This LA Times Editorial discusses the complexities of the situation. In a nutshell, it’s not clear that the program had advanced to the point to where it triggered a Congressional notification. Furthermore, if the program was, as is being reported, designed to take out Al Qaida chiefs, the idea that we would not have had such a program is unbelievable, itself.
Dick Cheney Orders CIA to not inform Congress?
The news media is reporting a story that former Vice President Dick Cheny ordered the CIA to not inform Congress about a secret, and presumably controversial, program. While there are almost no details about what the program is, there are, nevertheless a few interesting items of note.
First and foremost, constitutionally, outside his personal staff, the vice president of the United States has no authority to order anyone to do anything. That doesn’t stop the president from delegating power to him or anyone else, and if all we are reading about is true, it demonstrates the enormous amount of trust President Bush placed in Mr. Cheney, and the disdain Mr. Cheney had for the democratic process, and for Congress. Perhaps he would say that he was protecting America’s security by withholding such information, but in the end we have to ask what sort of a government we had that he could do this and get away with it.
Supposedly, the program in question has to do with some form of surveillance. When the Director of CIA discovered the program, he reportedly terminated it immediately and reported its existence to Congress. Any such breathtaking speed within the halls of government indicates that someone didn’t want to be stained with illegal activity. And hence this calls for an immediate investigation of what the program was, who had the authority to authorize it, and if it was illegal, who had the responsibility to stop it.
And if the program was illegal, someone must go to jail, preferably multiple someones, both from the civil and appointed/elected ranks. This is important so that civil service employees can’t simply say that they were following orders, and so that current and future politicos know that they cannot get away with violating peoples’ civil rights, and that their day to face justice will come.
NY Times has an epiphony: Buses are Eco-Friendly!
This may come as a great shock to some, but the New York Times has found that when you take cars off the road in crowded cities and replace them with fuel efficient buses, you reduce CO2 emissions! Sound crazy? What’s really crazy is that some editor thought that a headline that references poor cities specifically would be a good idea, and that the article itself is news.
The cities of Bogota, Jakarta, Mexico City, and others are of course to be commended, but the idea that buses are something that only poor people would use is a preposterous notion that perhaps automakers would like to perpetuate. Each day, tens of thousands of normal (not so poor) people living in Switzerland hop on buses, trams, and trains to get to where they need to go. I do this myself sometimes.
The article discusses the cost of putting in rail, and here we see a potential avenue for places like the Bay Area. Anyone who knows the Bay Area knows that it is full of rolling hills, has occasional earthquakes, and lots of traffic. Land is expensive, and so a functioning bus system is an ideal addition. But in the Bay Area, those who do use public transportation outside of San Francisco do tend to be poor. That wouldn’t be the case if buses had privileged lanes and the services were both more frequent and comprehensive. Imagine taking a bus from Pleasanton to, say, Sunnyvale? Maybe you would need to change once somewhere. So long as the change is properly timed, what do you care? Who wouldn’t want such a door-to-door service?
New Research: Social Security Numbers (SSN) are Entirely Predictable
New research published in yesterday’s Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences has dramatic implications for Americans and identity theft. Alessandro Acquisti is an Associate Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy at Heinz College of Carnegie Mellon. He has spent the better part of two years with his colleague Ralph Gross, looking at social security numbers as both identifier and authenticator, something we have all known was a bad combination. Professor Acquisti demonstrates just how bad of an idea it has been in the last twenty years. In that time there have been two significant policy changes that have made numbers extremely predictable based on two pieces of information:
- birth city
- date of birth
The policy changes involve release of something known as the Death Master File (DMF), which was intended to prevent someone from expropriating a dead person’s identity, and the Enumeration at Birth (EAB) initiative, which has had the effect of allocating SSNs shortly after birth. These combined with the facts that SSNs have structure based on location, and that the less significant components are serialized in allocation, and it makes for a predictable SSN.
This gets worse. While it may be possible to fix this problem for future generations that use SSNs, either by randomizing all or lesser components, or by not filing applications upon birth, the millions of people who have assignments in this time period are in an extremely difficult spot, because the workaround is a change of number. This argues for a new form of identity that separates authentication and identity, but the effort to do so requires that the finance, education, and medical sectors (not to mention government) change their means of identifying individuals. This will be no easy task.
This research is a remarkable piece of work by Professor Acquisti and his colleagues.
The Court Gets it Right!
It’s so often that we see dismal decisions out of the Supreme Court that perhaps we should go to some additional effort to highlight good ones. On June 25th, the Court announced its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No. 07-591). In this case, the defendant was accused of possession of cocaine, and what was entered into evidence was a certificate from a laboratory indicating what the substance was. Under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, a defendant has the right to confront his or her accusers, something that is difficult when all that is presented is a certificate. Had the decision gone the other way, the state would in essence be able to write a note, excusing crucial experts from adversarial challenge, while yet admitting their evidence. And it’s not as if we haven’t seen shoddy work by laboratories in the past. While there are exceptions to the so-called Confrontation Clause do exist, they are limited to certain business records, and the unavailability of a material witness (e.g., a decedent in a murder trial).
The funny thing is that in the states I’ve lived, anyone with a speeding ticket has had the right to question the guy who’s pulled him over, and that was for an infraction, and not a felony. I even know of people who have introduced evidence that challenged the validity of radar.
This also goes to our previous discussion about technology changing how the law is applied. Today we have DNA tests that provide a relatively reliably test that when found indicate a person’s presence – by today’s standards. Tomorrow’s approaches may once again upset the apple cart, but only if experts and methods can be challenged with those newer methods.