Learn from the mistakes of others

Robert M. Thorson
October 5 2006

When is a rock not a rock? When you pass through airport security. Then it becomes a potential weapon, one capable of bringing an airplane down.

I'm mad. I can think of a better way to combat terrorism than taking mineral specimens away from geologists traveling to their conferences. I suggest we get U.S. forces out of Iraq, where our blundering entry and lingering occupation are inflaming anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

There are two versions of what happened to my specimen at Bradley International Airport, Hartford. In the first version, I was completely at fault. Out of ignorance, I broke some unwritten rule. Then, in the name of homeland security, the Transportation Security Administration took my rock away.

In the second version, the federal government is at fault for not listing mineral specimens as prohibited items and for creating a climate so fearful of terrorism that it's compromising our economic efficiency, personal freedom and instinct to trust one another.

I was traveling to Hood River, Ore., to attend the annual meeting of the Stone Foundation, an international organization of architects, sculptors, stonemasons, geologists, engravers and engineers united by their love of stone.

To enhance my speech, I nestled one of my favorite specimens between my underwear and shirts in a carry-on bag because I never check luggage on business trips. My banded chunk of the Hebron Gneiss (pronounced "nice") resembled a broken slice of layer cake composed of licorice and cream cheese.

In retrospect, I suppose I could have put the grapefruit-sized specimen inside my sock, swung it around my head like a mace, charged the cabin and attempted to hijack the flight. This, of course, never occurred to me until the zealous inspector declared my rock a "dual-use" item.

"What, pray tell, is a dual-use item?" I asked. I'm afraid I chucked just a little, causing her to glare, withhold a satisfactory answer and call her supervisor. He hefted my rock, scrutinized it for a moment, and agreed that my specimen was indeed a dual-use item, meaning a potential low-tech weapon. During those uneasy moments when I thought I would be detained, I wondered if a doctor's stethoscope would also be declared a dual-use item, since it could be used to strangle a pilot.

The inspectors did give me the option of returning to the ticket counter to check my specimen as baggage. However, having waited more than half an hour for my security clearance, I decided that I didn't have enough time. "Can I claim the rock when I return?" I asked. Their answer, a resounding "no," forced me to choose between possibly missing my flight, and abandoning my rock forever.

I capitulated, surrendering it to that great unmarked graveyard where confiscated items will spend eternity. If rocks had feelings, my beautiful specimen would have been crying as it was hauled away.

My gneiss was not without sentimental value. It has been my traveling companion for three years, and a touchstone for thousands of people who have attended my talks. And though my rock is gone for good, what worries me is that some analyst - perplexed by the usual nature of my dual-use object - will write a report to be sent up the bureaucratic food chain.

Who knows? Perhaps your tax dollars will be used by an internal think tank of agency hire-ups to ponder why on earth a geologist would travel with a rock. Who knows? Perhaps the government will wiretap my phone or check my library records to see whether I have checked out a Koran or a book about stone-age warfare.

I'm a middle-aged, balding, blond and blue-eyed Scandinavian-American. If the gauntlet of untrusting looks at airport security intimidates me, then how much worse would it be for an Arab American? Would the threshold weight for rock confiscation be lower?

After my conference, I brought back a specimen of rhyolitic ignimbrite (welded volcanic ash) to mitigate the loss of my nice gneiss. This time, I took no chances. I put it in my carry-on bag and checked it as luggage to ensure that my new rock would make it home, which it did.

What's next for airport screening? My dual-use laptop?

Robert M. Thorson is a professor of geology at the University of Connecticut and a member of The Courant's Place Board of Contributors. His column appears every Thursday. He can be reached at profthorson@hotmail.com.

E-mail: robert.thorson@uconn.edu

Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-thorson1005.artoct05,0,777555.column?coll=hc-headlines-oped

Robert M. Thorson
October 5 2006

When is a rock not a rock? When you pass through airport security. Then it becomes a potential weapon, one capable of bringing an airplane down.

I'm mad. I can think of a better way to combat terrorism than taking mineral specimens away from geologists traveling to their conferences. I suggest we get U.S. forces out of Iraq, where our blundering entry and lingering occupation are inflaming anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

There are two versions of what happened to my specimen at Bradley International Airport, Hartford. In the first version, I was completely at fault. Out of ignorance, I broke some unwritten rule. Then, in the name of homeland security, the Transportation Security Administration took my rock away.

In the second version, the federal government is at fault for not listing mineral specimens as prohibited items and for creating a climate so fearful of terrorism that it's compromising our economic efficiency, personal freedom and instinct to trust one another.

I was traveling to Hood River, Ore., to attend the annual meeting of the Stone Foundation, an international organization of architects, sculptors, stonemasons, geologists, engravers and engineers united by their love of stone.

To enhance my speech, I nestled one of my favorite specimens between my underwear and shirts in a carry-on bag because I never check luggage on business trips. My banded chunk of the Hebron Gneiss (pronounced "nice") resembled a broken slice of layer cake composed of licorice and cream cheese.

In retrospect, I suppose I could have put the grapefruit-sized specimen inside my sock, swung it around my head like a mace, charged the cabin and attempted to hijack the flight. This, of course, never occurred to me until the zealous inspector declared my rock a "dual-use" item.

"What, pray tell, is a dual-use item?" I asked. I'm afraid I chucked just a little, causing her to glare, withhold a satisfactory answer and call her supervisor. He hefted my rock, scrutinized it for a moment, and agreed that my specimen was indeed a dual-use item, meaning a potential low-tech weapon. During those uneasy moments when I thought I would be detained, I wondered if a doctor's stethoscope would also be declared a dual-use item, since it could be used to strangle a pilot.

The inspectors did give me the option of returning to the ticket counter to check my specimen as baggage. However, having waited more than half an hour for my security clearance, I decided that I didn't have enough time. "Can I claim the rock when I return?" I asked. Their answer, a resounding "no," forced me to choose between possibly missing my flight, and abandoning my rock forever.

I capitulated, surrendering it to that great unmarked graveyard where confiscated items will spend eternity. If rocks had feelings, my beautiful specimen would have been crying as it was hauled away.

My gneiss was not without sentimental value. It has been my traveling companion for three years, and a touchstone for thousands of people who have attended my talks. And though my rock is gone for good, what worries me is that some analyst - perplexed by the usual nature of my dual-use object - will write a report to be sent up the bureaucratic food chain.

Who knows? Perhaps your tax dollars will be used by an internal think tank of agency hire-ups to ponder why on earth a geologist would travel with a rock. Who knows? Perhaps the government will wiretap my phone or check my library records to see whether I have checked out a Koran or a book about stone-age warfare.

I'm a middle-aged, balding, blond and blue-eyed Scandinavian-American. If the gauntlet of untrusting looks at airport security intimidates me, then how much worse would it be for an Arab American? Would the threshold weight for rock confiscation be lower?

After my conference, I brought back a specimen of rhyolitic ignimbrite (welded volcanic ash) to mitigate the loss of my nice gneiss. This time, I took no chances. I put it in my carry-on bag and checked it as luggage to ensure that my new rock would make it home, which it did.

What's next for airport screening? My dual-use laptop?

Robert M. Thorson is a professor of geology at the University of Connecticut and a member of The Courant's Place Board of Contributors. His column appears every Thursday. He can be reached at profthorson@hotmail.com.

E-mail: robert.thorson@uconn.edu

Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-thorson1005.artoct05,0,777555.column?coll=hc-headlines-oped

Friday, October 13, 2006
Kate Heneroty at 7:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] labeled anti-war activities as "potential terrorist activity" and monitored students, Quakers and other anti-war groups while collecting information for a domestic terror threats database, according to documents [case materials; press release] released Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website]. The documents, obtained from the DOD under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit [JURIST report], indicate that the DOD's Threat and Local Observation Notice system, or TALON database [Wired report; JURIST news archive], relied on information provided from sources in the Department of Homeland Security, FBI terrorism task forces and local police departments to monitor anti-war activities.

The ACLU lawsuit came after an NBC News report in December revealed that the military maintained the database of "suspicious incidents," including peaceful anti-war protests and groups. Vietnam war era regulations [PDF text] limit what information the military can collect about people and activities taking place inside the US, and the Pentagon launched an investigation [DOD press release; JURIST report] into possible misuse of the program. According to DOD officials, the investigation revealed that 261 entries were improper and subject to removal [JURIST report]. Military official have also acknowledged that some records were kept longer than the DOD's internal 90-day policy even though the groups had been deemed not to be a threat.

The New York Times has more.

Friday, October 13, 2006
Kate Heneroty at 7:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] labeled anti-war activities as "potential terrorist activity" and monitored students, Quakers and other anti-war groups while collecting information for a domestic terror threats database, according to documents [case materials; press release] released Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website]. The documents, obtained from the DOD under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit [JURIST report], indicate that the DOD's Threat and Local Observation Notice system, or TALON database [Wired report; JURIST news archive], relied on information provided from sources in the Department of Homeland Security, FBI terrorism task forces and local police departments to monitor anti-war activities.

The ACLU lawsuit came after an NBC News report in December revealed that the military maintained the database of "suspicious incidents," including peaceful anti-war protests and groups. Vietnam war era regulations [PDF text] limit what information the military can collect about people and activities taking place inside the US, and the Pentagon launched an investigation [DOD press release; JURIST report] into possible misuse of the program. According to DOD officials, the investigation revealed that 261 entries were improper and subject to removal [JURIST report]. Military official have also acknowledged that some records were kept longer than the DOD's internal 90-day policy even though the groups had been deemed not to be a threat.

The New York Times has more.

Friday, June 02, 2006
DOJ wants ISP help in tracking website visits, internet searches, e-mail traffic
Jaime Jansen at 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller plan to resume talks on Friday with major internet service providers on retaining customer data on internet activities that would allow them to better combat child pornography and terrorism. An initial meeting [JURIST report] last Friday included American Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast; this week's meeting will include a broader group of representatives from internet companies. The Justice Department [official website] wants to be able to view records that could help them identify which internet users visited specified websites and potentially which users conducted specified searches, as well as determine who exchanged e-mails with whom without disclosing the content of the e-mails.

The issue of government access to detailed internet records is an extremely sensitive one. Earlier this year the Justice Department fought a legal battle [JURIST report] with Google, Inc. [corporate backgrounder] when Google refused to turn over index data or search terms [JURIST report] in response to a Justice Department subpoena [PDF text]. A federal judge ultimately ordered Google [JURIST report] to turn over a limited number of indexed addresses. Justice Department officials have also suggested that retained data could be used to control intellectual property theft and fraud.

The New York Times have more.

"So, can you explain what you were doing looking at this website, on this day, at this time?"

"We found that you entered the following search into search engine, on this day, at this time. Please explain."

Friday, June 02, 2006
DOJ wants ISP help in tracking website visits, internet searches, e-mail traffic
Jaime Jansen at 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller plan to resume talks on Friday with major internet service providers on retaining customer data on internet activities that would allow them to better combat child pornography and terrorism. An initial meeting [JURIST report] last Friday included American Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast; this week's meeting will include a broader group of representatives from internet companies. The Justice Department [official website] wants to be able to view records that could help them identify which internet users visited specified websites and potentially which users conducted specified searches, as well as determine who exchanged e-mails with whom without disclosing the content of the e-mails.

The issue of government access to detailed internet records is an extremely sensitive one. Earlier this year the Justice Department fought a legal battle [JURIST report] with Google, Inc. [corporate backgrounder] when Google refused to turn over index data or search terms [JURIST report] in response to a Justice Department subpoena [PDF text]. A federal judge ultimately ordered Google [JURIST report] to turn over a limited number of indexed addresses. Justice Department officials have also suggested that retained data could be used to control intellectual property theft and fraud.

The New York Times have more.

"So, can you explain what you were doing looking at this website, on this day, at this time?"

"We found that you entered the following search into search engine, on this day, at this time. Please explain."

Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Human rights key component of Annan global counter-terror plan
Angela Onikepe at 7:51 AM ET

[JURIST Europe] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented [speech text] his recommendations [UN press release] for a global counter-terrorism strategy to the UN General Assembly Tuesday, emphasizing the need to respect human rights in all aspects of anti-terrorism policy and practice. The defense of human rights constituted the fifth part of what he called the fundamental components of a global strategy, which also included:

• dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it;
• denying terrorists the means to carry out an attack;
• deterring States from supporting terrorism; and
• developing State capacity to defeat terrorism

Annan's strategy is encapsulated in a 32-page report [text] calling on states to "ratify and implement the core international human rights instruments and accept the competence of international and national human rights monitoring bodies." Annan insisted that by defending human rights, the global community can deprive terrorists of a critical victory. He also called upon member states to agree on the draft of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism [text], long held up by disagreements over a core definition of terrorism, insisting that those disagreements should not stand in the way of agreement on other issues.

The UN General Assembly is slated to begin discussions on Annan's recommendations May 11.

Voice of America has more.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Human rights key component of Annan global counter-terror plan
Angela Onikepe at 7:51 AM ET

[JURIST Europe] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented [speech text] his recommendations [UN press release] for a global counter-terrorism strategy to the UN General Assembly Tuesday, emphasizing the need to respect human rights in all aspects of anti-terrorism policy and practice. The defense of human rights constituted the fifth part of what he called the fundamental components of a global strategy, which also included:

• dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it;
• denying terrorists the means to carry out an attack;
• deterring States from supporting terrorism; and
• developing State capacity to defeat terrorism

Annan's strategy is encapsulated in a 32-page report [text] calling on states to "ratify and implement the core international human rights instruments and accept the competence of international and national human rights monitoring bodies." Annan insisted that by defending human rights, the global community can deprive terrorists of a critical victory. He also called upon member states to agree on the draft of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism [text], long held up by disagreements over a core definition of terrorism, insisting that those disagreements should not stand in the way of agreement on other issues.

The UN General Assembly is slated to begin discussions on Annan's recommendations May 11.

Voice of America has more.

the us government has shown some signs of real disclosure this week. a recent appointment to the secret fisa court has been announced publicly.

some things still work. albeit shakily.

the role of the court has been brought up by the issue of warrantless communications surveillance. something, it turns out, that was discussed following september 11, 2001.

speaking of anti-terror measures, the uk government is contemplating reintroducing a proposal to allow detention for up to 90 days without charges being laid to facilitate the interrogation of suspected or alleged terrorists. at present suspects can be held for up to 14 days, with a new law extending that to 28 days.

there has also been discussion of replacing the normal adversarial judicial processes with something more akin to the french inquisitorial magistrate.

Q333 Mr Clappison: Drawing a distinction on those grounds between this type of arrest and the arrest which is made in other types of criminal case, would you be open in your thinking to consider different treatments of the arrest process through judicial oversight, perhaps, for example, through judicial oversight from before the point of arrest, which is what I believe happens in France and a few other places?

Mr Clarke: I have said before publicly (and I have always got to be careful what I say because I am now speaking on behalf of myself and not the Government), I think that a supervisory system and investigating magistrates regime is very superior to the system that we have in this country. That is not the position of the Government, I make clear. As I say, that is my personal view, but I do not think counsel must swathe themselves in distinction and I do not think the adversarial system has been a particularly effective means of securing justice, but, I admit, I am not a lawyer and, therefore, not steeped in the conventions which say that what I have just said is a load of nonsense, but many of my colleagues in government, as in Parliament, are lawyers who believe that the current system is perfect.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: ... I think it is legitimate to have that debate from the proper level of public information as to what the restrictions are. I believe the same applies across the board on those issues. The Government should give the public as much information as they can without compromising public safety. I think this is one of the few things in the area of terrorism legislation that the Americans are better at than us. I hasten to add that I think that their legislation, the Patriot Act, for example, would never have got through the two Houses of this Parliament and it probably would have brought a government down, but, in terms of public information, they give much more.

the us government has shown some signs of real disclosure this week. a recent appointment to the secret fisa court has been announced publicly.

some things still work. albeit shakily.

the role of the court has been brought up by the issue of warrantless communications surveillance. something, it turns out, that was discussed following september 11, 2001.

speaking of anti-terror measures, the uk government is contemplating reintroducing a proposal to allow detention for up to 90 days without charges being laid to facilitate the interrogation of suspected or alleged terrorists. at present suspects can be held for up to 14 days, with a new law extending that to 28 days.

there has also been discussion of replacing the normal adversarial judicial processes with something more akin to the french inquisitorial magistrate.

Q333 Mr Clappison: Drawing a distinction on those grounds between this type of arrest and the arrest which is made in other types of criminal case, would you be open in your thinking to consider different treatments of the arrest process through judicial oversight, perhaps, for example, through judicial oversight from before the point of arrest, which is what I believe happens in France and a few other places?

Mr Clarke: I have said before publicly (and I have always got to be careful what I say because I am now speaking on behalf of myself and not the Government), I think that a supervisory system and investigating magistrates regime is very superior to the system that we have in this country. That is not the position of the Government, I make clear. As I say, that is my personal view, but I do not think counsel must swathe themselves in distinction and I do not think the adversarial system has been a particularly effective means of securing justice, but, I admit, I am not a lawyer and, therefore, not steeped in the conventions which say that what I have just said is a load of nonsense, but many of my colleagues in government, as in Parliament, are lawyers who believe that the current system is perfect.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: ... I think it is legitimate to have that debate from the proper level of public information as to what the restrictions are. I believe the same applies across the board on those issues. The Government should give the public as much information as they can without compromising public safety. I think this is one of the few things in the area of terrorism legislation that the Americans are better at than us. I hasten to add that I think that their legislation, the Patriot Act, for example, would never have got through the two Houses of this Parliament and it probably would have brought a government down, but, in terms of public information, they give much more.