Slightly Scary News For The Net-Dependant

According to an Associated Press report at Breitbart.com:

Hackers briefly overwhelmed at least three of the 13 computers that help manage global computer traffic Tuesday in one of the most significant attacks against the Internet since 2002.

Experts said the unusually powerful attacks lasted as long as 12 hours but passed largely unnoticed by most computer users, a testament to the resiliency of the Internet. Behind the scenes, computer scientists worldwide raced to cope with enormous volumes of data that threatened to saturate some of the Internet's most vital pipelines.

It's comforting the Internet held up so well to the attacks. For those of us who rely heavily on the Net for news, information, and entertainment (you know, the necessities of daily life), any threat to the www world is something to make us sit up and take notice, but national security is at stake as well. Homeland Security put out a statement saying there doesn't seem to be an imminent threat, but, according to the AP, the department also '...confirmed it was monitoring what it called "anomalous" Internet traffic.' The article goes on to say, 'Among the targeted "root" servers that manage global Internet traffic were ones operated by the Defense Department and the Internet's primary oversight body.' There may not be an imminent threat, but any time somebody's targeting Defense Department anything, it's gonna make me a tad bit less comfortable, especially when they have a degree of success. The article isn't long. Go ahead and read the rest. Oh, and my vastly understated thought for the day? Hackers aren't nice people.

Hat tip: Instapundit

The Politics Of Improving Security

Michael Rosen, at TCS Daily, has an interesting analysis of a convergence of benefit between successful politics and good policy. Specifically, he has a look at gains made over the last few months toward improvements in homeland security, including the 700 miles of border fence recently passed by both the House and Senate, as well as legislation establishing military tribunals for terrorism detainees and basic standards for interrogation of combatant prisoners. There are clear advantages to both achievements. The fence, as I've noted earlier, is about knowing who's coming into our country. Setting tribunals and interrogation standards gives guidelines for CIA and military questioners, protecting both the detainees (from abuse) and the interrogators (from unjust accusation.) Rosen points out that, with an election looming, these accomplishments are beneficial to Republicans politically, as the party in power, but says that "the U.S. as a whole is the true beneficiary." Have a look.

Science Meets Homeland Security

I've been doing a little tech reading this morning, as well as some current events and political analysis. Most of it has been mildly interesting, but nothing has screamed at me to blog it. Things occasionally do scream in such a manner, and I usually tell them to take a timeout. I don't want to encourage such behavior. Eventually, of course, I cave to their insistent pressure that I make a fuss over them, and give them exactly what they want by telling Meow readers how important, or interesting, or maddening I found them. I know I shouldn't reward screaming with positive attention, but sometimes I just have to give in to their demands so they will stop pestering me. I probably would have made a lousy parent. Firm consistency is very important with children. Less so with blogs; however, the same general truths apply. If my blog gets out of line, I have no one to blame, but myself.

All of this to say that, while I haven't found anything so compelling that it simply must be discussed at length, I did find something worth tossing your way. Not to whine, but I am on the second day of a migraine, so my thinking is a little unfocused. However, I still got enough out of a piece I read at IEEE Spectrum, by Ted G. Lewis, that I thought maybe those of you the topic interests enough to follow the link might get a bit more out of it than I, not being hindered as I am at the moment by brain-fuzziness. It applies mathematical networking analysis to Homeland Security issues, and looks at the defense of infrastructure of all sorts, from the Internet, to social structures such as governments, to physical infrastructure, power, transportation, communication and public health. Let my clarify: This is not an article about math, nor is there math in it. You do not have to understand math to understand the article. It is about networks of all kinds, and how to protect them. It is a bit of a dry read, not one of those science articles that brings ideas to life and makes them completely accessible to the non-scientific mind, but I still found it interesting. Not screamingly so, but one or two of you might want to go here anyway. If not, just tell it to take a timeout.

Liquid Bomb Plot Foiled

The U.S. Homeland Security terror alert system has gone to the red level for the first time since the system was put in place, indicating that the risk of a terror attack is severe. Canada's National Post reports British counter-terrorism efforts have foiled a huge terrorist plot, once again aimed at using airplanes to spread death and destruction. As before, the targets were U.S. cities--New York, Washington, and some Californian Metropoli, although this time the origin was Heathrow airport in London. The plan was to smuggle chemicals on board disguised as common liquids--i.e. the shampoo that we all stow in our carry-on luggage so that it won't swell and dump all over our clothes when the baggage compartment decompresses with altitude. Once airborne, these chemicals were to be combined to explode the planes, no doubt at strategic points chosen to maximize the damage the planes would cause upon impact. The triggers would be hidden as common electronic equipment.

The plan, apparently, came very close to succeeding, and now there are a whole list of new restrictions aimed at preventing the possibility of any similar plot making it past the layers of security that stopped this one. No more carrying spillables into the cabin with you. No more bringing along extra water bottles so that you don't have to pay four dollars for something to drink on long layovers. Cell phones, laptops, and other portable electronic devices we all carry, rather than check, are also on the not-any-more list. It looks like the bans are going to be sticking around for a while, too. One more strike against flying over driving. Of course, these new standards are completely reasonable given the risk. Inconvenient as all get out, but completely reasonable. Makes me want to invest in that flying car I wrote about a while ago.

I have friends who are flying from Portland to New York tomorrow, with two layovers, and thirteen hours from start to finish travel time. Yuck. Now add to that the fact that they can't take water for the trip, or an iPod or laptop to pass the time, and their vacation is not going to start off particularly comfortably. One of my friends also has strep throat, which just basically sucks, especially without lots of water to stay hydrated. On the other hand, the trip can only get better from there, so maybe the travel part will just enhance the being there part by comparison. I hope so, for their sake.

I, like all of you I'm sure, am simply infuriated by this. STOP TRYING TO KILL US, YOU STUPID JERKS!! Even when they fail, the loonies manage to make our lives more hassle-ridden, which obviously suits them just fine. The stupid terrorists had already ruined air travel for just about everybody. Remember the days when loved ones could actually see you off at the gate, and meet you with balloons and smiles when you came home? Now it's "call on the cell phone when you get there and I'll pick you up outside." Oh, wait, we can't take cell phones on the plane anymore. Now we get to wait till we retrieve our bags and all dig around in our luggage in order to make that call. That, or stand in line for the pay phone. Yippee.

Okay, vent over. I do have to say one really positive thing in the midst of all this. It's absolutely astounding to me that British authorities managed to discover, and halt, this whole scheme. Homeland Security, and it's foreign equivalents around the globe have been absolutely amazing for the last five years. I know the plot was on the verge of being carried out, but it didn't happen, thanks to the efforts of the people who are always working to protect us. Color me completely impressed.

Hat tip: Instapundit for the link, the entire blogosphere for the topic. Once again, you can go to Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, and Pajamas Media for the latest links and info.

Update: Lara Jakes Jordan of The Associated Press is reporting that the terrorists were planning a dry run of their scheme within a couple of days, and the attack to follow hard on its heels--with as many as ten planes targeted. Scary.

Update II: Again from Instapundit--ABC News has more details of the plot, and info on those terrorists who thus far have evaded capture. As of yesterday, British authorities had captured 21 suspects, but they believe at least five are still at large, some of whom might be the leaders.

Update III: There's a useful comment (from the comments section shockingly enough) that links a Detroit Free Press article saying that laptops and cell phones will be allowed as part of your carry-on luggage. That will be a relief to all those business commuters looking to get something done in flight.

Who Pulls The Strings At Border Patrol?

Michelle Malkin has a look at "the longstanding battle between DHS management and rank-and-file employees over strict, tough, and unapologetic immigration enforcement." Her extensive summary comes on the heels of accusations that the Mexican government is being tipped off by U.S. Border Patrol as to where the Minutemen (civilian border watchers, a.k.a. Undocumented Border Agents) have been patrolling and detaining illegal immigrants. DHS denies these allegations, but by Malkin's account, not very convincingly. She makes the case that the Mexican consulate has more pull with the Department of Homeland Security than do the field agents and citizens who patrol our borders. It does make me wonder why we have a border patrol at all, if their effectiveness is being hindered from the top down.