cryptogon.com

The young trainee was spotted by a female passer-by as he planted a fake bomb under a vehicle in the city.

He was only able to persuade police he was a spy after being taken in by an officer for questioning on Monday.

The authorities have refused to comment on the story although Israeli media outlets have expressed their surprise.

‘Just a drill’

Mossad does not tell local uniformed police about its training exercises.

The country’s commercial Channel 10 said it hoped the agency’s operatives were “more effective abroad”, AFP news agency reported.

Niva Ben-Harush, the woman who reported the novice’s suspicious behaviour to police, told Ynet News that 15 minutes after she made the call, Tel Aviv’s port was closed and people evacuated.

She said police initially asked her to come with them and identify the suspect.

“But after a few minutes, they told me it was just a drill,” she said.

Up to three agency employees were believed to have been suspended following the incident, Ynet reported.

Neither did the other families who are suing the State of Texas to protect the medical privacy of their children.

Each year, more than 400,000 babies are born in Texas. State law mandates that before newborns leave the hospital, his or her heel will be pricked and five drops of blood are collected.

Two weeks later, their pediatrician collects another five drops of blood. The blood cards are submitted to the Texas Department of State Health Services as part of the Newborn Screening program. One or two drops are used to screen for a list of serious medical conditions.

The parents are not objecting to the screening. They object to what the state is doing with the leftover blood samples.

Beginning in 2002, the State began saving the leftover specimens, unbeknownst to parents and without their consent.

“It made me really mad that nobody asked me if they could keep my sons DNA,” said Andrea Beleno.

Her son’s DNA was among millions of banked samples stored at Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Rural Public Health.

“It makes me suspicious and I think there’s really no reason for the state to have a database of the blood of and the DNA of every single person who has been born here,” said Beleno. “There’s no legitimate reason for that.”

The state said there is a legitimate reason: Research.

According to court documents, the state admits some of the blood samples collected for the newborn screening program were used for other purposes, but said it was done in accordance with federal and state law.

“The government still has to ask,” said Boleno. “They can’t just take it. And everyone has the right to make that decision for themselves.”

Jim Harrington, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project, who is representing Beleno and the other families in the federal lawsuit, said it violates the Fourth and 14th Amendments of the U. S. Constitution.

”It’s a bad thing,” said Harrington. “You have to consent to give up the right. And in this case it’s your right of privacy and your kid’s right of privacy.”

The lawsuit prompted change in the Texas Legislature. House Bill 1672 allows the State to keep and use the samples for research, but requires parents be informed and given the option of having their children’s leftover blood samples destroyed after screening. The state has 60 days to destroy the blood cards after receiving the official notification form from parents.

The form directs the state to destroy the card containing the dried blood spots, but does not insure any information gathered from the generic material is deleted.

According to the Use and Storage of Newborn Screening Bloodspot Cards information provided to parents, identifying information linking a child to a particular bloodspot is not allowed outside of the Department of State Health Services without advance consent of the child’s parent or guardian unless otherwise provided by law.

Patient privacy expert Dr. Deborah Peel said those words, “unless otherwise provided by law” create a huge loophole.

“It’s not secret, it means they can share it and use it for research for public health,” said Peel. “There are many laws that allows the use of samples, like newborn blood samples for public health uses and screening and so forth. So, no, you are not protected. That allows all kinds of people to see it.”

House Bill 1672 allows the stored samples to be used in research if approved by what is called an Institutional Review Board. IRB’s are supposed to safeguard privacy and protect patients, but are not open to the public.

The IRB board appointed to oversee research on the stored bloodspots consists almost entirely of State employees. Harrington says that makes the process questionable.

“This is not a true independent professional review board,” he said.

Perhaps most concerning, is the confidentiality clauses added to the new law that were designed to protect the identity of the newborns. The law states that reports, records and information obtained or developed by the department are confidential and are exempt from the Texas Public Information Act, and are not subject to subpoena.

In addition, anyone involved in the program, including state employees or employees of a contractor or subcontract can be compelled to testify in any kind of judicial proceeding as to the existence or contents of any records, reports or information.

The law does not allow for public disclosure of information such as who is involved and what kind of research is being conducted using the stored blood samples.

Jim Harrington said that is a problem.

“The reason we brought the suit was because of their secret, surreptitious conduct and then they turn around and are doing the exact same thing again,” said Harrington. “And every time, of course, the government is not open and clear and transparent, it raises flags all over the place about what’s really going on and what are they really up to?”

The issue of retaining newborn screening samples is not unique to Texas. Other states are dealing with the same issues. Balancing privacy issues with what is in the best interest of the public is a fine line. The federal government has invested millions in regional and national newborn screening collaborations.

National DNA Database

In 2006 and 2007, then, Senator Obama, filed legislation that would create a national DNA database. The same bill was filed by Sen. Patrick Kennedy in 2008 . The bills required parental consent, but all three died in the Senate.

Study finds support by some parents

Not everyone is opposed to collecting, storing and using DNA from the newborn screening program for later use. A study by the University of Michigan found that when asked for consent, only 24 percent of parents objected to using their newborns blood samples for research. That number jumped to 72 percent of parents who were somewhat or very unwilling when asked if the samples could be used without permission.

Andrea Beleno said she may have consented, if asked. But after seeing how the State of Texas has handled the issue, her mind is made up.

“For me and my family,” said Beleno, “No, you can’t have our DNA.”

The new photo offers a slightly better view of the nose. Is that a canopy screen above the nose? I wondered in May if this might actually be a manned aircraft, even if it was first sighted on UV.com. If there is a cockpit, where is the air intake for the engine? The half-moon exhaust pipe strikingly resembles the P175 Polecat, a Skunk Works product.

Regardless of how it is piloted, the Kandahar aircraft’s existence raises several existential questions: What does it do? Why do you need a stealthy-looking aircraft to spy on Al Qaeda and the Taliban? What’s all the secrecy about? While I’m asking, can somebody please get a head-on picture?

The evidence documenting this surveillance program comes in the form of an audio recording of Sprint’s Manager of Electronic Surveillance, who described it during a panel discussion at a wiretapping and interception industry conference, held in Washington DC in October of 2009.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names.

While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an effort to burnish its image — and gain new Goldman clients. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed “God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”

Has it really come to this? Imagine what emotions must be billowing through the halls of Goldman Sachs to provoke the firm into an apology. Talk that Goldman bankers might have armed themselves in self-defense would sound ludicrous, were it not so apt a metaphor for the way that the most successful people on Wall Street have become a target for public rage.

Pistol Ready

Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful. Suppose an intruder sneaks past the doorman or jumps the security fence at night. By the time you pull the pistol out of your wife’s jewelry safe, find the ammunition, and load your weapon, Fifi the Pomeranian has already been taken hostage and the gun won’t do you any good. As for carrying a loaded pistol when you venture outside, dream on. Concealed gun permits are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain in New York or nearby states.

In other words, a little humility and contrition are probably the better route.

Until a couple of weeks ago, that was obvious to everyone but Goldman, a firm famous for both prescience and arrogance. In a display of both, Blankfein began to raise his personal- security threat level early in the financial crisis. He keeps a summer home near the Hamptons, where unrestricted public access would put him at risk if the angry mobs rose up and marched to the East End of Long Island.

To the Barricades

He tried to buy a house elsewhere without attracting attention as the financial crisis unfolded in 2007, a move that was foiled by the New York Post. Then, Blankfein got permission from the local authorities to install a security gate at his house two months before Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

This is the kind of foresight that Goldman Sachs is justly famous for. Blankfein somehow anticipated the persecution complex his fellow bankers would soon suffer. Surely, though, this man who can afford to surround himself with a private army of security guards isn’t sleeping with the key to a gun safe under his pillow. The thought is just too bizarre to be true.

So maybe other senior people at Goldman Sachs have gone out and bought guns, and they know something. But what?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) the U3 measure is described as “total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate).” Now let’s take a look at the BLS U6 measure: Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

When including marginally attached workers and those forced to work part-time instead of full-time we have a national unemployment rate of 17.5%, which is nearly 70% higher than the U3 rate of 10.2%. That’s a dramatic increase from the normally quoted U3 unemployment rate, but even U6 fails to provide the actual percentage of people who are, or may be considered unemployed.

John Williams discusses alternative unemployment data sets at his Shadow Government Statistics site. Their service, in part, “exposes and analyzes flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting.” Once those flaws are included in the unemployment calculation – called the SGS Alternate – the unemployment rate reaches 22%. Shadow Government Statistics gives the following reason for SGS Alternate measure: “The SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated “discouraged workers” defined away during the Clinton Administration added to the existing BLS estimates of level U-6 unemployment.”

To clarify why the discrepancy between U6 and the SGS Alternate rate of 22%, I contacted the BLS and received the following answer to my question about the change in discouraged worker designation during the Clinton Administration:

“(P)rior to 1994 persons were not asked whether they had searched for work recently. If they gave one of the five “discouraged worker” reasons for not looking for work in the past 4 weeks, they were assumed to have “given up” the search for work, although they weren’t asked when they had last looked. As a result of the greater specificity introduced in 1994, the number of discouraged workers was cut approximately in half, from about 1.1 million in 1993 to 500,000 in 1994.”