"Homeland Security" breaks its word, again

*sigh* Not that my EU-citizen friends need more reasons not to visit me here in New York:

In 2003, the EU made a secret agreement to share airline passenger data with the US Department of Homeland Security, although the US doesn't have privacy protections sufficient to satisfy European law. The DHS promised to use the data only to fight terrorism.

DHS then turned around and, in another secret agreement, gave the data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That Memorandum of Understanding promises that CDC will protect the data--data that DHS shouldn't have had by EU law, and shouldn't have shared according to its own previous agreement. In general, I'd rather trust CDC than DHS. I'm surer of their competence and their good intentions. In this case, it's not clear that they have any practical use for the data: names, nationalities, and whatever else is on those lists won't tell CDC "the passenger in 17F showed signs of X communicable disease," which is the sort of thing they might reasonably have a use for.

As the ACLU points out,

the U.S. government is distributing information that it explicitly promised it would not share. This is very troubling for several reasons.

First, it is continuing evidence that the American government, and especially its security establishment, does not take privacy and data protection seriously.

Second, it undermines the respect and credibility of our government when it makes promises as a result of careful negotiations among different stakeholders and then breaks those promises.

[Crossposting from my weblog.]

"Homeland Security" breaks its word, again

*sigh* Not that my EU-citizen friends need more reasons not to visit me here in New York:

In 2003, the EU made a secret agreement to share airline passenger data with the US Department of Homeland Security, although the US doesn't have privacy protections sufficient to satisfy European law. The DHS promised to use the data only to fight terrorism.

DHS then turned around and, in another secret agreement, gave the data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That Memorandum of Understanding promises that CDC will protect the data--data that DHS shouldn't have had by EU law, and shouldn't have shared according to its own previous agreement. In general, I'd rather trust CDC than DHS. I'm surer of their competence and their good intentions. In this case, it's not clear that they have any practical use for the data: names, nationalities, and whatever else is on those lists won't tell CDC "the passenger in 17F showed signs of X communicable disease," which is the sort of thing they might reasonably have a use for.

As the ACLU points out,

the U.S. government is distributing information that it explicitly promised it would not share. This is very troubling for several reasons.

First, it is continuing evidence that the American government, and especially its security establishment, does not take privacy and data protection seriously.

Second, it undermines the respect and credibility of our government when it makes promises as a result of careful negotiations among different stakeholders and then breaks those promises.

[Crossposting from my weblog.]

Bakery

I went out this morning, intending to buy rye bread, and some kind of fish for dinner, and maybe a couple of things at the supermarket. The bakery we've been using for years is on 181st Street, far enough that it made sense to hop on the subway with cattitude.

I got off the train at 181st Street, walked down the hill, and found that the bakery shutters were down. With a sign on them reading "Store for Rent."

The fish store at 181st and Broadway was open, so I got salmon steaks, then took the bus back up here and got various groceries, including a baguette. For values of baguette implied by a New York supermarket rather than a bakery in France or Quebec: it's not the real thing, but it's an acceptable crusty white loaf.

I called the bakery's number, and got the "new" number on 187th. They answer the phone (with "Hello," but when I asked if it was Gruenbaum's they said yes), and agreed that they had moved to 810 West 187th, off Fort Washington Avenue. (Details for my own reference.) I think this means they've closed one store. I can still get rye bread, but it won't be quite as convenient as the old location.

Bakery

I went out this morning, intending to buy rye bread, and some kind of fish for dinner, and maybe a couple of things at the supermarket. The bakery we've been using for years is on 181st Street, far enough that it made sense to hop on the subway with cattitude.

I got off the train at 181st Street, walked down the hill, and found that the bakery shutters were down. With a sign on them reading "Store for Rent."

The fish store at 181st and Broadway was open, so I got salmon steaks, then took the bus back up here and got various groceries, including a baguette. For values of baguette implied by a New York supermarket rather than a bakery in France or Quebec: it's not the real thing, but it's an acceptable crusty white loaf.

I called the bakery's number, and got the "new" number on 187th. They answer the phone (with "Hello," but when I asked if it was Gruenbaum's they said yes), and agreed that they had moved to 810 West 187th, off Fort Washington Avenue. (Details for my own reference.) I think this means they've closed one store. I can still get rye bread, but it won't be quite as convenient as the old location.

Misuse of technology

A FAQ should not be a 5.3-megabyte file that I have to download and open in Acrobat.

Of course, if they'd used plain text, they wouldn't have been able to throw full-page photos of various government officials at me, nor insist on a blue background for the material.

I am tempted to write and ask them how this complies with their requirement to provide services to the blind and visually handicapped; were I a resident of the state in question, or if I had a vision impairment not corrected by my bifocals, I probably would.

Better, it turns out that there are actual FAQs elsewhere on the site. So my issue is less one of accessibility than of bad site design and worse labeling.

Misuse of technology

A FAQ should not be a 5.3-megabyte file that I have to download and open in Acrobat.

Of course, if they'd used plain text, they wouldn't have been able to throw full-page photos of various government officials at me, nor insist on a blue background for the material.

I am tempted to write and ask them how this complies with their requirement to provide services to the blind and visually handicapped; were I a resident of the state in question, or if I had a vision impairment not corrected by my bifocals, I probably would.

Better, it turns out that there are actual FAQs elsewhere on the site. So my issue is less one of accessibility than of bad site design and worse labeling.

For my gluten-avoiding friends

Wheat-free asparagus quiche, courtesy of minkboylove. I haven't tried it myself, and am more likely to do a standard wheat-based crust, but the instructions for the filling are tempting in terms of asparagus, and the crust recipe may be useful to someone reading this.

For my gluten-avoiding friends

Wheat-free asparagus quiche, courtesy of minkboylove. I haven't tried it myself, and am more likely to do a standard wheat-based crust, but the instructions for the filling are tempting in terms of asparagus, and the crust recipe may be useful to someone reading this.