against an amoeba than a common prescription drug called tinidazol. Oregano is also a potent antioxidant, rich in phytonutrients.
via sixwise
Showing posts with label Control Freaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Control Freaks. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2011
Virginia Middle School Students Suspended for Oregano Possession
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
We didn't mishear hug ban, say Figtree High students
Students from Figtree High School have rejected suggestions they mistook a lesson on inappropriate behaviour for an announcement banning hugging.
Several parents told the Mercury this week their children had been informed by a senior teacher at a school assembly that hugging was banned and those caught in the act would be punished with detention.
However, the Education Department dismissed the claims and instead said hugging had merely been mentioned during a discussion outlining examples of inappropriate behaviour.
Students from the school yesterday responded by venting their frustration on the Mercury's website.
They rejected suggestions that students had misinterpreted the assembly presentation.
"I am a senior student at Figtree High, and what it says in the article is exactly what was said in assembly at school," one student wrote.
"Nothing that was said was misinterpreted - it was as plain as stated. I think it's ridiculous."
Another wrote: "I'm a student in Year 10 at Figtree High School and I would just like to say that during the assembly it was clearly stated and I quote 'if you touch, kiss or hug anyone, you will be sent to the deputy's office and sent home'."
A parent with two children at the school wrote that she also believed hugging had been banned.
An Education Department spokeswoman yesterday remained adamant Figtree High students were not banned from hugging.
She said the school had received no formal complaints about the matter. ...
via We didn't mishear hug ban, say Figtree High students - Local News - News - General - Illawarra Mercury.
"If they can ban hugging, what are they going to do next -- ban smiling?"
Outraged parents told the newspaper they believed hugging had been banned as a way to stop affectionate behavior between students during school time.
"They were told there's no touching, no hugging from now on," an unidentified parent said.
Figtree High School's website makes no mention of the ban but says it aims "to provide a safe and caring environment where students, regardless of diversity, disadvantage or disability, reach their highest potential through positive and enriching learning experiences."
via AOL news
So much for the caring environment where students can reach their highest potential. :-/
Monday, February 28, 2011
Arvada boy, 11, arrested over violent stick figure drawing
An 11-year-old Arvada boy was arrested and hauled away in handcuffs for drawing stick figures in school - something his therapist told him to do.
The boy’s parents say they understand what he did was inappropriate, but are outraged by the way Arvada Police handled the case.
The parents do not want their real names used. “Tim” is being treated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and his therapist told him to draw pictures when got upset, rather than disrupt the class. So that’s what he did.
Last October, he drew stick figures of himself with a gun, pointed at four other stick figures with the words “teacher must die.” He felt calmer and was throwing the picture away when the teacher saw it and sent him to the principal’s office.
The school was aware that the boy was in treatment, determined the drawing was not an actual threat, notified his parents and sent him back to class.
His mother, “Jane,” however, was shocked when Arvada Police showed up at their home later that night. She says she told her son to cooperate and tell the truth, but was horrified when they told her they were arresting him and then handcuffed him and hauled him away in a patrol car.
Tim’s mother says she begged police to let her drive her son to the police department and to let her stay with him through the booking process but they refused. Instead, they put him in a cell, took his mug shot and fingerprinted him.
He thought he was going to jail and would never be able to go home again.
According to the police report, “Tim” explained he made the drawing to release anger and would never hurt teachers or anyone. At first, the school did not want to press charges, but changed their mind when police called them later that night.
A juvenile assessment report shows Tim has never been in legal trouble before and is at low risk to reoffend. Regardless, he is charged with a third degree misdemeanor, interfering with staff and students at an educational facility.
The system says it’s doing what’s in the best interest of the child. But Tim’s therapist says handcuffing an 11-year-old and putting him in a cell over something like this is “quite an overreaction” and does much more harm than good.
Tim is on probation and, if he completes that successfully, the criminal charges will be dropped. But his parents say its cost them thousands of dollars so far. And if they had known that their son’s cooperation would be used as evidence against him, they would have hired a lawyer at the beginning and exercised their right to remain silent. ...
via Arvada boy, 11, arrested over violent stick figure drawing - KDVR.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
People are being given too many recycling bins
Councils are asking householders to sort their rubbish into as many as nine bins to boost recycling, a survey suggests.
On average, the Taxpayers' Alliance pressure group found councils expected residents to sort their household waste into four bins, bags and caddies.
Newcastle-under-Lyme had the largest number of bins, with nine containers.
The government said this number of bins "seemed a little over the top" and it was reviewing waste collection.
The research was compiled through a combination of freedom of information requests and checking council websites.
Newcastle-under-Lyme uses separate bins for refuse, cardboard, plastics, paper, glass and cans, textiles and garden waste. It also hands out two food waste caddies - one for putting food scraps in for the kitchen and another for kerbside collection.
The survey also found 20 other local authorities including Chelmsford, Aberdeenshire, Guildford and Middlesbrough give residents seven or more containers....
Two councils, Dumfries and Galloway and the Isles of Scilly collect just one bin.
Across England, around 40% of household waste is now being recycled, composted or reused.
Councils face taxes for using landfill to deal with waste and fines if European Union targets to reduce the amount of rubbish sent to landfill are not met. ...
via BBC News - 'People are being given too many recycling bins'.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Department of Homeland Security expected to grow to record 194,000 employees
Despite critics' repeated calls to freeze or reduce the size of the federal work force, the White House wants to add about 15,000 full-time employees to the payroll in fiscal 2012.
The executive branch's full-time civilian work force would top 2.1 million for the third straight year in 2012, according to the Obama administration's proposed budget. The work force would have 12,000 fewer employees in 2012 than in 2010. But if 2010 is excluded, the 2012 federal work force would be bigger than any year since 1993.
The largest increase would come at the Department of Homeland Security, which is expected to grow by about 8,000 employees to 194,000 employees — the biggest it has ever been.
But the Defense Department is expected to shrink by about 7,000 civilian full-time workers, giving it a work force of 748,000. The Agriculture Department would lose 3,000 employees.
The Treasury Department would gain 6,000 employees, leaving it with 117,000 employees. The Justice Department is expected to grow from 119,000 employees to 123,000 employees. The Transportation and Veterans Affairs departments would each gain 1,000 employees.
The Health and Human Services and Education departments and the Social Security Administration are expected to collectively grow from 140,000 to 146,000 in 2012. But SSA Chief Human Capital Officer Reginald Wells is disappointed by the White House's staffing projections.
"That doesn't feel like much of an increase," Wells said in an interview with Federal Times. "It's essentially no increase if we're talking about all those agencies. It means we would operate at pretty much the same level we are now."
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110214/PERSONNEL01/102140302/1001
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Homeland Security Junks Billion Dollar ‘Virtual Fence’
It only took nearly a year of hiatus and $1 billion in sunk costs, but the Department of Homeland Security has finally gotten rid of the networked suite of sensors that made up its virtual border fence. But some of its technology may live on as zombie border protection.
The virtual fence “cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution,” Secretary Janet Napolitano conceded in a statement today heralding the program’s termination.
Boeing’s SBInet was supposed to be the ultimate in anti-illegal immigrant technology: miles of surveillance-radar towers (colloquially, “Cameras on a Pole”) hooked up to ground-based sensors that detected the heat of someone’s footprints or the metal of a border-crossing vehicle. Sound impractical? That’s what the Government Accountability Office found in October, when it lamented SBInet’s “well-chronicled history of not delivering promised capabilities and benefits on time and within budget.” (.pdf)
Yet the Customs and Border Protection office boasted in a fact sheet that it would ultimately cover 6,000 miles of the U.S.’ northern and southern frontiers. But only 53 miles of border in Arizona ever actually got outfitted with SBInet. Dissatisfied with the performance of the program since its 2005 inception, the Department of Homeland Security froze the program in March for a review. Today, it conceded the program was an impractical waste.
So what comes next for the border? Some of the same stuff that SBInet had. And lots of drones.
Napolitano said that “proven” technology will be put into effect on the border. That means video surveillance from the guard towers and thermal-imaging sensors — reminiscent of SBInet. And it definitely means unmanned spy-plane flights. Later next year, a DHS initiative is scheduled to fly Predators all the way from California to the Gulf of Mexico, all to spot who’s trying to cross the border.
Only, even with proven technology like the drones, mistakes happen. In June, DHS had to ground its drone fleet after a plane lost contact with its remotely located pilot, a routine occurrence in the drone game.
via Homeland Security Junks Billion Dollar ‘Virtual Fence’ | Danger Room | Wired.com.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Swiss Village: Pay Up or We'll Kill Your Dog
A Swiss village has found a drastic way to compel dog holders to pay their pet's annual tax: cough up, or the dog gets it.
Reconvilier - population 2,245 humans, 280 dogs - plans to put Fido on notice if its owner doesn't pay the annual $50 tax.
Local official Pierre-Alain Nemitz says the move is part of an effort to reclaim hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes.
He says a law from 1904 allows the village to kill dogs if its owner does not pay the canine charge.
Nemitz told the AP on Monday that authorities have received death threats since news of the plan got out.
"This isn't about a mass execution of dogs," Nemitz said. "It's meant to put pressure on people who don't cooperate."
via Swiss Village: Pay Up or We'll Kill Your Dog - CBS News.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant
The California Supreme Court allowed police Monday to search arrestees' cell phones without a warrant, saying defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they're carrying when taken into custody.
Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, "this loss of privacy allows police not only to seize anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body ... but also to open and examine what they find," the state court said in a 5-2 ruling.
The majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, relied on decisions in the 1970s by the nation's high court upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without seeking a warrant from a judge.
The dissenting justices said those rulings shouldn't be extended to modern cell phones that can store huge amounts of data.
Monday's decision allows police "to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person," said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.
They argued that police should obtain a warrant - by persuading a judge that they will probably find incriminating evidence - before searching a cell phone.
The issue has divided other courts. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco ruled in May 2007 that police had violated drug defendants' rights by searching their cell phones after their arrests. The Ohio Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in a December 2009 ruling in which the state unsuccessfully sought U.S. Supreme Court review.
The Ohio-California split could prompt the nation's high court to take up the issue, said Deputy Attorney General Victoria Wilson, who represented the prosecution in Monday's case.
"This has an impact on the day-to-day jobs of police officers, what kind of searches they can conduct without a warrant when they arrest someone," she said. "It takes it into the realm of new technology." ...
via Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant.
And yes, they can get past your password. See iPhone forensics.
... With iPhone use increasing in business networks, IT and security professionals face a serious challenge: these devices store an enormous amount of information. If your staff conducts business with an iPhone, you need to know how to recover, analyze, and securely destroy sensitive data. iPhone Forensics supplies the knowledge necessary to conduct complete and highly specialized forensic analysis of the iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPod Touch. This book helps you:
- Determine what type of data is stored on the device
- Break v1.x and v2.x passcode-protected iPhones to gain access to the device
- Build a custom recovery toolkit for the iPhone
- Interrupt iPhone 3G's "secure wipe" process
- Conduct data recovery of a v1.x and v2.x iPhone user disk partition, and preserve and recover the entire raw user disk partition
- Recover deleted voicemail, images, email, and other personal data, using data carving techniques
- Recover geotagged metadata from camera photos
- Discover Google map lookups, typing cache, and other data stored on the live file system
- Extract contact information from the iPhone's database
- Use different recovery strategies based on case needs
And more. iPhone Forensics includes techniques used by more than 200 law enforcement agencies worldwide, and is a must-have for any corporate compliance and disaster recovery plan. ..
- oh really, no sir, oreilly.
This is absurd and, I believe, unconstitutional. Due to the way cell phones are used, this gives access to the banking accounts of anyone arrested, even those falsely arrested. This is way more information than should be... unless the person was arrested while robbing a bank using a cell phone as a weapon. This is not Nazi Germany, and so, here are a few notes on iPhone remote wipe:
... after wiping three or four devices, I noticed something that Apple doesn’t tell you in the Find My iPhone/Remote Wipe documentation: The time it takes to “wipe” an iPhone or iPod touch varies greatly depending on the model. When I sent the wipe command to an iPhone 3GS, it took a minute or less for the process to complete. But when I sent the command to an older iPhone or to any iPod touch, it took more than two hours.
Why the difference? If you followed our WWDC keynote coverage last month, or watched the keynote later in iTunes, you may recall that the iPhone 3GS includes hardware encryption, so all data is encrypted on the fly. This means that for the iPhone 3GS, Remote Wipe doesn’t need to actually wipe the phone’s entire contents; it simply needs to delete—securely—the encryption key, a process that’s nearly instantaneous. Without the encryption key, your data is as good as wiped.
With older iPhones and both iPod touch models, however, your data isn’t encrypted, so a Remote Wipe really does need to securely delete every last bit. ...
As Jonathan Zdziarsky, the author of iPhone Forensics, points out, someone can force-reboot the iPhone or iPod touch at any point during this lengthy wipe process, put the device into recovery mode, and restore the device's OS in iTunes. This leaves any not-yet-wiped personal files and data accessible to forensic-recovery tools. ...
Another issue is that, as mentioned above, in order for your iPhone or iPod touch to receive a Remote Wipe command, the device must be connected to the Internet. If a thief is more interested in your data than the hardware, removing an iPhone’s SIM card takes the phone off the grid with the exception of Wi-Fi connections. If the thief can access the Settings app, he or she can also disable Wi-Fi to prevent an iPhone or iPod touch from automatically connecting to nearby WiFi networks. (Again, this emphasizes the importance of setting a screen-lock password.)
In other words, you shouldn’t feel completely safe just because you have Find My iPhone enabled. But at least now know how it works—and why some wipes are quicker than others.
So, if you care about your privacy, get a 3GS (or iPhone 4 I assume?) and learn how to wipe it: Settings > General > Reset > Erase All Contents and Settings.
Thanks to Greg who tells us how to restore it after you do. (I haven't tested this, but I will soon... as soon as I get all of my contacts backed up...in case this trashes my phone.)
"Having used the MobileMe Remote Wipe feature on my original iPhone, I was left with a phone that would only show the apple logo for a few seconds at power on and then do nothing. Resetting did not work and trying to recover from iTunes as I had expected seemed impossible as the iPhone was not even showing up in iTunes.
- Wake your iphone up so you see the apple logo.
- Hold down the power button (the one on top) and the home button until the screen goes black.
- This turns the phone off, don’t keep holding the button or the phone will restart.
- Now that the phone is off, press and hold the home button.
- While holding the home button connect your phone back to your computer, continue to hold the home button until itunes says it has found a phone that needs to be restored.
- restore phone.”
So, if you wipe the encryption key for your hardware encrypted 3GS... is there a law enforcement back door encryption key? I haven't found anything about that yet, but Apple does have remote access to your iPhone before it is wiped:
"Though Apple has declined to comment on iPhone security issues, the company has more or less admitted iPhones are vulnerable to security threats, because an emergency measure exists. In August 2008, Apple CEO Steve Jobs acknowledged the existence of a remote kill switch for iPhone apps, meaning if a malicious app made its way onto iPhones, Apple could trigger a command to delete the app from users’ devices. There is no evidence that the kill switch has ever been used."
Not sure if there IS a back door key after a wipe, but they do want access while you are using your phone. It is likely that everything you do every minute is recorded and captured. Your calls, your photos, everything. I bet the NSA loves FaceTime. This is about the FBI from Wired:
Ryan Singel - ... The FBI now wants to require all encrypted communications systems to have back doors for surveillance, according to a New York Times report, and to the nation’s top crypto experts it sounds like a battle they’ve fought before.
Back in the 1990s, in what’s remembered as the crypto wars, the FBI and NSA argued that national security would be endangered if they did not have a way to spy on encrypted e-mails, IMs and phone calls. After a long protracted battle, the security community prevailed after mustering detailed technical studies and research that concluded that national security was actually strengthened by wide use of encryption to secure computers and sensitive business and government communications.
Now the FBI is proposing a similar requirement that would require online service providers, perhaps even software makers, to only offer encrypted communication unless the companies have a way to unlock the communications.
In the New York Timesstory that unveiled the drive, the FBI cited a case where a mobster was using encrypted communication, and the FBI had to sneak into his office to plant a bug. One of the named problems was RIM, the maker of BlackBerrys, which provides encrypted e-mail communications for companies and governments, and which has come under pressure from India and the United Arab Emirates to locate its severs in its countries.
According to the proposal, any company doing business in the States could not create an encrypted communication system without having a way for the government to order the company to decrypt it, and those who currently do offer that service would have to re-tool it. It’s the equivalent of outlawing whispering in real life.
Cryptographers have long argued that back doors aren’t a feature — they are just a security hole that will inevitably be abused by hackers or adversarial governments.
The proposal also contradicts a congressionally-ordered 1996 National Research Council report that found that requiring back doors was not a sensible policy for the government.
You are already wiretapped by the government if you have an iPhone according to this post on infowars:
An alarming white paper concludes that the Apple iPhone contains a backdoor spyware module that allows hackers or the government to conduct secret surveillance of the user, part of an established trend of corporations and the state working hand in hand to eavesdrop on citizens via widely-used software and hardware products.
Earlier this week, a technology group in Russia released the results of their attempts to reverse engineer the iPhone, concluding that the product has "A built-in function which sends all data from an iPhone to a specified web-server. Contacts from a phonebook, SMS, recent calls, history of Safari browser - all your personal information can be stolen."
The module could act as a backdoor for trojan developers or AT & T, said the report, adding that "government structures" would have access to the information.
Since AT & T displayed no hesitation in handing over information about their subscribers to the U.S. government as part of the controversial and illegal NSA wiretapping scandal , it would be no surprise to learn that included in the trendy new must-have gadget is a spyware module that allows the government to listen in to your conversations.
AT & T were chosen by Apple as the exclusive service provider for the iPhone, at present all other cellphone companies are blocked from offering any kind of service compatible with the iPhone.
Just thought you should know.
Luckily, there is hope. This guy has found a way to make your iPhone 100% secure from everyone:
Saturday, November 27, 2010
U.S. seizes sites linked to copyright infringement
The U.S. government has launched a major crackdown on online copyright infringement, seizing dozens of sites linked to illegal file sharing and counterfeit goods.
Torrent sites that link to illegal copies of music and movie files and sites that sell counterfeit goods were seized this week by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security. Visitors to such sites as Torrent-finder.com, 2009jerseys.com, and Dvdcollects.com found that their usual sites had been replaced by a message that said, "This domain name has been seized by ICE--Homeland Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a United States District Court."
"My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!" the owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak, which listed more than 70 domains that were apparently part of the massive seizure. ...
via U.S. seizes sites linked to copyright infringement | Digital Media - CNET News.
The government seizing web sites now? Well, my music is free to download and there is other good high quality free music if you know where to look. You know, the Internet was born entirely of web sites which had no "commercially significant purpose" so this move by the music industry (which totally screws the musicians who make the music) annoys me.
People who want free music will move to alternatives to Limewire like Cabo and Frostwire... and if they get all of these shut down, there will be new programs, new networks. This seems like a losing battle with all the stolen music which is already out there, plus the ability of so many different programs to rip songs from music CDs.
Will they really make a dent in file sharing? Perhaps this is more of a symbolic gesture.
U.S. seizes sites linked to copyright infringement
The U.S. government has launched a major crackdown on online copyright infringement, seizing dozens of sites linked to illegal file sharing and counterfeit goods.
Torrent sites that link to illegal copies of music and movie files and sites that sell counterfeit goods were seized this week by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security. Visitors to such sites as Torrent-finder.com, 2009jerseys.com, and Dvdcollects.com found that their usual sites had been replaced by a message that said, "This domain name has been seized by ICE--Homeland Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a United States District Court."
"My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!" the owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak, which listed more than 70 domains that were apparently part of the massive seizure. ...
via U.S. seizes sites linked to copyright infringement | Digital Media - CNET News.
The government seizing web sites now? Well, my music is free to download and there is other good high quality free music if you know where to look. You know, the Internet was born entirely of web sites which had no "commercially significant purpose" so this move by the music industry (which totally screws the musicians who make the music) annoys me.
People who want free music will move to alternatives to Limewire like Cabo and Frostwire... and if they get all of these shut down, there will be new programs, new networks. This seems like a losing battle with all the stolen music which is already out there, plus the ability of so many different programs to rip songs from music CDs.
Will they really make a dent in file sharing? Perhaps this is more of a symbolic gesture.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The drugalyser: new weapon in the clampdown on drug driving
A new handheld “drugalyser” that detects substance abuse in under two minutes could become the latest weapon the clampdown on drug driving.
The portable handheld device can detect cocaine and heroine from a saliva sample within 90 seconds and other substances within minutes. It is able to detect drugs in the body at far lower levels than existing testing devices
The new portable device, which will be available in 2011, would mean police officers could carry out tests on suspected drug drivers at the roadside.
A positive result would mean officers would no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test could be taken to be used as evidence in court.
via The drugalyser: new weapon in the clampdown on drug driving - Telegraph.
Neat tool, but a forced blood draw, where you are held down by thugs and stuck with a needle, is one of the most traumatic and painful experiences. I know someone who went through this. It should not be permitted by law. Blood tests are not needed since a urine test is just as informative. Sometimes, even when you consent to give a urine sample, police will do a forced blood draw just to assert their authority, to force you to submit. Such people have no business wearing a uniform.
The drugalyser: new weapon in the clampdown on drug driving
The portable handheld device can detect cocaine and heroine from a saliva sample within 90 seconds and other substances within minutes. It is able to detect drugs in the body at far lower levels than existing testing devices
The new portable device, which will be available in 2011, would mean police officers could carry out tests on suspected drug drivers at the roadside.
A positive result would mean officers would no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test could be taken to be used as evidence in court.
via The drugalyser: new weapon in the clampdown on drug driving - Telegraph.
Neat tool, but a forced blood draw, where you are held down by thugs and stuck with a needle, is one of the most traumatic and painful experiences. I know someone who went through this. It should not be permitted by law. Blood tests are not needed since a urine test is just as informative. Sometimes, even when you consent to give a urine sample, police will do a forced blood draw just to assert their authority, to force you to submit. Such people have no business wearing a uniform.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Video: What happened when a man refused to be groped by TSA at SAN
The head of the US agency that oversees airport screening has admitted that new pat-down inspections are more invasive than previous techniques.
Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole was testifying to senators amid complaints the checks target sensitive body areas.
Mr Pistole said he understood privacy concerns, but security was paramount.
Meanwhile, footage of a man refusing to have his groin patted down at a San Diego airport has gone viral online.
via BBC News - TSA chief admits new airport pat-downs more intrusive.
These events took place roughly between 5:30 and 6:30 AM, November 13th in Terminal 2 of the San Diego International Airport. ...
I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines and the possible harm to health as well as the vivid pictures they create of people's naked bodies. Not wanting to go through them, I had done my research on the TSA's website prior to traveling to see if SAN had them. From all indications, they did not. When I arrived at the security line, I found that the TSA's website was out of date. SAN does in fact utilize backscatter x-ray machines.
I made my way through the line toward the first line of "defense": the TSA ID checker. This agent looked over my boarding pass, looked over my ID, looked at me and then back at my ID. After that, he waved me through. SAN is still operating metal detectors, so I walked over to one of the lines for them. After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector, the person in front of me in line was pulled out to go through the backscatter machine. After asking what it was and being told, he opted out. This left the machine free, and before I could go through the metal detector, I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so." At this point, I was informed that I would be subject to a pat down, and I waited for another agent. ...
After he described, the pat down, I realized that he intended to touch my groin. After he finished his description but before he started the pat down, I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." He, a bit taken aback, informed me that he would have to involve his supervisor because of my comment.
We both stood there for no more than probably two minutes before a female TSA agent (apparently, the supervisor) arrived. She described to me that because I had opted out of the backscatter screening, I would now be patted down, and that involved running hands up the inside of my legs until they felt my groin. I stated that I would not allow myself to be subject to a molestation as a condition of getting on my flight. ...
The female supervisor explained the situation to Mr. Silva. After some quick back and forth (that I didn't understand/hear), I could overhear Mr. Silva say something to the effect of, "then escort him from the airport." I again offered to submit to the metal detector, and my father-in-law, who was near by also tried to plead for some reasonableness on the TSA's part.
The female supervisor took my ID at this point and began taking some kind of report with which I cooperated. Once she had finished, I asked if I could put my shoes back on. I was allowed to put my shoes back on and gather my belongs. I asked, "are we done here" (it was clear at this point that I was going to be escorted out), and the local police officer said, "follow me". I followed him around the side of the screening area and back out to the ticketing area. I said apologized to him for the hassle, to which he replied that it was not a problem.
I made my way over to the American Airlines counter, explained the situation, and asked if my ticket could be refunded. ... she was able to refund my ticket....
At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn't know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents' supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped. He told me that their procedures are on their website, and therefore, I was fully informed before I entered the airport; I had implicitly agreed to whatever screening they deemed appropriate. I told him that San Diego was not listed on the TSA's website as an airport using Advanced Imaging Technology, and I believed that I would only be subject to the metal detector. He replied that he was not a webmaster, and I asked then why he was referring me to the TSA's website if he didn't know anything about it. I again refused to re-enter the screening area.
The man asked me to stay put while he walked off to confer with the officer and Mr. Silva. They went about 20 feet away and began talking amongst themselves while I waited.
via : TSA encounter at SAN. (JohnnyEdge.Blogspot)
Video: What happened when a man refused to be groped by TSA at SAN
The head of the US agency that oversees airport screening has admitted that new pat-down inspections are more invasive than previous techniques.
Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole was testifying to senators amid complaints the checks target sensitive body areas.
Mr Pistole said he understood privacy concerns, but security was paramount.
Meanwhile, footage of a man refusing to have his groin patted down at a San Diego airport has gone viral online.
via BBC News - TSA chief admits new airport pat-downs more intrusive.
These events took place roughly between 5:30 and 6:30 AM, November 13th in Terminal 2 of the San Diego International Airport. ...
I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines and the possible harm to health as well as the vivid pictures they create of people's naked bodies. Not wanting to go through them, I had done my research on the TSA's website prior to traveling to see if SAN had them. From all indications, they did not. When I arrived at the security line, I found that the TSA's website was out of date. SAN does in fact utilize backscatter x-ray machines.
I made my way through the line toward the first line of "defense": the TSA ID checker. This agent looked over my boarding pass, looked over my ID, looked at me and then back at my ID. After that, he waved me through. SAN is still operating metal detectors, so I walked over to one of the lines for them. After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector, the person in front of me in line was pulled out to go through the backscatter machine. After asking what it was and being told, he opted out. This left the machine free, and before I could go through the metal detector, I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so." At this point, I was informed that I would be subject to a pat down, and I waited for another agent. ...
After he described, the pat down, I realized that he intended to touch my groin. After he finished his description but before he started the pat down, I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." He, a bit taken aback, informed me that he would have to involve his supervisor because of my comment.
We both stood there for no more than probably two minutes before a female TSA agent (apparently, the supervisor) arrived. She described to me that because I had opted out of the backscatter screening, I would now be patted down, and that involved running hands up the inside of my legs until they felt my groin. I stated that I would not allow myself to be subject to a molestation as a condition of getting on my flight. ...
The female supervisor explained the situation to Mr. Silva. After some quick back and forth (that I didn't understand/hear), I could overhear Mr. Silva say something to the effect of, "then escort him from the airport." I again offered to submit to the metal detector, and my father-in-law, who was near by also tried to plead for some reasonableness on the TSA's part.
The female supervisor took my ID at this point and began taking some kind of report with which I cooperated. Once she had finished, I asked if I could put my shoes back on. I was allowed to put my shoes back on and gather my belongs. I asked, "are we done here" (it was clear at this point that I was going to be escorted out), and the local police officer said, "follow me". I followed him around the side of the screening area and back out to the ticketing area. I said apologized to him for the hassle, to which he replied that it was not a problem.
I made my way over to the American Airlines counter, explained the situation, and asked if my ticket could be refunded. ... she was able to refund my ticket....
At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn't know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents' supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped. He told me that their procedures are on their website, and therefore, I was fully informed before I entered the airport; I had implicitly agreed to whatever screening they deemed appropriate. I told him that San Diego was not listed on the TSA's website as an airport using Advanced Imaging Technology, and I believed that I would only be subject to the metal detector. He replied that he was not a webmaster, and I asked then why he was referring me to the TSA's website if he didn't know anything about it. I again refused to re-enter the screening area.
The man asked me to stay put while he walked off to confer with the officer and Mr. Silva. They went about 20 feet away and began talking amongst themselves while I waited.
via : TSA encounter at SAN. (JohnnyEdge.Blogspot)
Monday, October 25, 2010
Italian seaside town planning miniskirt ban
A seaside city in Italy is planning to ban miniskirts and other revealing clothing to improve what the mayor calls standards of public decency. Castellammare di Stabia is trying to be the latest location in Italy to make use of new powers to crack down on what is deemed to be anti-social behaviour. Mayor Luigi Bobbio said the regulations would help "restore urban decorum and facilitate better civil co-existence".
Offenders would face fines of between 25 $35 and 500 euros $696.
..."Nothing too revealing" is the new policy Mayor Bobbio wants to enforce, says the BBC's Duncan Kennedy in Rome. That means a tough new dress code which would effectively outlaw everything from miniskirts to low-cut jeans when people walk around Castellammare di Stabia, our correspondent adds. Mr Bobbio, from the centre-right People of Freedom party, says he wants to target people who are "rowdy, unruly or simply badly behaved".
There will also be a ban on sunbathing, playing football in public places, and blasphemy, if the proposals are approved at a council meeting on Monday.
"I think it's the right decision," a local parish priest, Don Paulo Cecere, told the Cronache di Napoli newspaper. "It's also a way of combating the rise in sexual harassment." Castellammare di Stabia is latest city to make use of the extra powers handed down by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government to mayors, in the effort to fight crime and confront anti social behaviour.
via BBC News - Italian seaside town planning miniskirt ban.
I don't get it. What's anti-social about miniskirts, sunbathing, playing football in public places and blasphemy? I'd imagine these are things the majority of Italians do when socializing.
Italian seaside town planning miniskirt ban
Offenders would face fines of between 25 $35 and 500 euros $696.
..."Nothing too revealing" is the new policy Mayor Bobbio wants to enforce, says the BBC's Duncan Kennedy in Rome. That means a tough new dress code which would effectively outlaw everything from miniskirts to low-cut jeans when people walk around Castellammare di Stabia, our correspondent adds. Mr Bobbio, from the centre-right People of Freedom party, says he wants to target people who are "rowdy, unruly or simply badly behaved".
There will also be a ban on sunbathing, playing football in public places, and blasphemy, if the proposals are approved at a council meeting on Monday.
"I think it's the right decision," a local parish priest, Don Paulo Cecere, told the Cronache di Napoli newspaper. "It's also a way of combating the rise in sexual harassment." Castellammare di Stabia is latest city to make use of the extra powers handed down by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government to mayors, in the effort to fight crime and confront anti social behaviour.
via BBC News - Italian seaside town planning miniskirt ban.
I don't get it. What's anti-social about miniskirts, sunbathing, playing football in public places and blasphemy? I'd imagine these are things the majority of Italians do when socializing.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Jonas, 32, sewed up his own leg after ER wait
A 32-year-old took the needle into his hands when he tired of the wait at Sundsvall hospital in northern Sweden and sewed up the cut in his leg himself. The man was later reported to the police for his impromptu handiwork."It took such a long time," the man told the local Sundsvall Tidning daily.
The man incurred the deep cut when he sliced his leg on the sharp edge of a kitchen stove while he was renovating at home.
"I first went to the health clinic, but it was closed. So I rang the medical help line and they told me that it shouldn't be closed, so I went to emergency and sat there," the man named only as Jonas told the newspaper.
After an hour-long wait in a treatment room, he lost patience and proceeded to sew up his own wound.
"They had set out a needle and thread and so I decided to take the matter into my hands," he said.
But hospital staff were not as impressed by his initiative and have reported the man on suspicion of arbitrary conduct for having used hospital equipment without authorization.
While Jonas admitted to the newspaper that he has no prior experience of sewing up himself he sought to play down the fuss that his handiwork has caused, arguing that "through the ages people have always sewn themselves up".
via Jonas, 32, sewed up his own leg after ER wait - The Local.
"Suspicion of arbitrary conduct?!" Control freak alert. That such an infraction would even exist is the invention of a madman. Life itself is the result of arbitrary conduct!
In any case, sewing up a cut is rational behavior as it protects your wound from becoming infected... although I'm not sure how clean that needle was... but he may have sterilized it with a match first.
The hospital staff is guilty of no conduct. Probably understaffed, which means the hospital administrators are guilty of miserly conduct.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Man arrested for 'thinking of a cheeseburger'
A homeless Gastonia man who allegedly hoisted a sign reading, “I’m thinking of a cheeseburger,” near an interstate off-ramp was charged with violating the city begging ordinance.
Michael Francis McLaughlin, 48, held the cardboard sign on the 500 block of Cox Road near I-85 Friday evening, Gastonia Police Officer J.K. Sarratt wrote on a misdemeanor criminal citation.
Gastonia City Ordinance 5-17 makes it unlawful for anyone to beg or offer to work for money or other compensation by “accosting one another or forcing oneself upon the company of another.” The citation did not state whether McLaughlin had been approaching vehicles.
McLaughlin was charged with unlawful solicitation under the city ordinance and was jailed under a $500 secured bond.
via Man arrested for 'thinking of a cheeseburger' | sign, gastonia, allegedly - Local News - Gaston Gazette.
Poor guy. Where is Gastonia? I'll buy him a cheeseburger. It would be a Boca burger if I did.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
How the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition.
... Although mostly forgotten today, the "chemist's war of Prohibition" remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was "our national experiment in extermination." Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that's due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.
... During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: "Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified." Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. "Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?" asked Nebraska's Omaha Bee. ...
The saga began with ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States.* High-minded crusaders and anti-alcohol organizations had helped push the amendment through in 1919, playing on fears of moral decay in a country just emerging from war. The Volstead Act, spelling out the rules for enforcement, passed shortly later, and Prohibition itself went into effect on Jan. 1, 1920.
But people continued to drink—and in large quantities. Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. By the decade's end, some 30,000 existed in New York City alone. Street gangs grew into bootlegging empires built on smuggling, stealing, and manufacturing illegal alcohol. The country's defiant response to the new laws shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.
Rigorous enforcement had managed to slow the smuggling of alcohol from Canada and other countries. But crime syndicates responded by stealing massive quantities of industrial alcohol—used in paints and solvents, fuels and medical supplies—and redistilling it to make it potable.
Well, sort of. Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable. The U.S. government started requiring this "denaturing" process in 1906 for manufacturers who wanted to avoid the taxes levied on potable spirits. The U.S. Treasury Department, charged with overseeing alcohol enforcement, estimated that by the mid-1920s, some 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were stolen annually to supply the country's drinkers. In response, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge's government decided to turn to chemistry as an enforcement tool. Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s. Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix. Others used bitter-tasting compounds that were less lethal, designed to make the alcohol taste so awful that it became undrinkable.
To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly.
By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisons—kerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be added—up to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly. ...
Most of those sickened and dying were those "who cannot afford expensive protection and deal in low grade stuff."
And the numbers were not trivial. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor. Furious anti-Prohibition legislators pushed for a halt in the use of lethal chemistry. "Only one possessing the instincts of a wild beast would desire to kill or make blind the man who takes a drink of liquor, even if he purchased it from one violating the Prohibition statutes," proclaimed Sen. James Reed of Missouri.
Officially, the special denaturing program ended only once the 18th Amendment was repealed in December 1933. ... And when Prohibition ended and good grain whiskey reappeared, it was almost as if the craziness of Prohibition—and the poisonous measures taken to enforce it—had never quite happened.
... Deborah Blum is a professor of science journalism at the University of Wisconsin and author of The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York.
via The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition. - By Deborah Blum - Slate Magazine.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Driver fined for blowing nose in van
A MAN told today of his disbelief at being fined for blowing his nose while his van was stopped in London.
Michael Mancini wiped his nose with a handkerchief while stuck in traffic in October 2009.
But when the traffic cleared, he was pulled over by police who told him he had not been in control of his vehicle.
Mr Mancini, from Ayrshire in Scotland, was handed a $US97 fine and three points on his driving license.
"I was stopped in traffic and had the handbrake on and thought to myself, 'I?ve just got time to blow my nose,'" he said.
"Then police pulled me over and I was booked. I genuinely thought they were joking."
Mr Mancini refused to pay the penalty.
His solicitor wrote to prosecutors earlier in January explaining that Mr Mancini was in charge of the vehicle because his handbrake was on, therefore the offense did not occur.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
But prosecutors replied the next day warning that if the fine wasn't paid the case would be taken to court.
Mr Mancini said, "I intend on taking this all the way to court. I still don't believe it actually happened".
Driver fined for blowing nose in van | News.com.au.
Well he should know that blowing your nose can make you pass out and crash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)