Balloons are treated differently under the Chicago convention. There’s a little bit more leeway for balloons when it comes to overflights on sovereign territory.
Yes! In our newsroom (which isn't perfect by any means) - I have been testing using Qubes for really sensitive/untrusted documents. We also open un-trusted documents (from e.g. FOIA responses) on a machine live-booting from a CD.
However, it adds enough friction (especially with remote work) that it's hard to get it right 100% of the time.
If you want to share really sensitive documents, one way to ensure proper handling of your documents is to use a service like SecureDrop [0] which for e.g. only accepts submissions over Tor and requires the use of a secure viewing station [1] (air-gapped machine live-booting Tails w coreboot rom + webcam/networking card physically removed) to decrypt/access leaks.
That being said, I don't think there's a perfect tech-only solution because nothing is stopping folks handling it carelessly after they access the file.
I see your point, however, having worked in newsrooms - it really is about their beat and their threat-model. My organization covers a wide range of beats and folks covering national security or other sensitive topics have an entirely different workflow compared to those covering, e.g. housing.
I think being responsive to their needs and building trust will go much further. Also, designing a one-size fits all model will just mean that your reporters will either ignore the guidance or find a way to work around it.
For instance, the most recent credible threat we have had against one of our reporters wasn't a state-level actor, but rather folks on the internet (trivially) finding their address and doxing/harassing them and their family. No amount of technology hygiene will change the fact that voter registrations are public records.
A woman was detained at Philadelphia International Airport on her return from Punta Cana. After a few hours (~7hrs) of questioning she is pressured to sign a consent form, denied a consultation with an attorney and forcefully shackled and transferred to a hospital for a "monitored bowel movement" (This involves defecating in the presence of a CBP officer; No warrant needed).
She was then involuntarily committed to the hospital for "elevated heart rate" where she was forcefully stripped, underwent a "close visual inspection", administered lorazepam and olanzapine through IV, underwent an X-Ray, CT Scan along with a urine and blood workup - all of which came back negative for drugs or other contraband.
This entire ordeal lasted nearly 24 hours. After which, she was taken back to the airport and released to drive home. During her drive from the airport, she crashes into a highway median. She alleges that the she wasn't advised about the adverse effects of the medications being used to sedate her and that the medication was responsible for the accident.
All of this happened to a U.S. Citizen; without a warrant and without permission to call a lawyer.
This incident is discussed in further detail in the 4th section of the story mentioned earlier [1] "Invasive Searches: A woman's 24-hour ordeal"
The searches that even a U.S. Citizen could be subject to (without a warrant) are extremely broad[1].
> Legal precedents grant federal officers at ports of entry the power, without warrants, to require people to strip for a “visual inspection” of genitals and rectums, and to submit to a “monitored bowel movement” to check for secreted drugs.[1]
We did a deep-dive on court settlements by CBP for invasive searches and found quite a few extremely disturbing cases.[1]
> Some women were also handcuffed and transported to hospitals where, against their will, they underwent pelvic exams, X-rays and in one case, drugging via IV, according to suits. Invasive medical procedures require a detainee’s consent or a warrant. In two cases, women were billed for procedures
But they are hardly the only player, we were interested in not only identifying how far these known model bills are going but also surface bills from groups we don't know about!
Also, not all model bills are necessarily malicious - we found hundreds of bills that were almost identical but were just trying to standardize things like how we license nurses or other healthcare practitioners.
Hi everyone! I'm a news developer at the Center for Public Integrity. I worked on this project. Happy to answer any questions.
This project was basically an all-pairs text similarity problem. We were able to identify a lot of copycat legislation addressing a wide range of issues from e-cigarettes and prescription opiods to online sports betting, "religious freedom" and undocumented immigration. Some from previously known groups like ALEC and others from previously unknown interest groups.
We also have a public facing tool in the works that would allow anyone to track such measures in near real-time. We will be launching the tool and open sourcing the code in the coming weeks!
Also, do check out our launch story in this series about one such model bill that would allow car dealers to resell cars with active recalls. And keep an eye out for more stories about model legislation!
Right, I was just pointing out that OPs case is in the minority of tax filers and that making this option available would benefit a lot of tax-filers and wouldn't prevent OP from filing their taxes as they normally would.
I don't think this would prevent you from using a CPA or Itemizing your return. However, this system could be very beneficial for the 68.5% of the population that doesn't itemize[1].
The document vindicates a lot of the analysis that Kennan makes in his article. However, we do have to acknowledge the outlook that drove the party line. Among the recipients of this telegram were Stalin and Molotov (then Minister of Foreign Affairs), which I think would explain some of the extreme rhetoric here. Also note, that unlike the Kennan Telegram (which was published in Foreign Affairs under the pseudonym "Mr. X") the Novikov telegram wasn't meant for public consumption. It was part of the Glasnost files which came out in the 90s.
That being said, from the Soviet perspective, the United States -- during "peace time", had rapidly increased military spending and presence around the world. This only goes in to feed the "neurotic" world view that Kennan cited in his article.
"At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it."
If you enjoyed this, please do read Nikolai Novikov's (then Soviet Ambassador to the US) analysis of US Foreign Policy in a similar fashion, but from the perspective of the USSR. The Novikov Telegram (1946) is considered the soviet equivalent of George Kennan's Long Telegram.
TSA later reported that the actual cost of the randomizer was around $47k. The total figure I had mentioned earlier was part of a larger contract with IBM. I saw the generic "IGF::CT::IGF MOBILE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT" note on the award and assumed it was all for the same project.
It's also weird that TSA's response to OP's FOIA request cited a different and higher figure (~$340k) for the randomizer app -- I'm guessing they were grouping in other projects under the same award here too?
Besides, $47k seems like a reasonable amount if that figure includes training and deployment costs.
TSA spends most of it's budget through a provision called "Other Transaction Authority" which is essentially a vehicle to make purchases with barely any oversight from congress. http://time.com/4134368/tsa-price-of-security/ (Paywall)