New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting
By Jane Merrick
Sunday, 3 January 2010
The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.
The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.
The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation.
The claims triggered concern that the Prime Minister is over-playing the benefits of such scanners to give the impression he is taking tough action on terrorism.
And experts in the US said airport "pat-downs" – a method used in hundreds of airports worldwide – were ineffective and would not have stopped the suspect boarding the plane.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, allegedly concealed in his underpants a package containing nearly 3oz of the chemical powder PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate). He also carried a syringe containing a liquid accelerant to detonate the explosive.
Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.
But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
On Patenting Life
News item: Wired Magazine -- November 2, 2009 -- Judge OKs challenge to human-gene patents.
A federal judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit can move forward against the Patent and Trademark Office and the research company that was awarded exclusive rights to human genes known to detect early signs of breast and ovarian cancer.
US Judge Robert W. Sweet of New York, in ruling that the case may proceed to trial, noted that the litigation it may open the door to challenges of a host of other patent genes. About 1/5 of the human genome is covered under patent applications and claims.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is an excellent lawsuit! The plaintiffs -- the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law -- are alleging that the patent violates free speech by restricting research. They also claim that the defendant company, Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City, has tried to patent something that occurs in nature. The company did not invent, create or engineer the genes; it merely found the genes in nature and described how they function in nature. The company should be able to patent the method by which it found the genes, but not the genes themselves.
A federal judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit can move forward against the Patent and Trademark Office and the research company that was awarded exclusive rights to human genes known to detect early signs of breast and ovarian cancer.
US Judge Robert W. Sweet of New York, in ruling that the case may proceed to trial, noted that the litigation it may open the door to challenges of a host of other patent genes. About 1/5 of the human genome is covered under patent applications and claims.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is an excellent lawsuit! The plaintiffs -- the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law -- are alleging that the patent violates free speech by restricting research. They also claim that the defendant company, Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City, has tried to patent something that occurs in nature. The company did not invent, create or engineer the genes; it merely found the genes in nature and described how they function in nature. The company should be able to patent the method by which it found the genes, but not the genes themselves.
Monday, October 26, 2009
ARCHIVE: MLB + DRM = foul ball!
by Kellia Ramares
[Originally published on my baseball blog on January 6, 2008]
I downloaded the Tony Gwynn documentary from MLB.com last night. I have yet to watch it, but I have made an important discovery about MLB downloads: You are not downloading a file to keep and play as much as you want, you are only renting the file for a limited number of viewings, or in my case, attempts to view.
[Originally published on my baseball blog on January 6, 2008]
I downloaded the Tony Gwynn documentary from MLB.com last night. I have yet to watch it, but I have made an important discovery about MLB downloads: You are not downloading a file to keep and play as much as you want, you are only renting the file for a limited number of viewings, or in my case, attempts to view.
Monday, October 19, 2009
ARCHIVE: Book Review: Spychips: How major corporations and government plan to track your every move with RFID
Review by Kellia Ramares
[This review was originally published on Online Journal on January 17, 2006]
Spychips: How major corporations
and government plan to track your
every move with RFID
By Katherine Albrecht & Liz McIntyre
Foreward by Bruce Sterling, Wired.com
ISBN: 1595550208
Hardcover, 270 pp
Nelson Current, 2005
Marketers want to tag data to identify you and profile your possessions so they can target you with marketing and advertising material wherever you go. Government agents crave the power of hidden spychips to monitor citizens' political activities and whereabouts. And, of course, criminals can't wait to identify easy marks and high-ticket items by scanning the contents of shopping bags and suitcases at a distance. [authors' emphases]. --Katherine Albrecht & Liz McIntyre, Spychips, p 29.
RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification. Organizations that promote RFID, which include companies whose names and brands you recognize, such as Wal-Mart, Gillette, Procter & Gamble, Intel, UPS and Benneton, as well as government agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, want to implant an RFID tag on every item on earth.
[This review was originally published on Online Journal on January 17, 2006]
Spychips: How major corporations
and government plan to track your
every move with RFID
By Katherine Albrecht & Liz McIntyre
Foreward by Bruce Sterling, Wired.com
ISBN: 1595550208
Hardcover, 270 pp
Nelson Current, 2005
Marketers want to tag data to identify you and profile your possessions so they can target you with marketing and advertising material wherever you go. Government agents crave the power of hidden spychips to monitor citizens' political activities and whereabouts. And, of course, criminals can't wait to identify easy marks and high-ticket items by scanning the contents of shopping bags and suitcases at a distance. [authors' emphases]. --Katherine Albrecht & Liz McIntyre, Spychips, p 29.
RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification. Organizations that promote RFID, which include companies whose names and brands you recognize, such as Wal-Mart, Gillette, Procter & Gamble, Intel, UPS and Benneton, as well as government agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, want to implant an RFID tag on every item on earth.