Wednesday at an information-technology security conference in Washington, former CIA Director George J Tenet is calling for new security measures to protect against terrorist attacks on the USA via the internet.

Quoth Tenet:

I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability, but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control.

[The Internet] represents a potential Achilles’ heel for our financial stability and physical security if the networks we are creating are not protected.

[al Qaeda] is undoubtedly mapping vulnerabilities and weaknesses in our telecommunications networks.

Tenet believes that the open architecture of the internet which allows activities such as web surfing, Google searches and a myriad of blogs, including this one, makes the system more vulnerable. Modernization of industries by creating connections to the internet makes the industries, in turn, open to attack. It is Tenet’s opinion that “intelligence services, military organizations and non-state actors,” are researching the feasibility of expoiting these vulnerabilities.

The Department Of Homeland Security has the accountability to protect the internet from terrorism. But the former Director of the National Cyber Security Division, Amit Yoran, resigned last October, amid rumors of frustration and clashes with superiors, after giving a single day’s notice of his intent to leave.

Under Yoran, the National Cyber Security Division was responsible for implementing recommendations in the Bush Administration’s National Strategy To Secure Cyberspace. As part of this initiative, Homeland Security established a cyberalert system that warns of virus alerts and Internet attacks as they occur, along with detailed instructions on protection. They also mapped the Governement’s networked devices and began routinely identifying US computers and networks that were victims of attacks and break-ins.

Tenet would like to go beyond identification. He says that access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously. That might eliminate quite a few home users, whose virus-laden computers are used as zombies in various types of attacks, from any access to the Internet.

Tenet’s suggestion to limit access does not go against the National Strategy To Secure Cyberspace, which states:

The federal government could not—and, indeed, should not—secure the computer
networks of privately owned banks, energy companies, transportation firms, and other parts of the private sector. The federal government should likewise not intrude into homes and small businesses, into universities, or state and local agencies and departments to create secure computer networks. Each American who depends on cyberspace, the network of information networks, must secure the part that they own or for which they are responsible.

The federal government need not intrude anywhere in order to exclude.

One wonders how it would be determined who is serious about security, and thus worthy of access to the Web? One also wonders how many more freedoms must be given up in the name of national security?

The national press was excluded from this event at Tenet’s request. Wonder why?

My friend K lives in a small town not too far from Portland. She and her family live in a cute little house on a quiet street. Quiet, that is, until the church moved in across the street.

I use “church” in a loose sense. The man who moved in “saw the light” after a life of sinning. He now fancies himself something of a preacher and is trying to form a new congregation. In his garage. Which no longer sports the typical garage door, but now has a regular door, and a sign declaring its status as a congregation meeting place. Nothing wrong with any of that, of course.

But where does your right to form a church end and my right not to join it start?

The members of this congregation are not afraid to cram their beliefs down the neighborhood’s collective throat share their beliefs with their neighbors. On Sundays and Wednesdays when the meeting is in session, the sermon carries throughout the neighborhood thanks to the magic of amplification. At 4:00 am each weekday morning, taped hymns drone through the air along with the rasp of a flaky car starter. Last summer, when K and her family tried to enjoy their yard, the congregation was always ready to stand across the street singing hymns as loudly as possible.

The neighbors are beginning to feel a bit harrassed.

There is speculation among the neighbors that the real “reason” for forming a congregation has less to do with suddenly finding Jesus and more to do with suddenly discovering the tax-exempt status of religious bodies.

An elderly neighbor who had lost her husband of 50 years only two weeks before, lost control of her car and damaged some of the “church’s” property. Being an honest citizen, she confessed to the “reverend” what had happened.

Under the circumstances, one might expect a certain amount of understanding and compassion from a minister. After all the damage was relatively minor. The driver was insured and the church, one would expect, is also insured. Instead, the confession was answered with a threat to sue the driver for malicious damage. Not the most “Christian” of reactions.

But how do you get a church moved out once it’s moved in? It’s not a business, per se, so zoning laws may not apply.

For now, K is sleeping with earplugs to avoid the 4:00 am choir and considering an outdoor stereo system for use during the summer.

Both of my readers will remember the Tale Of The Belt, in which is recounted the story of my last run-in with airport security, trying to get both #1 Son and his bullet belt down to California and back again.

Today, the Portland Tribune reports that just in time for Thanksgiving PDX Airport Security has instituted a new “up close and personal” approach to passenger screening. Too personal?

According to the Tribune, the new procedures are:

TSA screeners are supposed to be the same gender as the person being checked. They talk you through the process. First, the screener runs a hand along the back and then under the arms, between the breasts, under the breasts — checking bra straps found along the way — and between the legs. She can use the front of the hand in most areas but must use the back of the hand for the breasts, genitals and buttocks.

[…]The TSA is well-aware of the sensitivity of the new pat-down process. A headline over a summary of the process on the TSA Web site says, “Pat down, other screening enhancements must be carried out appropriately.

Golly… that sounds fun, doesn’t it? And how will the lucky recipients be selected?

First, some passengers are chosen at random when issued boarding passes. Passengers traveling on one-way tickets or who paid cash for their tickets also are selected at this stage.

Second, passengers get sent through enhanced screening when, for whatever reason, they set off the metal detector. And third, the screeners themselves can designate someone.

“We rely on screeners to make a visual inspection of passengers,” [Jennifer] Peppin [TSA spokeswoman in Seattle] said. “If there’s someone wearing something baggy with irregularities or something protruding that doesn’t look right, they have the latitude to use the new method.”

Well, it looks certain that #1 Son, at least, will be in the “doesn’t look right” category when we head to Las Vegas for Christmas, although his clothes are usually tight enough to preclude any hidden weapons. And The Belt is not going near the airport. But I think I’d better be prepared to be patted if I want to fly.

To be fair to PDX security, it is the Transportation Security Administration that has adopted the new screen rules requiring more frequent and more physical searches in reaction to the bombing of two Russian jets. But is it really necessary to subject passengers to this kind of invasive procedure? The planes blew up in Russia — not here. How does current airport security in the US compare to current airport security in Russia? How much more privacy do we give up “willingly” in the name of “Homeland Security?”

Received via email:

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you . With regard to same sex marriage, you said, “in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman.” So, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I now point them to Leviticus 18:22 which clearly states it to be an abomination. But now I need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness – Lev15: 19-24.The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Friday, Scott Peterson was convicted. Due to unusual circumstances, I happened to be in my car when the verdict was read in court. All of the news stories and broadcasts I’ve seen or heard say pretty much the same thing: Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his wife, Laci Peterson, and her unborn baby.

If I hadn’t been listening to the radio when the verdict was read, I would have missed it. Here’s a link to the audio: Court bailiff, reading guilty verict in killing of unborn son.

For those of you who don’t have Real Player installed, here’s the transcript of the sound bite:

[woman’s voice speaking] We, the jury in the above entitled cause, find the defendent, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the crime of murder of baby Conner Peterson.

Do you see the key words there: “baby Conner Peterson.”

Scott Peterson was prosecuted under California’s fetal homicide law. This was a precursor to the Federal Unborn Victims Of Violence Act (UVVA), renamed “Laci and Conner’s law” or (as referred to in Bush ads during the election) “The Laci Peterson Law that protects women against violence.” UVVA defines an unborn child as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

Nation Right To Life claims that the law does not cover reproductive health rights and was meant to protect women. The law actually does nothing to prevent violence against women. It totally ignores the fact that any assault that harms a pregnancy is inherently a harmful attack on a woman.

What the law does do is to define a human life as starting at conception and provide separate legal rights for a fetus. Both erode a woman’s rights to reproductive choice and the latter is in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade, which held that a fetus is not a person under the 14th Amendement to the Constitution.

A different act, the Motherhood Protection Act of 2003, that would have supplied the same punishment for violent conduct agains a woman causing in an interruption of the normal course of a pregnancy resulting in harm to the pregnancy (including termination) as UVVA, but that did not give separate rights to the fetus, didn’t make it through committee.

Lest anyone think I’m exaggerating NRL’s intent, the day that the Scott Peterson verdict was handed down, KOIN News interviewed a representative from the Oregon Christian Coalition who said, basically, “Thank God we have a verdict and now we can overturn Roe v. Wade.” (Unfortunately I did not catch the name of the person being interviewed, and I cannot find mention of this on KOIN’s web site.) And, lest anyone still think I”m exaggerating, here’s an article by Jay Sekulow, Executive Director and Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing group founded by Pat Robertson that claims to be “dedicated to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms” but that is actually dedicated to “defending and advancing religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the two-parent, marriage-bound family.” Any doubt as to the ACLJ’s actual mission can be clarified by reading any of their position statements.

Quoth Sekulow regarding the Peterson verdict:

How does recognition of the value of the Peterson child’s life affect the pro-life movement? Well, it certainly gives us the momentum, if you will, to argue that this is a life worthy of protecting under the Constitution, when the murder of an unborn child is recognized as a separate and distinct crime under constitutional law.

We stand on a very slippery slope on which a woman’s rights to basic reproductive health care are at grave risk of being curtailed or eliminated. There is no medication other than contraception that is so rarely covered by health insurance. There is no medical procedure other than abortion that requires the patient to be subjected to waiting periods and the provider to be required to dispense unscientific information.

Other items to be aware of and write your representatives and senators to express your disapproval of:

Today on Fox News Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said that Arlen Spector, a Republican Senator who supports women’s reproductive health rights, has yet to make a persuasive case that he should head the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Spector said after the election that Bush still lacks enough Senate votes to stop a Democratic attempt to block nominees that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Spector has been accused of having a pro-choice “litmus test” for judicial nominees, and conseratives are urging Senate Republicans to disregard his seniority and reject him as Judiciary Committee chair. Bush is expected to have a chance to fill several Supreme Court vacancies, and many conservatives have overturning Roe v. Wade as a top priority.

Frist called Spectors comments “disheartening” and said:

I would expect Chairman Specter … if it’s Chairman Specter … to have a strong predisposition to supporting that nominee sent over by President Bush.

I guess it never occurs to either Frist or the other unnamed conservatives that they have their own “litmus test.”