Shields up! will allow you to test the security of your Internet conection. If you have a firerwall, you will know if it is correctyl configured. If you don’t, you will know what risks you are taking.

I invite you to visit the rest of the web site, too. It covers security aspects linked to an Internet connection (more for personal computers than enterprise networks, though). You will even find good comparisons and selection of tools like personal firewalls. Recommended.

Now, Roumazeilles.net helps you and can be transparently accessed through both addresses:

https://www.Roumazeilles.net/

http://www.Roumazeilles.net/

For most people, this will change nothing. For those who prefer to keep some of their browsing (a little more) discreet, it may help.

Useful reading: HTTPS Everywhere | Electronic Frontier Foundation

If you really want to go into more gory technical details, I can mention that this move was made possible (easy) by my web hosting provider (OVH) who provides a free SSL certificate that I only needed to enable in my administration interface.

Interestingly, this statement allows to believe that by June 2008 the list will have grown to 1 million terrorists in the US of A. I believe that Americans can be silly, but I doubt that one out of 230 is a dangerous moron attempting to end western civilization next time he or she will take a plane.

I suggest that you have a look at the astonishing list of “unlikely suspects” displayed in this article from ACLU. It includes US Senators and US Congressmen (and their spouses), war heroes, John Does with a common name, dead 9/11 hijackers, foreign presidents (dead as Saddam Hussein or alive like Evo Morales), pop star singers and toddlers.

I have been amazed at the number of horror stories that I could find lately about their abysmal track record, so here is a short compilation I made just for your your laughs (or cries).

• TSA has opened a blog web site. It was supposed to help passengers. It has been the focus of a lot of attention from Internet users. They recently apologized to the blogesphere (sic) for arbitrary gadget screenings (at least in San Francisco SFO, they required all electronic devices and cable to be removed from bags for screening)
• TSA has a no-fly list of people who should not board airplanes for fear of terrorism. This list is a shame since it contains tens of thousands of names remotely linked to terrorists (if they are dead, like Mohamed Atta known for dying on 9/11, they do not even get removed from the list) and even very common names are included making the life of thousands of innocent people impossible in airports. Like Sam Adams, 5, probably very dangerous despite his nice smiling little face.
• Speaking of faces, TSA started to train its screeners with some facial expressions that are considered ground for additional screening and interrogation (in a program called SPOT (Screening Passengers by Observation Technique) probably only a thin veil on “let’s stop this guy because I don’t like his face“). Unfortunately, they would not say if you should avoid smiling or making faces to the TSA personnel. After that, you immediately think about George Orwell’s 1984 (“facecrime”) and Kafka’s Trial (not to speak of Stalinist behavioral crimes). And when you see how untrained the screeners are…
• Speaking about training, should I mention the cases where the agents are so unable to handle your belongings that they drop them on the floor. Don’t mention dropping a T-shirt. Think about pro-photo equipment like here or here.
• TSA and some English goons decided that transporting liquids was a major terrorist danger. Even if it is the milk bottle of Junior, the Coke for Dad or the Perrier for Mom. So, now, liquids in more than 100ml are prohibited from your carry-on luggage (even though it is more or less admitted that the threat was exaggerated). Except if they are in a clear plastic bag. What has this to do with security? Does it make a difference between the following two eye mascara sticks?

Images copyright of Crazy Aunt Purl

• Even pilots are annoyed at bullshit “security” procedures that the TSA has put into place. [The linked article has interesting references to British Security officials admitting that the “liquid bomb plot” public statements were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.”
• The TSA web site supposed to help people request their removal from the no-fly list has been demonstrated as a major Internet security risk, it looks more like a scam with all the security errors/snafus than an important US national asset handling personal data.
• Sometimes, you can get stuck on the no-fly list for non-obvious reasons. Like artist Ramak Fazel or singer Cat Stevens.

After that, would you be surprised if I told you that:

• There is a web site collecting complaints and horror stories about TSA: TSAcomplaints.com
• Privacy International ranks US, UK, Russia and China in the same “black” category of countries where wishing for privacy is becoming just day-dreaming (“endemic surveillance societies” to quote them).
• Even, according to a story […] in the London Daily Mail newspaper, the British government has had enough with the “War on Terror” hype. [from Spurgeon Blog]
• I am in no hurry to test the US borders by taking a plane to go and see my American friends. Sorry Veronica, Renata, Bing, Michael, and others.

But it has two problems:

• Boeing was forced to announce a dealy for the first deliveries (EADS-Airbus is not the only one to have such difficulties here)
• The FAA, US Federal Aviation Authority, is troubled by the sight of this airpline having a computer network open to the passengers. Here, I would say it’s rather good news bringing plenty of in-flight computer fun (email, web, IM, network games, etc.) but Boeing had a bad idea: The public network seems not to be isolated enough from the on-board network. So, the FAA is afraid of the possibility that some passengers may break havoc (voluntarily or not) on the plane’s instruments.

Sources: Futura Sciences and Wired.