monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

US border control agents have not been using the right software to verify e-passports for more than a decade, two US senators claim.

Oregon senator Ron Wyden and Missouri senator Claire McCaskill have asked US customs officials to start properly authenticating e-passports.

If data on smart chips cannot be checked, it is not possible to tell if it has been tampered with, they say.

Anti-forgery measures in e-passports have never been implemented.

The US was one of the first countries in the world to adopt e-passports, and travellers from countries on the visa-waiver list are now required to enter the country using e-passports, which speed up the time needed to process individuals in border control.

However, the senators say that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has never used the anti-forgery and anti-tamper security measures it required to be built into e-passport smart chips because it doesn't have the right software.

"CBP has been aware of this security lapse since at least 2010, when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report highlighting the gap in technology," Mr Wyden and Ms McCaskill wrote in a letter to customs officials.

"Eight years after that publication, CBP still does not possess the technological capability to authenticate the machine-readable data in e-passports."

The senators want US border control to start authenticating the data in e-passports by 1 January 2019.

CBP told the BBC that while it does not currently verify the country certificate of an e-Passport, the government agency does verify the data contained within the chip and the passport photo page that is placed into the scanner.

CBP also said that it has a unit to analyse fradulent travel documents seized by its officers, who physically check the travel documents belonging to all passengers who arrive on US-bound flights, and compare the data in the chip to the details on the photo page.

ESET's IT security specialist Mark James says that not authenticating the data stored in e-passport smart chips is a big concern.

"Any information stored on a chip could be tampered with," he told the BBC.

"In its simplest form, the data in the digital passport could be easily copied and stolen without your permission, and that data could be used to forge passports."

However, he felt that this was only a big problem if US customs officials were not using a physical back-up check as well as e-passport readers.

Now, top blue-state politicians are encouraging Delta to relocate its hub from Atlanta.

Russia has developed a new cruise missile that is invincible, according to President Vladimir Putin.

Mr Putin made the revelation as he laid out his key policies for a fourth presidential term, ahead of an election he is expected to win in 17 days' time.

He showcased a range of new weapons, including the cruise missile that could "reach anywhere in the world".

Using video presentations, he said the missile could not be stopped by the US shield in Europe and Asia.

It was "a low-flying, difficult-to-spot cruise missile with a nuclear payload with a practically unlimited range and an unpredictable flight path, which can bypass lines of interception and is invincible in the face of all existing and future systems of both missile defence and air defence".

Another weapon he discussed was a submarine launched, long-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

During the two-hour televised speech to a joint sitting of both houses of parliament, he encouraged Russians to suggest names for the two systems. He argued that Russia had reacted after years of pleading with the US not to break away from anti-missile treaties.

Mr Putin faces seven challengers on 18 March, although none is expected to attract widespread support. The president played no part in a raucous televised debate broadcast on Wednesday that featured the other candidates.

Absent from the campaign is prominent opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who has been barred from running and has called on voters to boycott the poll.

President Putin has so far done little campaigning, and until now said little about his plans for the next six years.

WASHINGTON — President Trump stunned Republicans on live television Wednesday by embracing gun control and urging a group of lawmakers at the White House to resurrect gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years by the powerful National Rifle Association and the vast majority of his party.

In a remarkable meeting, the president veered wildly from the N.R.A. playbook in front of giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans. He called for comprehensive gun control legislation that would expand background checks to weapons purchased at gun shows and on the internet, keep guns from mentally ill people, secure schools and restrict gun sales from some young adults. He even suggested a conversation on an assault weapons ban.

At one point, Mr. Trump suggested that law enforcement authorities should have the power to seize guns from mentally ill people or others who could present a danger without first going to court. “I like taking the guns early,” he said, adding, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

The declarations prompted a frantic series of calls from N.R.A. lobbyists to their allies on Capitol Hill and a statement from the group calling the ideas that Mr. Trump expressed “bad policy.” Republican lawmakers suggested to reporters that they remained opposed to gun control measures.

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. [...] The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.

As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet.

Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

Notice the tactics at work here:

First there's this statement:

Quote:

Americans also don't "need" expensive sports cars, Versace dresses, diamond necklaces, homes with 3000 square feet, HBO, motor boats, fish radar, 15 different fast food franchises in every town, hot pockets, 32GB of RAM, smart phones, or a whole litany of other things...

As if our vaunted love of "freedom" is at core the right and ability to indulge in unlimited consumerism. What a squalid evocation of our national purpose! You may have let the cat out of the bag there.

Then, hoping to clinch the argument:

Quote:

Would you say the average abortion is a "want" or a "need"?
Stomach surgery, "want" or "need"?
Better healthcare, "want" or "need"?

Except that medical services aren't material goods which are coveted, bought, sold, traded, and accumulated by individuals. The social consequences of denying those options and services to people are categorically different from the privation you may experience because the government denied you the opportunity to buy armor-piercing ammunition for your Barrett 50.

Think this "Dr"

Think this "Dr" would be ok with an AR-15 in 9mm then?

They don't have to be chambered for 5.56mm.

After making a point about "need" and "want" hightor now elongates the field, raises the beam and uses a different ball.

hightor believes that he is a better judge of what a person needs than anyone else.

Americans also don't "need" expensive sports cars, Versace dresses, diamond necklaces, homes with 3000 square feet, HBO, motor boats, fish radar, 15 different fast food franchises in every town, hot pockets, 32GB of RAM, smart phones, or a whole litany of other things...

They [liberals] don't actually know anything.

In America, it's about need.

"want" vs "need" has no place in America. We aren't a third world nation defined by needs.

However, keep your filthy hands off what I decide I need.