Forget 1 hook. Forget 2 hooks. Forget the "hooks in the front" which comes out of left field to make you look silly. Now its all about the Rubik's cube clasp.

Clasps are so 1990s.

Biologists have constructed a genetic map of Europe showing the degree of relatedness between its various populations.

Science Visuals - The Genetic Map of Europe - NYTimes.com

MMMMMMMM Whale Bacon. So much more delicious because you are endangered.....

Whale Bacon on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The reasonable-suspicion standard should be written into law...

These reasonable compromises should in no way impede the government's ability to search laptops for such things as child pornography or terrorist plans. But they would go a long way toward giving the average, innocent traveler some protection against frivolous or mischievous intrusions.

Search and Replace - washingtonpost.com

Unprotected speech generally can only be restricted after a finding on the merits that the speech is indeed unprotected. It generally can't be restricted via a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction that's just based on a preliminary, quick-and-dirty estimate of whether a crime was violated and whether the speech is therefore constitutionally unprotected.

A discussion of the legal issues involved in the MBTA suit, which are familiar.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Temporary Restraining Order Against Crime-Facilitating Speech About Security Vulnerabilities:

On August 1st, I pointed out that Chertoff lied in an editorial published in mid-July in the USA-Today. Apparently he told the same lie to Wired in an interview on the 7th, and on the 8th Sen Russ Feingold echoed my comments exactly:

Secretary Chertoff's description of the newly published DHS policy on laptop searches was not just misleading – it was flat-out wrong. In an interview with Wired.com, the Secretary stated that "[w]e only do [laptop searches] when we put you into secondary [screening] and we only put you into secondary [screening] ... when there is a reason to suspect something."

But the actual policy that DHS published says the exact opposite.

Also note:

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke dismissed Feingold's statement, calling it "sour grapes and paranoia from someone who can't accept that even the 9th Circuit ruled that what we're doing is constitutional."

Hey Russ, have you read that 9th circuit decision? Can you explain what the hell the warrant exception for vehicle searches has to do with the standard of suspicion required to search laptops given that probable cause is required to search a home regardless of whether or not it is "readily mobile."

Chertoff Misleads on Laptop Searches, Feingold Charges | Threat Level from Wired.com

Threat Level is one of four finalists in the 2008 Knight-Batten Awards for Innovations in Journalism for our readers' work digging up over 100 self-serving anonymous edits performed by corporations and governments on Wikipedia.

Readers used WikiScanner to uncover the shenanigans.

I hope they are also thanking Virgil. He did most of the work here, really.

Thanks, Wikipedia Sleuths! Threat Level Places in Innovative Journalism Awards | Threat Level from Wired.com

From: Peter Swire [peter@peterswire.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:57 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: DHS responds on laptop searches; direct action campaigns

Dave:

Public concern about laptop searches seems to be getting the attention of senior officials at DHS.

Yesterday, they posted “Answering Questions about Laptop Searches” by Jayson Ahern, Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/

It links to his June 30 post on “CBP Laptop Searches”: http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2008/06/cbp-laptop-searches.html. Readers may wish to add their comments to the blog post.

Their basic point remains the same – customs has checked people’s items at the border for 200 years, so they can check your laptop.

Meanwhile, this issue has hit the front page of DailyKos, http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/4/141837/1015, and Dave Farber’s list gets mentioned in the Salon article, http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/08/04/encryption/index.html.

Two direct action campaigns are underway:

(1) “Hands Off My Laptop,” from Center for American Progress Action Fund: http://www2.americanprogress.org/t/288/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6239

(2) Electronic Frontier Foundation action site: https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=373&pg=makeACall.

Peter

Prof. Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neil Professor of Law
Moritz College of Law
The Ohio State University
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
(240) 994-4142, www.peterswire.net

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue).

That means that ABC News' "four well-placed and separate sources" fed them information that was completely false -- false information that created a very significant link in the public mind between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein....

I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it....

That applies to much of the Beltway class, including many well-connected journalists, who were quietly popping cipro back then because, like Cohen, they heard from Government sources that they should. Leave aside the ethical questions about the fact that these journalists kept those warnings to themselves. Wouldn't the most basic journalistic instincts lead them now -- in light of the claims by our Government that the attacks came from a Government scientist -- to wonder why and how their Government sources were warning about an anthrax attack?

The 9/11 truthers may now have something a bit more substantive to sink their teeth into. I have to say that I am not convinced that there is nothing to this connection.

Its worth noting that people who knew Ivins aren't buying the story. Its not clear what evidence the FBI actually has.

WaPo says:

The claim , as we discussed in first posting, is that he was upset about the lack of research into anthrax, the development of a vaccine, and fear about the country's vulnerability. And this mailing certainly did terrify Americans, so it could help alert the public to this weakness on biological weapons.

This was one of the FBI and investigators' early theories from the start: a disgruntled scientist upset about lack of focus on bio-weapons.

Apparently Ivins would have benefitted financially from a decision to manufacture vaccines.

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

It occurred to me when driving home that there are two assertions made in this editorial that aren't true.

As a practical matter, travelers only go to secondary when there is some level of suspicion.

That is a lie. Customs selects people at random and they have quotas for secondary screening that they must meet. I know this because I was personally selected for secondary screening at LAX and the officer who did so indicated to another officer at the time that they had met their quota.

Yet legislation locking in a particular standard for searches would have a dangerous, chilling effect as officers' often split-second assessments are second-guessed.

That is also a lie. Reasonable Suspicion is a standard that is so thin that really any rationalization that an officer had for flagging someone would likely be upheld. The reason it ought to be required is so that they cannot perform searches at random and they cannot operate quotas.

Chertoff's lies