Slashdot Mirror


Feds Undertaking Massive Passenger Profiling Plan

Logic Bomb writes: "The Washington Post is running an overview of a rather big-brother-ish airline passenger screening system the government is proposing. Keeping track of people's ticket purchases is one thing, but correlating people's addresses and living arrangements...! This attempt seems closer to completion and implementation than any other that's been proposed so far."

16 of 556 comments (clear)

  1. It's your own fault. by Krapangor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In Europe we have information protecting laws which forbid such things. And we have these laws because some dudes sued at the constitutional courts and these court order the goverments to make such laws. You didn't fight for such things and claimed it to be "overregulation". And now your govs are fucking you up. So don't wine about being oppressed. Freedom is something you have to fight for. Everyday.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  2. Read the article. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The checks would be against perceived security "flags", and each passenger would be given a "threat assessment" score: for example, someone who purchased four tickets for four passengers on a single flight on the same credit card would have a higher threat rating than you or I would. Yes, before slashdroids go apeshit over this, we can assume a family going to Disneyworld would not be flagged, but four guys with more consonants than vowels in their name sitting in different parts of the plane probably would. And what the hell's wrong with that?

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  3. Re:So...? by fluxrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look at El Al in Israel -- they have massive amounts of data on passengers and participate in profiling unlike any other airline

    And we probably would to if a bunch of Canuks started border-jumping/bombing cafe's in Seattle.

    Of course, maybe it's just my own idiosyncratic way, but I'm not a big fan of the government tracking all of my purchases. I pay taxes for them to go blow shit up when it needs blowing up, to make sure my roads are paved, and to spray magnesium chloride in Downtown denver just before it snows. I don't pay them to tell the guy driving the 747 what I had to eat yesterday.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  4. One "little" problem by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Interesting


    What about the thousands of business travellers every year who attend a weeks worth of meetings and

    a) Don't buy their own ticket

    b) Don't book their hotel

    c) Give the address they are staying at as the company they are visiting.

    Or even crazier....

    DIDN'T BUY THEIR TICKETS IN THE US!

    For pities sake linking all of the reservations systems in the US to try and catch terrorists based in the middle east ? I hate to break it to the muppets out there who thought of this but I can go to a website outside of the US (e.g. This one) and book tickets.

    The first thing such a system would find is things like

    "Hey look IBMs corporate card has booked 4 people onto this flight, 1 in first class, 1 in business and 2 in coach. We'd better check it out"

    or

    "Some guy in Redmond is booking hundreds of flights a week going all over the world... including to the middle east"

    This wins two awards

    1) Brain dead of the year

    and

    2) Failure to recognise the world outside of the US

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  5. Need government interference? Not I... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Call it my military training, paranoia, whatever...but when I fly, you can bet your butt I check out every person I see getting on the plane. It's not like I stare at them defiantly or anything, merely take a look to see who I am flying with. You can always tell when people are up to something, you just need to be alert. The problem is, there are a lot of people that are *very scared* right now. The government is taking advantage of this to push through legislation that in a pre 9-11 world would have been laughed at scornfully.

    People need to realize that rather than do this, maybe we should have more intensive screening for foreigners coming INTO THE COUNTRY. When my unit left the Middle East, we were lucky enough to fly out on a commercial airline. When we were getting prepared to leave Egypt, we were searched VERY thoroughly. EVERY BAG, knick-knack, etc. was checked. Not one person was singled out, everyone went through the same screening process. And you know what, other than the mild irritation of being delayed a bit, not one person minded. It's called safety. So, keep your database to yourself, Government, and let us get on with our normal lives, else: "THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON"

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  6. This could make security *worse* by gorillasoft · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The index would send color-coded signals to airlines. Green would indicate no problem. Yellow would indicate the need for more questioning. Red means apprehend. Ogilvie said the company would try to offer the same sort of service to cruise ships and other facilities that want to bolster security.

    This could make security worse. People with little technological training (airline security screeners) often put so much faith in a computer system that if it says something, it must be so. This will result in the screeners seeing a green light and thinking, "This person got green, he can go on through." Unfortunately, they will be looking more at the light and less at the entire circumstances surrounding each passenger because they will trust the all-knowing computer - "just look at how much data it has, it must be right! And gee, if I see the green light I don't have to do any extra work."

    For instance, if somebody has a normal name, doesn't have any irregular travel patterns, doesn't have any warrants, and buys their own ticket with a return trip in advance, they will get a green light in most cases. Now, the problem with that is simply that just because you don't have a recorded history of problems doesn't mean you won't cause problems. So, the screeners will just waive you on through because they don't know that this will be your first and last act of terrorism, you got a green light, and the green light will be all that matters to them. Great.

  7. Not to mention the false hits... by D_Fresh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Imagine if you lived in a house that, three owners ago, had a "known terrorist" (read: someone named Muhammed) living in it - you'd be searched constantly. Or if you had a name very similar to aforementioned terrorist (Mohammed Uta?) - you'd be harassed every time you bought a ticket and set foot in the airport. Or if you had to pay cash just once for a ticket - you'd be flagged and frisked at every security checkpoint known to man.

    These are the petty annoyances with systems like this - the false hits far outweigh the real ones, and innocent people get harassed and treated rudely by ignorant, underpaid security guards for things they never know about. It's like someone stealing your identity, ruining your credit rating, and leaving you to pick up the pieces - you don't see the authorities in the credit industry rushing to clean up the records of identity theft victims, do you? No - the victims must spend months if not years reclaiming their credit rating - just as he-who-lives-two-doors-down-from-Muhammed would have to somehow convince Big Brother that the same street name doesn't add up to jack.

    --

    Was that out loud?
  8. You've got the data, now what? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article raises a lot more questions than it answers.

    • If most of the records are going to be on US citizens, are we saying that US citizens pose a real threat? The September 11th murderers were all foreign, travelling openly on foreign passports. I assume we'll tie in the CIA database on foreign citizens, but do we assume a foreigner citizen not in the database is higher risk or lower risk than US citizens in the database? Does "no information" mean "assume innocent" or "assume guilt"?
    • What are the complete criteria for being promoted up the danger list? Being a member of a state militia? Being a muslim? Being a member of a citizen's right organization that has criticized these plans?
    • What are the criteria for getting off the danger list? Renounce your evil ways? Join the Republican Party? Report X acts of unpatriotism to the Office of Homeland Security? If you think I'm joking about this last one, go read about the McCarthy Communist witch hunts. This shit actually happened to real people in the USA within living memory, and it can happen again if we allow it to.
    • Who'll be responsible for administrating the database query? Local law enforcement? The new minimum wage "Federal Security Employees"? The FBI? The NSA?
    • Who'll oversee the people who run the database querying and ensure that the results and responses are both accurate and appropriate? Are we going to wait until we've tazered and maced the entourage of some royal Saudi scion before we start to question the system?
    • How do you find out what information is in there about you? Is asking about it unpatriotic and dangerous behaviour? Remember, this is all about how the government views your behaviour, not about facts that have been challenged and proven in a court of law.
    • How do you get your information corrected if it's wrong? Who do you go to if the administrators refuse to correct it?
    • Is the system going to pop up a "It is 67% probable that this person is a terrorist" box and let the minimum wage security guard make the decision about how to handle that? Last week, Joe was flipping burgers; this week he's got a shiny new gun and a shiny new badge, and has to make an instant decision about how to confront a presumed armed and dangerous subject. Is the system going to make it easy for Joe, and say "80% probability, recommend taser and mace, call for armed backup"? Or is it just going to set off a binary "Take 'em down!" alarm, based on crossing some arbitrary threshold of probability?

    OK, let's hear the arguments in favour of it, but whatever they are, I contend that if we put in place a vast, complex, expensive system that is too problematical to use, then all we're doing is spending Federal money to perform a PR exercise for the airline industry.

    And if we do use it, then god help us all. I never, ever want to hear this phrase spoken to me or to anyone else:

    "The computer says you're 67% likely to be guilty, based on your past actions and associations. We're not going to release you until you can prove your loyalty."

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  9. Quote from the BBC. by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No comments:



    In the only interview with the al-Qaeda leader since the 11 September attacks, Bin Laden declares that "the battle has moved to inside America".



    "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The US Government will lead the American people - and the West in general - into an unbearable hell and a choking life," he says.



    Click here for the whole article

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  10. My Three Year Old Daughter was Flagged by Uggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After reading this article, I reflect that my three year old daughter was flagged. She does NOT have a beard. I am an Army Reserve Captain and fit the Topgun Iceman profile (big white guy with a short military haircut and demeanor). We all got flagged and searched (carry ons emptied, patted down again etc.)

    Although I understand people's concerns, Europe for all their supposed laws about privacy and information continues to be the most racist place in the world. I can't tell you how many (serveral) times coming through customs in Spain, France, Germany and Switzerland, I sailed through with nary a glance but the Latin American's behind and in front of me were interogated (who are you visiting, why are you here, who are you with, where are you staying).

    In Bilbao, Spain, I was watching their local television news program where they were patting themselves on the back because they didn't have the same race problems as the US. "We have no such problems in Bilbao," The anchorwoman beamed, "We are proud of the six black families that live here in our city and consider them equals."

    YOU COUNTED THEM?! And you know where they live, don't you? That's an indictment of the first degree. You can see that immigrants are not fleeing worlds of oppression and landing in Bilbao Spain that's for sure... doesn't that tell you something?

    I've lived all over the world, and although the US is certainly not the utopia people think it is, we really are the best place to come if you are different or oppressed. Millions of immigrants can't be wrong *G*.

    --
    Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
  11. Re:what's wrong? by j-beda · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Most of the profiles are based on dry, boring math, just probabilities churned out by a computer somewhere.

    Actually, I think that most of the "profiling" that is done is based on various people's *perceptions* of the probablilities.

    The number of people stopped on drug related suspicion grounds generally disproportionaltely favours blacks, yet in that particular area, the number of people actually convicted disproportionatly favours "whites". The profiling in this case was actually wrong, yet it still occurred. (And of course I have no citation to back this up :-)

    If the system used an independantly audited algorithm that accurately reflected the known factors associated with "bad" behaviour, and randomly selected people for further checks based on representitive data and modeling, then I might not have as much problem with it.

    Of course I would still be concerned about the potential for privacy abuses.

    One must also consider the effectiveness of any system designed to merely catch those intent on destruction. If we make the airlines "safe", would not the determined terrorist just start blowing up busses? NFL games? Little League? If you want to kill 10, 20, or 100 random people, you do not need an airplane to do it. Inciting terrorcan be done in even the most strict of police states - so is it worth the cost to become one?

  12. Re:Your papers, please! by malchore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to disagree with you. I believe all these items truely are "a unit." By consolodating ID's under the control of a Federal system, the Federal authrorities don't have to concern themselves with that pesky 10th amendment, where all laws and regulations not specificly outlined in the constitution are reserved to the indivial states. This gives them the power and authority to handle all mater of security, search, seizure and survelience. The bush administration is only exploiting the emotion carried over from the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to greatly expand the power and authority of federal law enforcment over state-run ID systems. I'm sorry to say this, but the first poster is correct. In about 3 years, there will be some gov't goon standing outside all major transit stations asking, "papers please." Anyone who looks suspicious or doesn't have their papers WILL spend some time in jail until their identity and motive can be determined. They won't be arrested of course, but they'll be detained. Don't believe me? Here's a true story. Exactly 4 weeks ago, I returned home from a trip to Bulgaria. (It's a small former communist-controlled coutry just north of Greece.) On my return flight back into the US, there was an elderly German couple standing about 6 feet away from me as we were waiting for our baggage; so we could proceed thru the customs checkpoint. Everyone who enters the US must fill out this little peice of paper where you list the items (food, plants, animals, precious metals etc) you are claiming thru customs. Well, some army punk was walking his "bomb-sniffer" dog among us pasengers as we waited for our baggage. The dog stopped at the German couple, because it could smell a half-eaten chocolate bar. The army punk started given the couple a hard time, and yes, he really did say "Where are your identification documents!" The couple stared pulling out their passports. The army punk didn't care to see the passports, and instead asked "why didn't you declare this food on your customs paper?" And, oh maybe two seconds later, he asked the couple to follow him into some security room nearby. I know everyone reading this will think, "Hey, desperate times call for desperate measures. And who cares about some old German people." And if that's your opinion, than so be it. But, interestingly enough, when hitler took over in germany, he expanded the gishtappo (which just happens to be German shothand for "Homeland Security," cute) for fear of attack from other nations -- which lead him to belive that only through strict "zero tolerence" law enforcment and military security will his people be safe from outside agression. (This all happened many years before the war.) Funny how history repeats itself. - Richard.

  13. My Airline Security Story by FFFish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure a lot of us have stories about the utter stupidity of so-called airport "security."

    I fly once in a blue moon. As a result, I'm not exactly up-to-speed on the new security paranoia. I go to check in, and answer some silly questions, none of which include "are you carrying anything sharp -- a knife, nail clipper, knitting needles, that sort of thing?"

    My luggage goes through. I waste an hour waiting to for the boarding call. It comes. I enter the security area. Toss my coat and carry-on onto the xray, and I'm about to walk through the metal detector. Then I remember my car keys. I step back, take 'em out, toss 'em into a tray.

    The security guard just about shits herself. "Is that a knife?!" she asks. "Er, yah?" I reply. It's my little keychain knife. It's as sharp as a spoon and has a 1/2" blade. I use it for opening envelopes and potato chip bags.

    Well, my god, you'd think it was the discovery of the century. She literally grabs them from my hand and goes frantic removing my knife from the key ring. Does not ask to look at them, does not ask if she can fuck with my property, and then hands me a bullshit line about either throwing it out or mailing it to myself. I got rude about that: it's not a cheap knife, and there's no post office in the airport.

    It ended up being checked in as luggage, in an envelope and an enormous plastic bag. Must have cost the airline 3x what the knife was worth.

    Anyway, the security bitch took my name. I suppose I'm in some database now as a badass, to be cavity-searched next time I come within a mile of an airport.

    Now, what really pisses me off is the implied insult in the whole thing. They really think I'm stupid enough to believe that the security check has anything to do with making the plane safe!

    I could have carried a 6" lexan dagger through the metal detector and they'd *NEVER* have known about it. I could have walked through with plastic explosive in my shoes. I could have run piano wire through my belt and used it as a garrot. I probably could have walked on with a glass bottle of Coke.

    Or I could have snapped the pull-out handle off my carry-on luggage, and weilded two 16" long sharp-pointed metal sticks.

    Or I could be trained in the martial arts, and way more dangerous than most anyone who is carrying a weapon.

    (Or if I'd left the damn knife in my pocket, I'd probably have cleared the metal detector: it didn't detect my belt buckle, which contains about 10x the metal content of the knife!)

    THERE IS NO FUCKING SECURITY ON AN AIRPLANE!

    I am deeply insulted that the airlines are playing this stupid little game of pretending to make us safe by disposing of our nail clippers. That isn't improving our security at all. It's just an insult.

    I'm also PO'd that the check-in desk isn't suggesting to passengers that they think about any sharp objects that might be confiscated, and consder checking them in with the luggage.

    And I'd like to slap the bitch that was so rude about it all. I'm going through a small-town Canadian airport, riding a piddling small jet, and I'm carring a piddling small knife. It wasn't the find of the century: it was an obvious mistake, and she should have politely asked me to step aside and remove the knife myself.

    It also pisses me off that the best I can do is gripe about it all here on Slashdot, because if I go to the airport and talk to her supervisor, I'll probably be filed in some freaking Interpol database as Dr. Evil.

    Ok, your turn: what's your airport security horror story?

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  14. Re:This will only inconvenience non-terrorists by mpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In addition, the government is moving to build a database that will track all of the individuals applying for a pilots license. Is this going to work? Probably not. The government already has a database of suspected terroists and their profiles. That failed miserably on 911 when some 16 people boarded those various planes completely undetected.

    Indeed part of the problem with systems in place before September the 11th is the issue of information gathering outstripping the ability to analyse it. This kind of thing is only likely to make such a probelm worst.
    The US also spends huge amounts of money on ATC and Military radar systems. But apparently all of these systems were incapable of tracking large aircraft by primary return alone. If was truely what happened then every airport in the US is a disater waiting to happen. The last thing you want is any aircarft able to enter crowded airspace unseen...

  15. Re:Don't cry when stopped in other countries by slykens · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Young white American male/female backpacking across Europe - search for illegal drugs

    In my experience in flying between European countries customs has been a joke, if anyone was even there to talk to. Hell, my last trip over in November I didn't even get an entry stamp.

    Single male entering Thailand - visa declined

    US passport holders are not required to have a visa for stays of less than 30 days. Thailand is part of the visa waiver program. Before I started travelling a lot (office in India) I thought it was difficult to go some of these places. It isn't. The visa waiver program makes it very easy, and for most other places it just takes a little bit of money. I realize it is ethnocentric to say but in my experience merely holding a US passport changes the ease with which one can move between certain countries.

    I see your point, however, that if we (Americans) begin to profile people based on their ethnicity that we should also expect to be examined in a similar manner entering other countries. Well, I have news for you. We're already pulling Arabs aside! I flew from Heathrow to Dulles about a month ago and found that the United gate agent had a list of people she wanted to hand check. They asked what seat you were in (1D for me! upfront is nice) and if you weren't who they wanted you got to board, if you were unlucky you had your bags hand inspected. Let's just say when I went through there weren't any white people being checked out.

    Another anecdotal note, when I came home in December 2000 via Dulles no one even looked at my passport. As I found out later, and an article here talked about it, our flight was precleared, there was no one they were interested in so the immigration guys just ignored those of us with US passports.

    I have been around the world twice in the last 18 months and the only country I had trouble with was Japan. The guy couldn't understand that I was only going to be in Osaka for a day and wanted to enter the city to look around. Eventually he just stamped me and let me go.

  16. Re:what's wrong? by Wesley+Everest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they had the time and resources they could and should check both, but with limited options you go with the probabilities. No eldery black women have blown up anything big recently, sorry. Want to avoid that profiling? Make it so that young Arab men haven't blown up anything recently, either.

    Let's make up our mind... are we against a powerful, sophisticated group that is a real threat to U.S. security, or are we up against a small, underfunded band of crazy morons who just happened to be lucky enough to kill a few thousand people.


    Your profiling idea will certainly protect us against some portion of stupid whackos, but think about it... If you had a pile of money and a lot of influence and intelligence and wanted to cause damage, and you knew that they were screening for young Arab men but letting the ederly black women on the plane, wouldn't you try to find a way to use ederly black women and not young Arab men?