![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's a sketch comedy show, not unlike Python or Kids In The Hall. Four guys, and they are good! They did a short marathon Thursday night and I'm impressed. They have a good sense of the bizzarre without being totally stupid.
May. 12th, 2006
The Feds created a DNA database for violent criminals and sex offenders. If you're convicted of one of those crimes, you have to give them a blood sample. I have no major problem with that overall, it is quite common for violent criminals to repeat and people who violate children have a very high recidivism rate.
("sex offender" is waaay too broad of a label, but that's a different rant)
Well, the Feds broadened the law to include ANYONE convicted of a Federal crime. So theoretically they have the DNA of Ollie North, Jack Abramoff, Jeff Skelling, and many others. Oh, sorry, Skelling hasn't been convicted yet. My bad.
This hacker was ordered by his parole officer to surrender a blood sample. The guy provided hair, fingernails, said he'd provide anything except blood as it violates his (unstated) religious beliefs. A DNA fingerprint can be lifted from just about anything, but in this case the Feds literally want blood.
So much for being a model parolee.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70869-0.html
I have a basic problem with the law being expanded. Non-violent offenders do not often cross-over and become violent offenders. If you're a hacker or a confidence trickster, you're not likely to start bludgeoning your victims. I see expanding this law as mission creep. The Feds have stated in the past that what they want is that anyyone who is ARRESTED, regardless of whether or not they are convicted, to get samples from and put in the database.
This is worse than having your fingerprints on file. I have my fingerprints on file, twice-over. Once for working for the police department, then actually twice when I had a concealed weapons permit and had it renewed, fingerprinted both times. The Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) doesn't work like it does on CSI. You take the best print(s) that you recover from a crime scene, you upload it to the AFIS search queue, and you wait. And you wait. I believe the fastest that you'd normally get matches back is at least 48 hours. Now, if you have a hot case that you need faster results back, you can give your prints a higher priority, but you're not going to get results back in a matter of seconds. When you do get results back, you get MULTIPLE results. I believe you'll get eight result sets back, the closest perfect match and then other very close matches. A trained and certified fingerprint examiner then makes manual comparisons to identify the proper print match, so the precise match is not done by machine.
With a DNA match, how can you contest it? A fingerprint match can be re-performed in a court room in real time, a DNA sample requires hours of machine processing in a lab, not something that can be done in front of a court. So if there were a compromised DNA examiner and you can't afford independent DNA testing, how can you challenge the results presented to the court? Unless you can find procedural problems with the evidence collecting or with evidence chain of custody, you're pretty much forced into accepting the lab's results. At least with challenging a fingerprint match, like I said, it can be done in the court room without huge amounts of costly equipment.
Hacking is a remote crime, particularly the type that this guy was convicted on. He remotely penetrated networks with shoddy (or non-existant) security, then frequently turned around and helped the owner of the network secure it against his penetration. Remote penetration. Thus zero DNA evidence of the criminal at the scene of the crime. And once they arrest the perpetrator and seize all of his computer equipment, they have more than enough of his DNA, but they don't have anything to match it against.
SO WHY REQUIRE A FRIGGIN' DNA SAMPLE?!
One last thought. I am definitely not a genetic scientist or a genetic forensic examiner. But let's assume that I have a copy of your DNA signature. Now, with all the work that's been put into genetic sequencing, gene splicing, cloning, and attacking disease with genetics (but not in the USA, thank ghod!), it seems to me that it would not be outside of the realm of possibility that I could use this genetic manufacturing capability to produce "evidence" that matches the genetic sample of you in my database.
Or am I just being a little bit paranoid?
("sex offender" is waaay too broad of a label, but that's a different rant)
Well, the Feds broadened the law to include ANYONE convicted of a Federal crime. So theoretically they have the DNA of Ollie North, Jack Abramoff, Jeff Skelling, and many others. Oh, sorry, Skelling hasn't been convicted yet. My bad.
This hacker was ordered by his parole officer to surrender a blood sample. The guy provided hair, fingernails, said he'd provide anything except blood as it violates his (unstated) religious beliefs. A DNA fingerprint can be lifted from just about anything, but in this case the Feds literally want blood.
So much for being a model parolee.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70869-0.html
I have a basic problem with the law being expanded. Non-violent offenders do not often cross-over and become violent offenders. If you're a hacker or a confidence trickster, you're not likely to start bludgeoning your victims. I see expanding this law as mission creep. The Feds have stated in the past that what they want is that anyyone who is ARRESTED, regardless of whether or not they are convicted, to get samples from and put in the database.
This is worse than having your fingerprints on file. I have my fingerprints on file, twice-over. Once for working for the police department, then actually twice when I had a concealed weapons permit and had it renewed, fingerprinted both times. The Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) doesn't work like it does on CSI. You take the best print(s) that you recover from a crime scene, you upload it to the AFIS search queue, and you wait. And you wait. I believe the fastest that you'd normally get matches back is at least 48 hours. Now, if you have a hot case that you need faster results back, you can give your prints a higher priority, but you're not going to get results back in a matter of seconds. When you do get results back, you get MULTIPLE results. I believe you'll get eight result sets back, the closest perfect match and then other very close matches. A trained and certified fingerprint examiner then makes manual comparisons to identify the proper print match, so the precise match is not done by machine.
With a DNA match, how can you contest it? A fingerprint match can be re-performed in a court room in real time, a DNA sample requires hours of machine processing in a lab, not something that can be done in front of a court. So if there were a compromised DNA examiner and you can't afford independent DNA testing, how can you challenge the results presented to the court? Unless you can find procedural problems with the evidence collecting or with evidence chain of custody, you're pretty much forced into accepting the lab's results. At least with challenging a fingerprint match, like I said, it can be done in the court room without huge amounts of costly equipment.
Hacking is a remote crime, particularly the type that this guy was convicted on. He remotely penetrated networks with shoddy (or non-existant) security, then frequently turned around and helped the owner of the network secure it against his penetration. Remote penetration. Thus zero DNA evidence of the criminal at the scene of the crime. And once they arrest the perpetrator and seize all of his computer equipment, they have more than enough of his DNA, but they don't have anything to match it against.
SO WHY REQUIRE A FRIGGIN' DNA SAMPLE?!
One last thought. I am definitely not a genetic scientist or a genetic forensic examiner. But let's assume that I have a copy of your DNA signature. Now, with all the work that's been put into genetic sequencing, gene splicing, cloning, and attacking disease with genetics (but not in the USA, thank ghod!), it seems to me that it would not be outside of the realm of possibility that I could use this genetic manufacturing capability to produce "evidence" that matches the genetic sample of you in my database.
Or am I just being a little bit paranoid?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12721154/
You know, I've considered buying the domain www.nobusheveragain.org and just collecting URLs of things that I don't like about any of the three Bushes that have held office. Maybe the time has come.
Then again, if good = purging people off of voter's rolls in order to help your party, then maybe he would be a good president.
You know, I've considered buying the domain www.nobusheveragain.org and just collecting URLs of things that I don't like about any of the three Bushes that have held office. Maybe the time has come.
Then again, if good = purging people off of voter's rolls in order to help your party, then maybe he would be a good president.
NBA OR NFL?
36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Neither, it's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
You gotta pass this one on!
No, I don't gotta. I took a minute to pull it up on Snopes. I really wish I had a more critical mind to sieve out some tripe like this. Basic problem: no specifics. Lots of people get arrested for various crimes, that doesn't mean they get convicted. People file bankruptcy, people may serve on a board of directors of a company that goes bankrupt. A company going bankrupt doesn't mean there was a crime involved. And we all know (or should know) how easily your credit report can get screwed up.
36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Neither, it's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
You gotta pass this one on!
No, I don't gotta. I took a minute to pull it up on Snopes. I really wish I had a more critical mind to sieve out some tripe like this. Basic problem: no specifics. Lots of people get arrested for various crimes, that doesn't mean they get convicted. People file bankruptcy, people may serve on a board of directors of a company that goes bankrupt. A company going bankrupt doesn't mean there was a crime involved. And we all know (or should know) how easily your credit report can get screwed up.
Peter Lorre trivia
May. 12th, 2006 07:49 pmI added him to one of the card games that I'm working on and decided to look him up on IMDB. What a cool character!
Here's some stuff posted about him:
According to Vincent Price, when he and Peter Lorre went to view Bela Lugosi's body during Bela's funeral, Lorre, upon seeing Lugosi dressed in his famous Dracula cape, quipped, "Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart just in case?"
Was the very first James Bond villain; he played Le Chiffre in a 1954 version of Casino Royale on the TV show "Climax!" (1954).
His daughter, Catharine Lorre, was once almost abducted by The Hillside Stranglers. She was stopped by the Stranglers, Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, imitating policemen. When they found out she was Lorre's daughter, they let her go. She didn't realize that they were killers until after they were caught.
During the House Un-American Activities Committee's "investigation" of supposed Communist infiltration of Hollywood during the 1940s and 1950s, Lorre was interviewed by investigators and asked to name anyone suspicious he had met since coming to the US. He responded by giving them a list of everyone he knew.
As a young man in Vienna, he was a student of the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
When he arrived in Great Britain, his first meeting with a British director was with Alfred Hitchcock. By smiling and laughing as Hitchcock talked, the director was unaware that Lorre had a limited command of the English language. Hitchcock cast him in The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934). Lorre learned much of his part phonetically.
It was reportedly Josef Goebbels himself who warned Lorre to flee Germany.
Here's some stuff posted about him:
According to Vincent Price, when he and Peter Lorre went to view Bela Lugosi's body during Bela's funeral, Lorre, upon seeing Lugosi dressed in his famous Dracula cape, quipped, "Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart just in case?"
Was the very first James Bond villain; he played Le Chiffre in a 1954 version of Casino Royale on the TV show "Climax!" (1954).
His daughter, Catharine Lorre, was once almost abducted by The Hillside Stranglers. She was stopped by the Stranglers, Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, imitating policemen. When they found out she was Lorre's daughter, they let her go. She didn't realize that they were killers until after they were caught.
During the House Un-American Activities Committee's "investigation" of supposed Communist infiltration of Hollywood during the 1940s and 1950s, Lorre was interviewed by investigators and asked to name anyone suspicious he had met since coming to the US. He responded by giving them a list of everyone he knew.
As a young man in Vienna, he was a student of the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
When he arrived in Great Britain, his first meeting with a British director was with Alfred Hitchcock. By smiling and laughing as Hitchcock talked, the director was unaware that Lorre had a limited command of the English language. Hitchcock cast him in The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934). Lorre learned much of his part phonetically.
It was reportedly Josef Goebbels himself who warned Lorre to flee Germany.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states' rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states' rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.