Category Archives: History

History, Poetry, Security

SMS protest language censored by phone companies in Uganda

Leave a comment

Reuters reveals an interesting African development related to protests in the Middle East and mobile communication:

Uganda has ordered phone companies to intercept text messages with words or phrases including “Egypt”, “bullet,” and “people power” ahead of Friday’s elections that some fear may turn violent.

“Messages containing such words, when encountered by the network or facility owner or operator, should be scrutinised and, if deemed to be controversial or advanced to incite the public, should be stopped or blocked,” he said.

[…]

The other English words or phrases on the list are: “Tunisia”, “Mubarak”, “dictator”, “teargas”, “army”, “police”, “gun”, “Ben Ali” and “UPDF”.

Bad idea. It will not work, not least of all because the black-list can be leaked; I see an impossible goal of staying abreast of slang and permutations already typical of SMS.

Who would type dictator when they can say tator, or tater, or tot? Who uses police when they can put cops, 5-0 or bobs? Wikipedia provides a list of euphemisms for police that covers every letter in the alphabet. I would use gas, or mace, or lach (short for lachrymatory), or pep(per), or RCA (riot control agent) instead of teargas.

I mean the obvious and historic defense is encoded language: the words gas and pepper have many meanings, and thus are hard to ban. This is a form of substitution. The key to decipher their correct (intended) meaning using message context or metadata. That easily defeats word-list censorship. How cool is that? Or should I say how radical? I’ve mentioned this before in terms of songs and poems like Kumbaya.

Energy, History, Security

Stuxnet Failed to Stop or Delay LEU

3 Comments

Three days ago an updated report by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) was published with the following conclusion:

While it has delayed the Iranian centrifuge program at the Natanz plant in 2010 and contributed to slowing its expansion, it did not stop it or even delay the continued buildup of LEU [low enriched uranium]. […] At the time of the attack, the Natanz FEP contained a total of almost 9,000 IR-1 centrifuges. The destruction of 1,000 out of 9,000 centrifuges may not appear significant, particularly since Iran took steps to maintain and increase its LEU production rates during this same period. […] One observation is that it may be harder to destroy centrifuges by use of cyber attacks than often believed.

They suggest that the malware was injected into systems in the supply-chain for Natanz.

Because of sanctions and trade controls, Iran operates international smuggling rings to obtain industrial control equipment, including the Siemens 315 and 417 PLCs. Although foreign intelligence agencies could infect or sabotage these PLCs abroad, they would have far greater chance of ultimately infecting Natanz by inserting Stuxnet in the core of Iran’s supply chain for the centrifuge program’s control systems.

This points strongly to an outsider cut-off from direct site access yet influential, which echoes a CIA method claimed to have caused the trans-Siberian pipeline disaster in 1982. On the other hand, it is said the attackers monitored and continued to modify Stuxnet, almost as if they had inside access and knowledge of their progress:

Symantec has established that Stuxnet first infected four Iranian organizations in June and July 2009. After the 2009/2010 attack, and before Stuxnet’s public discovery, the malware’s operators tried to attack again. Symantec found that in March, April, and May 2010, two of the original organizations were again infected. In May, a new Iranian organization was also infected. Were the Stuxnet operators dissatisfied with destroying only 1,000 centrifuges, or were they encouraged by their success? In any case, they were improving the code’s ability to spread by the spring of 2010, according to Symantec. These improvements undoubtedly sought to enable the program to again breech Iran’s security on its gas centrifuge program and destroy more centrifuges.

The report points out that the level of knowledge required for the attack had to come from a plant insider, but that the attack vector is more likely to have been from an outsider. The blended approach of Stuxnet emphasizes a loss of secrecy in their program, which may significantly affect Iran’s management of their nuclear effort far more than damage to controllers and centrifuges. The objective may have not been destruction but rather to demonstrate the sophisticated level of information leakage.

History, Poetry, Security

The History and Meaning of Finding Kumbaya

Leave a comment

The NYT attempts to preserve or even restore meaning for the song often known only as Kumbaya

The lyrics told of people in despair and in trouble, calling on heaven for help, and beseeching God in the refrain, “Come by here.”

[…]

Far from compromise, “Come By Here” in its original hands appealed for divine intervention on behalf of the oppressed. The people who were “crying, my Lord” were blacks suffering under the Jim Crow regime of lynch mobs and sharecropping. While the song may have originated in the Georgia Sea Islands, by the late 1930s, folklorists had made recordings as far afield as Lubbock, Tex., and the Florida women’s penitentiary.

With the emergence of the civil rights movement in the 1950s, “Come By Here” went from being an implicit expression of black liberation theology to an explicit one. The Folkways album “Freedom Songs” contains an emblematic version — deep, rolling, implacable — sung by the congregation at Zion Methodist Church in Marion., Ala., soon after the Selma march in March 1965.

Like other songs I have mentioned before here, it was an encoded message among slaves to fight against injustice such as restrictions on speech.

To sing Kumbaya was to resist, perhaps even to signal to others an event that would need more resources — calling in backup. The peculiar characteristics of this song that originated in the American south are born out of resistance to authority; simple repetition with obfuscation helped ensure the availability, integrity and confidentiality of a message.

Also Folklife Center News, Volume 32, Nos 3-4, Summer/Fall 2010, in their exhaustive research of the song origins, explains how an alleged link is problematic and… Wikipedia tends to publish garbage.

The most common claim made today about the origins of “Kumbaya” is that it is from the Gullah-Geechee people of coastal Georgia and South Carolina. (The more outlandish versions of this theory, such as the one espoused on Wikipedia on April 2, 2010, claim that “Yah” is a remnant of Aramaic, and refers to God, despite the fact that “yah” means “here” in Gullah.) While a Gullah origin is certainly closer to the truth than either of the previous theories, AFC’s archival versions also call the Gullah claim into question.

The Folklife Center News provides instead a self-dealing alternative story:

…the evidence from the American Folklife Center Archive does not fully support any of the common claims about the origin of “Kumbaya.” Instead, it suggests that “Kumbaya” is an African American spiritual which originated somewhere in the American south, and then traveled all over the world…. Although it is truly a global folksong, its earliest versions are preserved in only one place: the AFC Archive.

Coastal Georgia and South Carolina is somewhere in the American south, no? Perhaps too specific. Either way, Kumbaya is a fight song.

Food, History, Security

Chromium-6 Found in US Cities

Leave a comment

The Environmental Working Group released a study last month that showed nearly 90% of American cities have unhealthy levels of cancer-causing chemicals in their tap water. Norman, Oklahoma topped the list, just above Honolulu.

Laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG) have detected hexavalent chromium, the carcinogenic “Erin Brockovich chemical,” in tap water from 31 of 35 American cities. The highest levels were in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, Calif. In all, water samples from 25 cities contained the toxic metal at concentrations above the safe maximum recently proposed by California regulators.

The National Toxicology Program has concluded that hexavalent chromium (also called chromium-6) in drinking water shows “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of gastrointestinal tumors. In September 2010, a draft toxicological review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) similarly found that hexavalent chromium in tap water is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Norman, Oklahoma has just studied and given a public response to the EWG findings.

Water samples recently collected by the city of Norman found levels of chromium-6 ranging from 10 to 90 parts per billion, Utilities Director Ken Komiske said Thursday.

Komiske said the findings were no surprise given Norman’s location and well-documented history of having heavy metals in its drinking water.

[…]

Currently, the limit set by the EPA for total chromium in drinking water is 100 parts per billion.

[…]

“It is naturally occurring here … it’s going to be in the soil, it’s going to be in your plants and it’s going to be in your water,” Komiske said. “But is it safe to drink? Absolutely.”

An interesting clue to this story is that Komiske is reported to have tested for chromium-6, but he is quoting an EPA limit for total chromium. The two are not the same and the story does not make it clear.

A similar report comes from Syracuse, New York:

[Onondaga County Health Commissioner Dr. Cynthia] Morrow says comprehensive testing programs are in place, and those tests show the amount of chromium is well below state standards. “We have a huge margin of safety before we have any level of concern and that’s for total chromium,” she said.

Total chromium again.

The question raised by the EWG is not for total chromium. It is specific to chromium-6. The EPA has no maximum contaminant level set for chromium-6.

The story from Hawaii shows a far more detailed and informed report than the above two cities.

The Board of Water Supply found the highest level of chromium-6 in Waipahu and the lowest in Wahiawa.

“You don’t want any chromium-6 in the water because there’s always a risk of cancer, but it’s understanding that at very low levels the risk of getting any kind of illness is very low,” said interim Health Director Neal Palafox. “The water by present science is very safe.”

California has a goal of 0.06 ppb for chromium-6 in drinking water.

The chromium-6 is most likely derived from naturally occurring volcanic soils, according to Gary Gill, DOH deputy director for environmental health. “Levels are far below any EPA action levels at this point,” Gill said. “The goal for any contaminant should almost always be zero — that’s a goal, that’s not a health standard.”

Total chromium levels among the Oahu sites tested ranged from 0 to 4.8 ppb.

“To have citizens and people concerned about anything that’s unsafe in the water is always good and should raise red flags,” Palafox said. “The other part of the responsibility is to help people interpret what it means.”

Again we see an official point to EPA levels, yet they fail to mention there is no EPA level for chromium-6. That is the issue. At least the reporter makes it clear. The EPA defends themselves by claiming they simply have not been able to update their rules with current science since 1992:

The current standard is set at 100 parts per billion. EPA’s regulation assumes that the sample is 100% chromium-6. This means the current chromium standard has been as protective and precautionary as the science of that time allowed. The current standard is based on potential adverse dermatological effects over many years, such as allergic dermatitis.

[…]

…EPA is proposing to classify hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6) as likely to cause cancer in humans when ingested over a lifetime. EPA will make a final determination by the end of 2011.

They are not saying chromium-6 should be allowed at 100 parts per billion, they are just saying they are not disallowing chromium-6 as part of the 100 parts per billion because other forms of chromium are not toxic.

In stark contrast to news in Hawaii is a FOX report from Maryland, where an official says there is no need for any safety concern at all until after disaster:

“There is nothing to fear. I’m a Bethesda resident. I drink it all of the time. You’re talking about one test taken at one tap out of 435,000 customers and the level at the tap. There is no science to say what kind of harm this would do to human beings,” said Jim Neustadt with WSSC.

[…]

Why not just test for it? “Because there is nothing that indicates .19 is anything to be concerned about at this time,” said Neustadt.

Nothing indicates risk?

If I lived in Bethesda I would either move away about now or call for Neustadt to test immediately or resign. Even Norman, Oklahoma ran tests before making a public statement on their levels.

Likewise, Maryland fails the Hawaii safety test and education standard because the only data point from Bethesda’s spokesman is that he drinks the water himself; so in just two sentences he completely contradicts himself “I drink it all of the time. You’re talking about one test taken at one tap out of 435,000 customers and the level at the tap.” Either you accept a study methodology or you do not. Which is it?

He also clearly has not read the EPA report that says chromium-6 is considered carcinogenic, and he has not read independent research, let alone the book from 1933 called 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics

…the manufacturer is not required to prove that the substances he adds are safe for human consumption; his customers by dying or by becoming ill in large numbers—and in such a way that the illness can be directly traced to the foodstuff involved and to no other cause—must first prove that it is harmful before any action will be considered under the Food and Drugs Act. If prohibition of the poison will not interfere with the business of any large and influential interest, the Government may then take action.

If the poison is such that it acts slowly and insidiously, perhaps over a long period of years (and several such will be considered in later chapters), then we poor consumers must be test animals all our lives; and when, in the end, the experiment kills us a year or ten years sooner than otherwise we would have died, no conclusions can be drawn and a hundred million others are available for further tests.

American regulation of toxicity changed after 1933 because of awareness generated by this book. When a large number of children were killed by poison additive in cough syrup a huge backlash (arguably instigated by the book) led to changes in the laws — poof of safety was increasingly required, rather than proof of harm.

Neustadt must have missed almost 70 years of memos on American health, ethics and risk management. Perhaps he could explain why scientific studies that describe chromium-6 as “toxic” should mean something different in Maryland.

The hexavalent form is toxic. Adverse effects of the hexavalent form on the skin may include ulcerations, dermatitis, and allergic skin reactions. Inhalation of hexavalent chromium compounds can result in ulceration and perforation of the mucous membranes of the nasal septum, irritation of the pharynx and larynx, asthmatic bronchitis, bronchospasms and edema. Respiratory symptoms may include coughing and wheezing, shortness of breath, and nasal itch.

[…]

…health problems that are caused by chromium(VI) are:

– Skin rashes
– Upset stomachs and ulcers
– Respiratory problems
– Weakened immune systems
– Kidney and liver damage
– Alteration of genetic material
– Lung cancer
– Death

Maryland residents may be pleased to hear that a new bill that claims to be based on science instead of one man’s health has been introduced at the federal level to address the risk of chromium-6, timed with the EPA’s re-classification.

S. 79, The Protecting Pregnant Women and Children From Hexavalent Chromium Act of 2011

S. 79 would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the health of vulnerable individuals, including pregnant women, infants, and children, by requiring a health advisory and drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium.