Internet Storm Center Infocon Status
Get FireFox for Secure Browsing
My Blog Roll
Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 

View Article  Anyone need a Watchlist?

Prior to the airline hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration's "no-fly list" contained 11 names.

Soon after the attacks, the Transportation Security Administration was created, and given direct authority over airline security screening and the watch list. The list soon began to expand almost daily, according to government documents. The last credible report on the list put its length at 119,000 names, though the TSA says it has since narrowed it to a smaller number that must remain a secret.

While it was expanding the no-fly list, the TSA was also busy carving out a second list of people who were allowed to fly, but would be screened extra closely on their way to the gates. The government initially denied this "selectee list" existed, but a watchdog group eventually got the goods in a Freedom of Information Act request.

Of course, the TSA isn't the only agency making lists these days. Here's a quick Wired News field guide to post-9/11 watch lists.

Get the list on Wired.

View Article  Counter attack hacking OK-ed by courts
This is a very interesting case.  It seems if you are just collecting evidence while trying to protect your own systems, hacking a hacker is okay.

A federal appeals court just shot down an attempt by confessed superhacker Jerome Heckenkamp to overturn his computer crime convictions, which were an end result of information provided by a university sysadmin who broke into Heckenkamp's computer to gather evidence.

The warrantless cyber-search was justified by the "special needs" exception to the Fourth Amendment, because "the administrator reasonably believed the computer had been used to gain unauthorized access to confidential records on a university computer," the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

Later in the article on Wired:

According to the decision, UWisc cracked Heckenkamp's computer in order to confirm that he was the hacker they were looking for. Heckenkamp turned out to be guilty, so Schroeder's tough talk has some surface appeal. But what if Heckenkamp had been innocent?

The whole policy has some nasty implications for student privacy. There's no judge in the loop; no independent finder of fact. So who decides when there's enough evidence to break into the student's machine and riffle through his files? And then there's the inevitable mission creep. What happens when system administrators crack a suspected hacker's computer, and find he's innocent of the hack, but also turn up evidence that he's been selling dope to his friends? Or downloading pirated music? And eventually, instead of Qualcomm, it'll be the RIAA or the MPAA calling up the University of Wisconsin for a little help.

Search
Google Search
Translators
Partner Sites
Chat with me
Alexa Traffic Counter
Feed Map
Technocrati Chart
Posts that contain "Lazy Genius" per day for the last 60 days.
Technorati Chart
Get your own chart!