Slashdot Mirror


Passenger Profiling: CAPPS II

gabec writes "'Initial rollout of what may eventually become the world's largest silicon repository of personal data could be less than 90 days away....The Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) is designed to scan multiple public and private databases for information on individuals traveling into and out of the United States. The system will feed the results to an analysis application that mathematically ranks travelers' potential as security threats.' It will happen by the end of the year, if nothing is done to stop it: And here are some articles on this."

511 comments

  1. I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Time to move to Canada.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by intermodal · · Score: 2

      Ontario, here I come!

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah especially if they legalize weed

    3. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheers. I moved here a few years ago and it's by far a superior nation (as far as laws and government assistance go, anyways). The lifestyle seems cleaner than the States, too.

    4. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, what can I say.. I slammed the country before but I guess I was wrong.. pretty cool place

    5. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by tyrani · · Score: 2, Funny

      Canada has its downsides too. Have you ever tried to get a coffee and a donut here at 7am? It's not pretty.

      --
      rejected (19) accepted (0)
      Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    6. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by unclelib · · Score: 0

      yeah because socialism is the better option

      you were kidding right

    7. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Alan · · Score: 2

      Tim Hortons!

      I need say no more (eh?)

    8. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a pure pussy - i bet you get beat by 4th graders... PLEASE act on your post, coward.

    9. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2

      But Tim Horton's girls are really hot!

    10. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please only let us know when your threat ceases being idle. Thank you.

    11. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by momobaxter · · Score: 0

      We have Tim Horton's in Rochester, NY :) No need to be a canadian in order to get some of the world's best donuts!

      --
      "Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
    12. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

      I wish I could! But because only have a working permit in this crappy country, I can't really move. Still, I will seriously consider driving up to Toronto and catching my next trans-ocean flight there. It's not really all that far for me, and this summer, flights to Europe were cheaper from Toronto than from any other place in North America. Canada rules! (Oh, how terrible it is to say that without any sarcasm!)

    13. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman Does Dallas
      For the second half of the 80s, I made a living through free software consulting and teaching, while spending most of my time writing GNU software.
      In 1988 or so, when MCC, the research consortium in Austin, Texas, invited me to teach a class in Emacs Lisp programming, I felt a moral obligation to warn them before accepting the offer. I sent them the following message (well, yes, I have tightened it up a little):

      I have to warn you that Texans have been known to have an adverse reaction to my personality.
      A few years ago I went to Texas Instruments in Dallas to teach courses on how the Lisp machine software works. At lunch on the second day, the boss of the group came to me, chatted for a while in a way that seemed strangely aimless, and then told me that a design review of the entire project had been scheduled for the following day. "No one will be able to come to your classes."

      "Well, I had better work out now which topics are the most important to cover today."

      "It's worse than that. No one will be available to take you to the airport either, so we have to switch your flight to this afternoon." My dismay was quieted with a check larger than I had expected for the whole time originally planned.

      The next week I phoned to arrange my next visit. Before my trip, they had already been eager for more lectures later. Having missed part of the first series, they would naturally want them sooner than planned. But the the boss said that he would have to think about it.

      "What's the matter," I asked. "Did the design review cancel the project?"

      "No, the project is still on, but as things stand now I'm not sure when we would have time for you."

      I thought about this, and the unexpected size of the check. "I think that you have some other reason, that you aren't telling me, why you don't want to do business with me. Were my lectures unsatisfactory?"

      "No, your lectures were good. It was the people who had dinner with you. Both evenings they were very uncomfortable with you. They said they didn't want to have you around any more."

      "Uncomfortable? But they didn't say so. Did they say why?"

      "One of them said he was upset when you talked about nasal sex with plants." I had actually demonstrated this perverse act with the bouquet on the table, at dinner the night before I was sent home. The plants were dead, although well preserved, so I was performing rhinophytonecrophilia on them.

      That was the end of the conversation, but I never forgot that the worst bunch of cowards I ever met were Texans. I can just imagine them: "Chief, you gotta get that guy away from here! All his crazy ideas are making my head feel strange. Is he a hippy?"

      I have a suspicion that I didn't put them any more at ease when I started the first lecture by leading everyone in a Bulgarian folk dance. Perhaps this raised questions in their minds about my affiliation with foreign powers.

      I have another suspicion. It's hard for me to believe even a Texan would be that worried about preserving the innocence of plants. Perhaps his pious concern was yet another front. But for what? Alas, in the study of alien civilizations, we find many clues but few answers.

      The people at MCC hired me anyway and were happy with the class. But there was an unexpected side-effect: one of them had been at TI then, and his response shed light on the mysterious events there:

      I read with great amusement (and regret) the letter provided by Stallman concerning his experiences with Texans. I worked on the Explorer project before coming to MCC, and was honored to be among his dinner companions on the night of the infamous "plant incident". We ate at the Crazy Crab in Dallas and I can say that the only things I found offensive about the entire evening were the stupid names given to the dinners on the menu. Mine was not the opinion of the majority.
      There were certain people at TI who were excited about the chance to talk with a truly legendary Lisp machine expert and were anxious to learn. Others had decided that they knew enough already and what do we need to hire consultants for 'cause I can figure out this machine and those MIT guys can't walk on water and I don't care who he is, I'm not gonna be impressed and . . . well, you get the idea.

      The plant incident, which I found rather humorous, provided a reason for people in the later camp to become offended. This was convenient as they had been looking for one. They were subsequently able to blow it to suitable proportions to gain the attention of management.

      Now as a weak defense of TI management, I will say that by being involved in a large company that does a lot of government contracting, they have come to expect a certain level of (and I'm going to use that word again Marge), professionalism from hired contractors. Personally, I wouldn't have cared if Richard showed up in a clown suit, but you have to admit that introducing your lectures by demonstrating Bulgarian folk dancing could easily be viewed as unprofessional by the more staid members of the audience. Even if you were wearing a tie.

      His well publicized views on the commercialization of software didn't help much either.

      So here we have the Professionals, the Pseudo-Experts, and the normal people; two against one and when does the next plane to Cambridge leave. I and others were very annoyed by this mindless waste of an excellent resource.

      I regret that I will probably not be able to attend Stallman's course in February (certainly not the entire week). If you get a chance, pass along my apologies on behalf of those at TI who were looking forward to his visit and enjoyed what little of it there was. The Explorer would have benefitted from his help.

      Jeff Larson
      MCC VLSI CAD Program
      larson@mcc.com

      A year later, the same TI group manager approached me about writing some documentation about the internals of the Lisp machine system; he invited me to dinner. I required him to demonstrate nasal sex in public with a plant as a condition of meeting him. Fortunately, the restaurant provided suitable flowers. He tried it, and even liked it! Which goes to show that no one is incapable of personal growth.

    14. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by fo0bar · · Score: 1

      My recent IRC vanity domain is if.you.dont.like.it.you.can.moveto.ca

      I also happen to own ohfuck.us.

      </toot>

    15. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Lord ! Where do your police hang out then ?

    16. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by gaj · · Score: 2
      Feel free. If this "crappy country" doesn't suit you, don't come back. Or become a citizen and work to change the things you don't like.

      Apparently there must be something non-crappy about this "crappy country" if you came here for work in the first place. Naw. It must just suck. I'm sure you came here to work just to help us poor folk out by working here.

      Well, we wouldn't want such self sacrifice weighing on our shoulders. Please, feel free to go to Canada instead. We here in this "crappy country" will do our best to get along without you.

    17. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by FFFish · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's right, Spork, you commie-sucking sicko! SIEG HEIL! Salute the Bush, or go fuck right off! IF YOUR NOT WITH THE USA, YOU MUST BE AGAINST USA!

      (gahd. bloody tedious little patriots, so fulla stars in their eyes that they're unable to see the big black hole o' rights and privacy compromises that's about to smoke 'em in the head...)

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    18. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by gaj · · Score: 1, Troll
      Troll

      But what the hell, feeding the f'ing troll beats working.

      Never once did I attack the parent poster. Never once did I say (or even imply) "[sic]IF YOUR NOT WITH THE USA, YOU MUST BE AGAINST USA!". I simply said that if he doesn't like the way things work in this country, he is welcome to either go elsewhere, or become a citizen and work to change it.

      As for being a "little patriot", yes, I'm little (5'6" or so) and damn right I'm a patriot. You say that like it's a bad thing. OTOH, I'm not a mindless patriot. And my rights are vital to me. I watch what anyone in govt does, regardless of whether I normally agree with them.

    19. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay away from Canada. Our country is great BECAUSE your not here fucking things up. A better move would be Australia.. Yeah..all this has come about because you Americans have fucked it up. and now when your country is screwed you move to another GOOD country and screw it up too.
      Stay away!!! fix your problems don't move away from them.
      --Canada Kick Ass

    20. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Well perhaps you'd have more credibility if what you had to say had actual content instead of gratuitous emotional spoutings of either an ignorant foreigner or a public school liberal indoctrant.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    21. Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... by escapegoat · · Score: 1
      Time to move to Canada.

      Do a bit of homework, get in your car, and drive on up!

      Just make sure you have a place to live, though...

  2. god help us all by jmoore2333 · · Score: 1

    this is what keeps me from sleeping well at night ~JM

    1. Re:god help us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about. This will help me sleep well at night. I want to know that the next time I get on a plane that some guy who has strong ties to a terriost organization isn't on that plane

    2. Re:god help us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too Bad.

      terriost organization

      you mean the US?

  3. Re:pie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pie rules.

    i'm on my way out the door.

    thanks for the tip!

    --
    ssj

  4. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people are coming into my country, I sure as hell want to know that they aren't going to be a danger to anyone.

    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot that at slashdot, everything is a slippery slope.

    2. Re:And? by shepd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >If people are coming into my country, I sure as hell want to know that they aren't going to be a danger to anyone.

      Me too. That's why this system is a complete waste of money.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    3. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      unfortunately, this data miner will have next to nothing to do with people entering the country. it can only mine data on individuals for whom data is available, that is, citizens and residents flying within and out of the country.

      ah well, i can't afford to fly anytime soon anyway. maybe by the time i make some money, this idiocy will have been stopped. if not, i'll have to travel by car inside the u.s., and catch any international flights from canadian airports - because my privacy *is* worth the price difference.

    4. Re:And? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      "If people are coming into my country, I sure as hell want to know that they aren't going to be a danger to anyone."

      Yeah, I know what you mean.
      If I'm walking past someone in the street, I wanna know they aren't going to be a danger to me.
      Or if someone moves into the neighbourhood.
      Or a work-colleague.
      Or that person in the pub.

      What do you mean this thing doesn't check them out?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    5. Re:And? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2
      unfortunately, this data miner will have next to nothing to do with people entering the country. it can only mine data on individuals for whom data is available, that is, citizens and residents flying within and out of the country.

      Bingo. Give that man a ceeegar!

      The system isn't about identifying terrorists so much as identifying who IS NOT a terrorist. Maybe this way we can stop doing extended searches of little old ladies and teeny boppers in the name of "Political Correctness". Lord knows we'd rather not single out for search young men from Flyspecistan who paid cash for one way tickets and who have otherwise never flown before. That would be "profiling."

      I would guess that the system would be weighted such that someone who flies alot, paid with a well used credit card or corporate billing account, has an extensive credit history (implies they've been "in existence" for a while) and/or doesn't fit a large number of other characteristics will get "approved" and people who don't hit on enough of these will get the same treatment they're getting now. A few people with enough "negative points" will be non-randomly extensively searched. A "failure" would typically only mean that someone who doesn't need much "security attention" isn't identified and has to go through the regular process.

      What this primarily does is make it so that business people in particular and a bunch of people who are fairly obviously not a threat can be given less attention by the airport security apparatus without incurring the wrath of the Political Correctness folks. Like it or not, a lot of the people who will fit the "don't worry about" criteria will be white, middle and upper class types and a lot of the people who fit the extra search criteria will be minorities. This is simply a result of existing demographics but would be more than enough to cause someone to yell, "Profiling."

      (this should pretty thoroughly blow any karma I've accumulated).

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    6. Re:And? by FredGray · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I would guess that the system would be weighted such that someone who flies alot, paid with a well used credit card or corporate billing account, has an extensive credit history (implies they've been "in existence" for a while) [...] will get "approved" [...]

      Of course, the 9/11 hijackers would have been given a free pass if these were the criteria, since they had flown a lot. A friend who works for US Airways told me that one of them had a Dividend Miles Preferred card...

    7. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya know, most of the craziest people on the planet are white-ass crackers. I mean Timmy McVeigh was a cracker. That dude who kidnapped the girls in Oregon this summer who raped his son's girlfriend-cracker. Hitler-big cracker. Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, all those Catholic priests/nambla members, and on and on and on. I mean it's great that we will have this system in place so that militant muslims can't get at us, but what about just regular f*cked up people, especially regular crazy crackers? Can't we, shouldn't we, use this information that was gathered to stop terrorists to stop child molestation and other crazy cracker crimes? I've written a data miner for Slashdot, in Perl, to "profile" nambla members on Slashdot, and the above poster, though he may have not yet acted on his obsessions, feels compulsions to touch little boys buttholes. It is clear as day. This dude need to be watched.

      Here is my source code for my data miner.

    8. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The system isn't about identifying terrorists so much as identifying who IS NOT a terrorist.

      too bad profiling alone can not accomplish that. thought experiment: pretend you are a terrorist. now try to think of at least one way to get around a system like you've just posited. it took me all of two seconds, what was your score?

      searching "teeny boppers" and "little old ladies" is not done because of "political correctness". it's done in the name of randomness. it's done so that bad guys will never be 100% certain that the little old lady (or teenybopper) they're taking advantage of as an unwitting weapons mule won't end up searched, the weapons found, and the fingers pointed at the weapons' originators. it would be better if we could search everybody, of course, but for whatever silly technical reasons we can't, so random chance is second best.

      people think profiling would work better than random chance - and it might, if the bad guys were strictly nonrandomly distributed (in some way we can figure out) and unable to compensate for this so as to throw us off. the first might be true - but if the second ever were, they would not be a threat. in real life, the only kind of profiling that really works is intelligence - find out who the bad guys really are, then post mugshots behind the security counters.

    9. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If people are coming into my country, I sure as hell want to know that they aren't going to be a danger to anyone."

      Yeah, wouldn't want those violent europeans coming to wreck our nice peaceful L.A. and Chicago...

  5. wow 7 links by emkman · · Score: 2, Funny

    For when slahdotting one site just isnt enough...

    oh wait, I forget no one reads the articles, nevermind.

    --
    Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
  6. Hmm.... by sm0kes · · Score: 1

    Better pay up those parking tickets ASAP.

  7. If you REALLY wanted to stop it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have been working on this system for nearly a year now. And now, 3 months from the finish date, you are complaining.

    If you really wanted to put a stop to this project, WHY ARE YOU STARTING NOW? WHY HAVE YOU BEEN SITTING ON YOUR ASS FOR THE LAST FSCKING YEAR?

    1. Re:If you REALLY wanted to stop it... by mbogosian · · Score: 1

      People have been working on this system for nearly a year now. And now, 3 months from the finish date, you are complaining.

      Maybe it's because of my own lack of diligence, but this is the first I've been made aware of it. No politician asked me if I thought this system was a good idea, or a good use of my money as a taxpayer.

    2. Re:If you REALLY wanted to stop it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's your own ignorance, unfortunately.

      I've read several articles on this project, starting a few months after 9/11 (but none of them were recent). You know how the news keeps talking about the Big Database that the airlines are going to use to keep out future terrorists? CAPPS's is part of the system.

    3. Re:If you REALLY wanted to stop it... by Dthoma · · Score: 1
      "WHY HAVE YOU BEEN SITTING ON YOUR ASS FOR THE LAST FSCKING YEAR?"

      Um. We're still sitting on our collective ass. We're just a lot more vocal about it now.

      --

      Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

  8. Lets hope the Pentuim bug is really gone by Zipster · · Score: 4, Funny
    "mathematically ranks travelers' potential as security threats"

    Lets just hope none of those F00F bugs start popping back up...

    --
    "I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside" -- Calvin
    1. Re:Lets hope the Pentuim bug is really gone by ActiveSX · · Score: 1

      You mean the FDIV bug, right? Unless they're going to let people run code on the machines as they walk through, which I doubt. ;)

  9. Damn! by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 4, Funny

    They'll never let me on a plane, what with my nick and all.

    --
    "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
    -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
    1. Re:Damn! by squaretorus · · Score: 2

      Flight-Karma: Poor (mostly affected by the appearance in your name of hyphens, and ending vowels)

  10. Profiling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hopefully this will help cut down on racial profiling.

    1. Re:Profiling... by mbogosian · · Score: 1

      Hopefully this will help cut down on racial profiling.

      That is, of course, assuming that race is not part of the polynomial used to calculate one's "terror score".

    2. Re:Profiling... by krenshala · · Score: 3, Funny
      I wonder what *my* terror score is? Think they will setup a CLQ.com type site so we can compare our score with friends'?! ;)

      g3orge: "Hey, j0ck! My terror score is TWELVE points higher than yours!"

      j0ck: "Oh, yeah? Well watch this ..."

      --

      krenshala

    3. Re:Profiling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what in the hell does this have to do with what you're talking about? a turkish C-64 warez group?

    4. Re:Profiling... by sxpert · · Score: 2

      well, ahem, in fact, they will have equifax and all make you pay for "terror score report"

  11. Let me throw a curve ball by cscx · · Score: 4, Funny

    What if the entire system ran on Linux? Now you don't know what the hell to do, do you?

    1. Re:Let me throw a curve ball by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 2
      You mean:
      1. Get a beowulf cluster of these things.
      2. ???
      3. Profit


      Sorry, never made a beowulf joke before. Did I spell it right?
      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    2. Re:Let me throw a curve ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the entire system ran on Linux? Now you don't know what the hell to do, do you?

      Then it would be okay. I, along with millions of other hackers, would be able to examine the source-code.

      Love,
      michael.

  12. Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by tyrani · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder what the reaction of Slashdot would be if fingerprinting was a new technology?

    I can only imagine the uproar of privacy concerns and issues relating to the technology behind it.

    I'm not one to give up my privacy, but as crimes have become drastically more violent and their impact greater on society because of the media, isn't it time to update the system?

    --
    rejected (19) accepted (0)
    Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    1. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Glytch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Crimes haven't become more violent. Our news coverage is simply more extensive and public than at any other point in history.

    2. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by gimpboy · · Score: 1

      i would have the same reaction if they wanted to fingerprint everyone who flys on planes. ben said it best:


      "They that can give up essential
      liberty to obtain a little
      temporary safety deserve neither
      liberty nor safety."

      Benjamin Franklin

      --
      -- john
    3. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by kfg · · Score: 2

      Ah, but what if you couldn't avail yourself of privately owned commercially provided transportaion without being fingerprinted?

      KFG

    4. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Psx29 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not one to give up my privacy, but as crimes have become drastically more violent and their impact greater on society because of the media, isn't it time to update the system?

      The only thing this system should be checking is if someone has a criminal record and list the offenses (and no I am not referring to parking tickets and the like). Any other way of "ranking" someone is the same as any other kind of illegal profiling

    5. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by tyrani · · Score: 1

      Media provides marketing for violent crimes.

      Go ask an old cop if they think that crimes have become more violent.

      --
      rejected (19) accepted (0)
      Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    6. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Yea, crimes have become more violent as technology increases.

      The single and double action revolver took a single shot device capable of wounding or killing one person ever 1-3 minutes into a device that could kill multiple people. And look at the increase in casualties between say 1815 and then in 1864. The larger caliber weapons and repeating rifles lead to much higher death rates in battle. More violent.

      Then look at a typical anarchist bombing from 1870-1920 and then look at what a modern bombing can do as illustrated in Oklahoma City, Tel Aviv, Paris, London, Moscow or Berlin. One or two or maybe four would be killed by a state of the art terror bomb at the turn of the century while today a state of the art terror bomb can kill dozens.

      At the turn of the century it would be almost impossable to knock down a building that was 10-20 years old, while a modern bomb can knock down a building with much more advanced construction methods.

      A bank robbery in 1897 couldn't involve weapons capable of firing 600 rounds per minute or able to hit a target out to 200 meters. The famous LA bank robbery in 1997 involved weapons that were capable of much more violence and destruction.

      It would have been impossible in 1901 to knock down structures with thousands of people inside by anarchists but in 2001 it was possible for 19 persons to destroy buildings with 50,000 people inside. A much more violent crime.

    7. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 1
      ...but as crimes have become drastically more violent and their impact greater on society because of the media, isn't it time to update the system?

      You are demonstrating an attitude that is unfortunately becoming more typical. Are fingerprints really any better at keeping airlines safe? Prints scanned by a reader in the airport terminal will only be proven to belong to the data record associated with the name on the boarding pass and ID card. Potential flaws, exploitable by anyone with the desire to take over an aircraft:

      • The original ID card associating the prints with an identity could have been fake
      • The data could have been altered by anybody with access to the system, both lawful and unlawful
      • Fingerprints can be read; can't they also be printed? Latex seems to be the perfect medium for the job.
      • Since the 9/11 attacks, many airlines have been successfully boarded with knives, box cutters, and handguns due to the $X Million equipment being manned by inept operators. Even with the fancy federal job titles, airport security staff will fuck up with any system. Guaranteed. Why should we waste taxpayer money on this one? Do you work for the vendor?

      I think a large Americans are would do anything to feel secure, whether or not the product or legislative fiat can actually increase safety. Give up your privacy if you must, but don't imagine that everyone else will follow suit.

      --
      "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
      -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
    8. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by tyrani · · Score: 1

      I hope that my attitude is becoming more typical. If everyone felt that the system needed an update from the finger print method of identifying criminals, there would be change in the system and perhaps less crime. Defiantly not more.

      You brought up some great points about finger printing. That's exactly why we need a new system.

      --
      rejected (19) accepted (0)
      Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    9. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Where do you draw the line? I say fuck the terrorist threat. They've taken out so many bastards already, and many people who probably had nothing to do with terrorists, that I doubt anyone would dare try anything anyway. I'm not saying drop the issue totally, but this is definately going too far. Terrorists attacked America ONE time ONE year ago. How many countries have attacks on a daily basis? You don't see those countries doing this bullsh*t! Why not? Because it wouldn't do any damn good anyway, it would only piss off the already stressed out citizens. How much farther will this bullsh*t go?

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    10. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Usually, criminals are the ones that get fingerprinted, not the general, law abiding public. Keeping tabs on criminals or potential criminals is one thing, but keeping tabs on everyone is a giant leap.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    11. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by be-fan · · Score: 2

      large Americans are would do anything to feel secure
      >>>>>>>>>
      Hey, just because they're fat...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    12. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by JimBobJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's run this through Bruce Schneier's two basic questions concerning security systems (as noted in the Atlantic Monthly article recently.)

      1. What problem does it solve?

      Identifying people is not a goal. Nothing is achieved by figuring out someone's true name (though psychologically speaking humans seem to think that finding identity is somehow useful. Most of the time it isn't.)

      Identity does not imply motive. What type of criminals tend to have criminal backgrounds? Well, small time criminals, and your serial rapists/killers/et cetera. The pre-determined criminals usually will have no record (whether it's because they haven't done anything, or because they have escaped justice.)

      The proposed system is designed to take individuals who have "community standing", ferret them out and mark them as low security passengers. (An interesting example of this already in use--if you don't have a photo ID, some airlines will take a combination of different documents, one of which can be a motor vehicle insurance card--which is a great proof of "community standing" or in other words "an identity well used." A photo driver's license does not imply that the identity is "in use." Either way, what does it solve? I will maintain nothing.)

      2. What happens when the system fails?

      It's hard to say...what was it achieving in the first place? But it seems like the biggest problem is that "community standing" will manifest itself as low-security passengers, and people will be waived through when more of these individuals should go through the higher security checks.

      I don't know if this system really has much of a failure, since it doesn't seem to achieve all that much in the first place. That's what bothers me so much--it's an expensive farce that violates civil liberties.

      Schneier says that only two new security measures make any difference whatsoever--reinforced cockpit doors, and passengers who are now willing to fight back.

    13. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by oh · · Score: 1


      Even though fingerprinting is not a new technology, there are questions that are still unanswered. The statement "no two people have the same fingerprint" has to my knowledge not yet been proven. As well, do you know how much of a fingerprint it takes for the police to say there is a match?

      Fingerprints are not (or should not be) a yes or no question. Like DNS testing there is a probability that two fingerprints match. If there is a one in a million match then there are probably hundreds of people in the US that match, but if you say that there is only a 0.0001% chance that the suspect isn't the one who left the fingerprint, then your chances of conviction increase greatly.

      You could say that the suspect wouldn't be a suspect if the police didn't think that the person did it already, but what if this hypothetical person was pulled out of a fingerprint database? If the only link between the suspect and the crime was this "one and a million" fingerprint, would you convict him?

      And before anyone says alibi, where were you on the 28th of July, 2002 at 21:34? I'm sure a lot of you could prove you were where you say you were, but then pick another date and time? What is the chance that you would be unlucky enough to have this "evidence" pointing to you?

      Final set of questions. When are you prepared to send some one to jail (or death row)? There is the statement "reasonable doubt", but what does that mean. If some one says that there could be 20 other people in you city that could match just as well, would you say guilty? If there were 20 people in the county? In the world?

      I'm not arguing, or trying to start a flame war. I'm not sure of my answers to my last few questions myself, and everyone is different. Just trying to make you think for a second about what is right and wrong.

      --
      Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
    14. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by lostPackets · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Thought to be fair, we've been attacked more than once. I still feel that the response is out of proportion to the incidents though. Yes 2000 some people died, yes it was terrible. Anyone care to compare deaths from terrorism to other sources that get almost NO public attention? More people drown every year than were killed in the WTC bombings, where's the legislative fiat against water?

    15. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Like DNS testing there is a probability that two fingerprints match.

      So having the same IP number as a "known terrorist" is now grounds for conviction? Fuck me, man. What would Ben Franklin say?

    16. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love comments like this.

      Although it's true that "news coverage is ... more extensive and public than at any other point in history", it does not follow that "[c]rimes haven't become more violent".

      They may have. It's easy to assume that an apprent increase in occurance is only _apparent_ because we're hearing about it more than we used to, when in fact it is quite possible that there actually _is_ an increase.

    17. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I love you. Want to touch my butthole?

    18. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don`t forget police chase videos = ratings!!

    19. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by sxpert · · Score: 2

      well, tx fingerprints when you apply for a drivers licence. I see no point in this , but they do it

    20. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by be-fan · · Score: 2

      28th of July, 2002 at 21:34?
      >>>
      Posting on /.

      but then pick another date and time?
      >>>
      Posting on /.

      I've got the logs to prove it :)

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    21. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by sxpert · · Score: 2

      And before anyone says alibi, where were you on the 28th of July, 2002 at 21:34? I'm sure a lot of you could prove you were where you say you were, but then pick another date and time? What is the chance that you would be unlucky enough to have this "evidence" pointing to you?

      This is irrelevant, the guy that did it would be dead anyways

    22. Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod this man up!

      the premise he argues against was obsurd.

  13. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ranks people that are a danger. If you flag the system, then you should be put under investegation, or arrested.

  14. If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    why do Anonymous Cowards start their score at 0?

    1. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with this post, but it is so not off-topic.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by kfg · · Score: 2

      Because they haven't proven themselves to be of any value * or danger* to anyone, and thus are both allowed to exist, and to do so without penalty.

      KFG

    3. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more to the point, why won't my user info page track comments i posted with the anonymous box checked for me? tracking my postings was the only reason i bothered finally getting an account. if i'd wanted to have my name (or nym, or anything remotely like an identity) up on a public website i'd've registered years ago.

      i mean, i *am* logged in, so it's *my* info page, how hard can it be to make sure anybody who sees it while not logged in as me wouldn't see the anon postings? is this the almighty slashcode that can do absolutely anything, or isn't it?

    4. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Isn't the fact that they get a 0 instead of a 1 a penalty?

    5. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by kfg · · Score: 2

      No, zero is the, ummmmmmm, zero point. One would be receiving a benifit not yet earned. If they started at -1 they would have received a penalty.

      Unlike the way some people think these days the lack of being given a bonus is *NOT* the same as a penalty.

      KFG

    6. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would make AC post trackable

    7. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Unlike the way some people think these days the lack of being given a bonus is *NOT* the same as a penalty.

      I disagree.

    8. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do I.

    9. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah man,

      I'm starting to think there should be a rating of the rating. I don't fucking care what my 'precious karma' is... What I do care about is reading fucking intelligent and/or funny posts.

      It's becoming more and more of a h4xx0r 3l33t room in here.

      Fach.

    10. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree.
      I agree, his logic is flawed.

    11. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by kfg · · Score: 2

      So is it your premise that when the ballgame starts everyone should be credited with a goal up front?

      KFG

    12. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct. It doesn't make sense. It just depends on where your 'artificial zero' point is. Now, if everyone 'trusted' gets a one or more, and others don't, then you could just as well deduct '1' from everyone's points and end up with the same result... no?

      But wait? Doesn't slashdot use a default of 'Score 1' browsng? So everyone trusted is awarded with 'you're seen by default'-bonus, and all ACs get a 'penalty of 1 below the default viewing score'. So they DO get penalized...

      If it weren't for some people with moderation points who go in to the zero point void and drag some anonymous insights up out of there into the public view....

    13. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      it already is... your IP is already recorded

    14. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      So is it your premise that when the ballgame starts everyone should be credited with a goal up front?

      No, my premise is that if one team is credited with a goal up front, and the other team hasn't, that other team has received a penalty.

    15. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by kfg · · Score: 2

      The answer is simple enough, and I note that you have availed yourself of it, register and score a goal. Even in a sporting event you must *register.* How else are they going to figure out *who* did what in the game and deserves what merits or penalties?

      Posting as an AC essentially says " I *don't intend* to take personal credit for my actions, bad or good."

      One can view an individual post as existing on its own, or as participating in a community. With regards to the subject of the *news story* we're dicussing posting as it relates to community. If posts are to be viewed as individual entities everyone should be AC.

      One of the things that distinguishes /. as a community though is the fact that participation is entirely *voluntary,* even for AC's.

      KFG

    16. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The answer is simple enough, and I note that you have availed yourself of it, register and score a goal. Even in a sporting event you must *register.* How else are they going to figure out *who* did what in the game and deserves what merits or penalties?

      I don't think you understand my point. I'm not arguing against ACs gettting penalized.

      Posting as an AC essentially says " I *don't intend* to take personal credit for my actions, bad or good."

      As does going on an airplane without showing ID.

      One of the things that distinguishes /. as a community though is the fact that participation is entirely *voluntary,* even for AC's.

      Are you suggesting that flying on a plane is not voluntary? I don't understand.

      My point is that people who are anonymous are generally less trustworthy than people who are not.

    17. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, so listing posts made as AC wouldn't be a risk, if only the original poster could see their AC posts... Can we request changes to slashcode? This sounds like a good feature.

    18. Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      True, so listing posts made as AC wouldn't be a risk, if only the original poster could see their AC posts... Can we request changes to slashcode? This sounds like a good feature.

      I'd definately be willing to write it. Hell, I'd like AC posts to even be Karmaized. I know big brother slashdot knows who I am when I post anonymously, I just don't want the general public to know.

  15. excuse me by dolo666 · · Score: 1

    Excuse me, Utmah Putakkamanabalon... are you a terrorist? No? Well the computer says you are a terrorist. Please board the Terrorist Only flight by following the blue line...

    1. Re:excuse me by krenshala · · Score: 1

      heheh. now THAT would provide 'safety' on flights ...

      Reminds me of hte George Carlin line from back when planes were exploding in mid-air all over the place (it seemed) [paraphrasing, as I can't remember the exact words]: The chances are a million-to-one that there is a bomb on the plane you will be on - reduce the odds, bringe your own.

      --

      krenshala

    2. Re:excuse me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFLMAO!!!
      Carlin is the best!

  16. I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    I'm not going to be entering or leaving the U.S.

    I don't mind them scanning people entering and leaving one bit.

    In fact, if it means that they might catch one in a million people up to no good, more power to them.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... by mbogosian · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to be entering or leaving the U.S. I don't mind them scanning people entering and leaving one bit. In fact, if it means that they might catch one in a million people up to no good, more power to them.

      Will you still be so indifferent when they start applying the same methods to arresting domestic citizens living and working in the US based on a mathematical suspicion?

    2. Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yessiree-bob, that's what I say. Us narrowminded, honest folks gotta stick together.

      Mebbe a few of them innocent folks might get hanged once in a bit, but dang it if I'm gunna let one of them criminal-looking types get away.

    3. Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... by TKinias · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quoth Mustang Matt:

      In fact, if it means that they might catch one in a million people up to no good, more power to them.

      Absolutely! While we're at it, why not change this silly ``innocent 'til proven guilty'' nonsense. It lets too many criminals walk free. If they're innocent, they should be able to prove it easily. You've nothing to fear if you don't commit crimes.

      If it gets one more criminal behind bars, it's worth it, right?

      </irony>

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    4. Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

      It's not debunking "innocent until proven guilty."

      Instead it's simply mathmatically calculating risk to bring attention of those who might be crimial to someone's attention.

      Everyone's slamming me, but this is what the government is doing by hand already, now we're simply taking human error out of the picture. And we're INCREASING privacy by not letting a human look over everyone's personal info UNLESS the computer throws a flag and says "Hey, this person was in afghanistan 7 years ago and is wanted in two other countries for questioning."

      It's not saying that every person the computer notices is going to get thrown in jail or anything, it's simply saying that the computer is going to scan the info given to it without bias and look for possible baddies.

      --
      The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... by sapped · · Score: 1

      It's not saying that every person the computer notices is going to get thrown in jail or anything, it's simply saying that the computer is going to scan the info given to it without bias and look for possible baddies.

      Errmm. Not that I want to interrupt your party here or anything like that, but I would like to point out that the computer will be scanning with a bias. If it was not scanning with a bias, then it would simply look over your records and then spit out a random number to show if you should be searched or not. It is the bias - albiet previously programmed into the computer - that has most people worried.

      --

      Employing incompetence: $35/h
      Fixing the resulting mistakes: $1000's
      Employing me: Priceless

  17. Why would anyone want to stop this? by danny256 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Maybe I'm crazy but I care more about not getting killed in an airplane by terrorists than whether or not there is a big data base about me. I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system. Its a good thing.

    1. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by kfg · · Score: 2

      "I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system."

      PROVE it you scumwad suspected perp you.

      (Moderators, the above is a logical argument, not a flame)

      KFG

    2. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by danny256 · · Score: 1

      The proof is in the data base. If anything, this will decrease the chance of me being questioned because the data base will show that I'm a law abiding citizen.

    3. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by blank_coil · · Score: 1

      I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system.

      So, just because they promise they'll be good and won't abuse this system for, say political dissenters, or anything like that, you automatically give them the benefit of the doubt? Seriously, why do you assume they're doing this in your best interest? Ask yourself, who does this system benefit? Do you really think terrorists are going anywhere near airports since Sept 11?

      --
      No sig for you.
    4. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe I'm crazy but I care more about not getting killed in an airplane by terrorists than whether or not there is a big data base about me.

      Well, good for you. I, on the other hand, am not. If the 9/11 hijackers tried to take control of a plane today, the rest of the passengers would take them down. (And, if they didn't the plane would be shot down. Not that it would do you any good, but still.)

      The rest of this is just a power grab by the totalitarian element in our government.

      I'd rather live in a place with occasional suicide bomber then in 1984land, personally.

      I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system.

      Well, assuming that A) the system is infallible, and B) no one ever uses the data for 'bad things' either people with legit or illegitimate access.

      For obvious reasons, those are not assumptions I'm going to make...

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    5. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have nothing to fear. Please turn your head to the left while I adjust this tracking collar. Very good.

      This is Mr. Hanley, and he'll be escorting you about during your daily business. Remember, curfew is at 7. Don't forget to check in for your political screening tomorrow. Remember, you're not a terrorist so you have nothing to fear.

    6. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by rwj · · Score: 1

      No, the proof isn't in the database. The proof is in the weightings people place on things in the database....

      You're assuming that the weightings are going to be objective and (hopefully) open for discussion.

      But, some of the things that could easily get put in would be:

      member of greenpeace (or other eco group)
      single
      university aged
      lack of a regular job
      member of socially active group that is contrary to current government thought (human rights, war in afghanistan,...)

      The system is analyzing who you associate with, and what you (publically) state that you think or agree with, and using that to generate a terror threat.

      Chances are that you will never find out *why* you've been given a terror threat... Only that you have one. And even if you *can* appeal it, it will take a long time, and the burden of proof will be against you.

      And until that time, you will (at minimum) not be able to travel. And more likely be arrested. After all, if you're too much of a threat to allow on a plane, you *should* be arrested, right...

      -dj

    7. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by symbolic · · Score: 2

      Simple...it's solution looking for a problem. As more and more information is revealed about just how MUCH the CIA (and perhaps even the president) dropped the ball with respect to 9/11, none of these so-called security measures will really matter. What will matter is that you have a competent government that can get the job done without turning the entire country into a police state. It wasn't the absence of a presumption of guilt that allowed 9/11 to happen - it was the failure of a security agency to carry out its duty in a competent manner. Much better results can be achieved by fixing the real problem, rather than covering it up with the charade we see before us.

    8. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by kfg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thank you sir, I couldn't have said it better myself.

      The only thing you left out is that should you ulitmately succed in your appeal you *still* won't be able to travel, you will be bankrupt, unemployed and unemployable and with your entire life in tatters.

      It's the oldest "law enforcment" trick in the book.

      KFG

    9. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by Grakkus · · Score: 1
      If the 9/11 hijackers tried to take control of a plane today, the rest of the passengers would take them down. (And, if they didn't the plane would be shot down. Not that it would do you any good, but still.)

      Your right. Things have gotten a lot more dangerous for hijackers since 911. They run the risk of being shot by air marshals and/or clobbered by passengers and flight attendants.

      I believe the point of the system is to not have to get to the point where you need passengers to take down hijackers or an F16 to shoot down planes. I believe the whole idea of the system is to make it more difficult for terrorists to get on airplanes or at least make it more difficult for terrorists to travel from place to place than it was before 911.

    10. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by jgalun · · Score: 1

      I would prefer to live with an occassional terrorist act than 1984 too. Luckily for us, this is not 1984. Seriously, read the book again. As stupid as CAPPS II may be - and I suspect it's pretty stupid, and a huge waste of money and effort - I hardly think it's creating 1984.

      Really, most of us are capable of distinguishing between police state and acts noxious to civil liberties. Believe it or not, I can tell the difference between the Soviet Union and the acts carried out by the current administration. I am aware of the differences between the Gulag and Camp X-Ray.

      All these hyperbolic civil liberties arguments on Slashdot remind me of message boards I've read where conservatives are still breathlessly claiming that social security and medicare are unconstitutional and a terrible danger to the freedom of the United States. People need to get some perspective.

    11. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by bnenning · · Score: 2
      I'd rather live in a place with occasional suicide bomber then in 1984land, personally.


      I agree completely, and this is an important point to make against the "if it saves just one life" sheep. China has less crime than the US, but I don't see much support for emulating their "justice" system. CAPPS might end up slightly improving detection of terrorists, but it's still not worth it. First, terrorists won't be hijacking planes again because the passengers know to fight back now, and second, the massive data collected on innocent people *will* be misused.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    12. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fantastic... a sane American.

    13. Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know at one time thier were GERMAN jews who thought the same thing after all they weren`t doing "anything wrong" so they had "nothing to fear". soooooo, they didn`t beleive anything would happen to them. the ones who trusted and stayed died the ones who could hide and or escape lived end of story, or is it?

      man does not learn from history he only repeats it.

  18. While I don't agree with his presentation by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    The anonymous author certainly has a colorful presentation to his post, but I agree with his general argument.

    All of us law abiding citizens have nothing to hide.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:While I don't agree with his presentation by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Just how long do you expect that situation to continue?

      I'm so sick of hearing this argument. If the government starts outlawing more and more activities "for our protection," are you positive that your personal life is so inoffensive in every possible way that you could allow anyone--regardless of their agenda--to go through it with a fine-toothed comb?

      The problem with your argument is that the scope of the term "law-abiding" changes from day to day. One day, it's legal to drink alcohol. The next day, an amendment is passed outlawing the contents of your wine cellar. One day, your Colt 45 is just a cliched part of your Texan lifestyle, the next day it's an imprisonable offense. One day, your drug legalization post to USENET is a valued contribution to the national debate, the next day it's "incitement to terror or the encouragement of same." It doesn't matter if it's the ideas in your mind, the porn on your hard drive, the religion you practice, the technology you own, or the hobbies you pursue, I guarantee you that nobody is safe from having their freedoms encroached upon.

      Even you, with your "go along, get along" attitude, may someday find that a law has been passed which you cannot follow in good conscience. Fight for your freedoms now. Don't wait until they've already arrested all your potential allies.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  19. So does anyone know what exactly should be done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would calling/faxing my representatives be of any help at this stage in the game? Or is it too late? I read one of the links which did not really mention anything that I could do.

  20. Does this not scare anyone else? by areguan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It seems that anymore, every other story is on /. is about how America is developing some new way of spying on its own citizens. Does this not scare anyone else but me? I'm paranoid as it is already, but reading all this stuff makes me that much more paranoid.

    --
    chicks dig *nix Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone 1 4m d4 1337 /\/\4$74|?
  21. Why Should Something Be Done To Stop It? by tealover · · Score: 1

    I'm just curious. Why is it a bad thing?

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    1. Re:Why Should Something Be Done To Stop It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because when Osama steals a car he now appears as Heidi VanWijtass, Canadian Commuter.

    2. Re:Why Should Something Be Done To Stop It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mr. tealover do you have a computer? ...yes i do, why? is their a problem? ... do you use or know of anyone who uses linux? ... yes, i know a few people why? what does this have to do with me? ... i`m sorry sir you`ll have to come with us and answer a few questions.

      human nature doesn`t change and man does not learn from history he only repeats it.

  22. I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here it is.. Passenger p = getPassenger();

    // positive means they are bad guys. let's initalize to zero.
    p.securityThreatScore = 0.0;

    if (isMiddleEast(p.nationality)) { p.securityThreatScore += 10.0; }
    if (isMiddleEast(p.destination)) { p.securityThreatScore += 10.0; }
    if (isMiddleEast(p.origin)) { p.securityThreatScore += 20.0; }

    if (hasDarkSkin(p.race)) {
    p.securityThreatScore += 20.0;
    } else {
    // TODO: are there any white terrorists?
    p.securityThreatScore -= 50.0;
    }

    // TODO: there may be more religions..check on that
    if (p.religion == Religion.CHRISTIAN || p.religion = Religion.JEWISH) {
    p.securityThreatScore -= 100.0;
    } else {
    p.securityThreatScore += 100.0;
    }

    // Thank goodness the source code is closed!!
    if (p.gender == Religion.FEMALE && p.age >= 18 && p.age <= 28) {
    p.securityThreatScore += 500.0;
    p.searchOptions.fullStrip = true;
    p.searchOptions.bodyCavities = true;
    }

    // TODO: should known terrorists be considered security threats?
    if (knownTerroristsDatabase.contains(p)) {
    p.securityThreatScore = Math.random(-100.0, 100.0);
    }

    // TODO: why is this here again? better leave it for now..
    if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
    p.securityThreatScore = -p.securityThreatScore;
    }

    // Book em, danno
    if (p.securityThreatScore > 0.0) {
    Dialog d = new Dialog(SUSPECTED TERRORIST!!);
    }

    1. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops, my code has a bug:

      p.gender == Religion.FEMALE

      Should be Gender.FEMALE of course =)

      I'm sure the real code has more than a few bugs though.......

    2. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the immortal words of Triumph the Dog: "You are a huge nerd."

    3. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by renehollan · · Score: 2
      Er, since when is Female a Religion? Though I understand the fullStrup and bodyCavities members.

      This is an example of a piece of code that does the "right" thing, but for the wrong reasons.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    4. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      // TODO: are there any white terrorists?

      I realize that you're not being serious, but just for the record: The unabomber bombings and the Oklahoma City bombing was done by white people.

      Damn, doesn't this country forget that most of the crime done in this country are actually done BY AMERICANS?

      Even if you could stop all acts of terror here, are you going to stop all crime?

      Oh, oops. I keep forgetting that terrorism isn't the real reason for these devices. Carry on.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    5. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Skyfire · · Score: 1

      Satire©. Know It. Understand It.

      --
      Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    6. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the Oklahoma City bombing was done by white people.

      I can field that one.

      Here in America we don't consider Red Neck farm boy types "White". "White" is the moniker we use only for fine, clean cut, upstanding, suit types that hold the same, respectable, police 'em into the barrios attitude.

    7. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Jordy · · Score: 2

      Then there is the IRA that blows stuff up all the time as do Israeli zionists.

      Damn, doesn't this country forget that most of the crime done in this country are actually done BY AMERICANS?

      People seem to have forgotten that more than 15,000 people are murdered by Americans in the US every year.

      I think what people must realize is federal government is run by a bunch of pansies who would forsake freedom for a temporary feeling of safety It doesn't help that our President lacks the crucial ability of actually being able to lead. I've seen stronger leaders in games of Quake.

      Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    8. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by gnovos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You forgot:

      if (hasFirstClassTicket(p.ticket) || isRichCEO(p.occupation)) {
      ignoreAllSecurityThreat();
      return;
      }

      This from personal expierence on a flight where my wife and I had to take a multiple connection flight (the seperate planes, we got searched three seperate times), and not *one* business or first class passenger was searched. It was *very* random.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    9. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by alienmole · · Score: 1
      In the immortal words of Triumph the Dog: "You are a huge nerd."

      ...and you are reading the wrong website.

    10. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Er, since when is Female a Religion?

      Gender.FEMALE is just the gender. Even conditioned with age criteria, it doesn't always tell you everything. Religion.FEMALE is an undocumented value of the Religion enumeration indicating "worthy of worship". (Notwithstanding the apparent [anonymous] disclaimer of the original [anonymous] poster that this is a bug.) It is derived from a photographic pattern matching score, using the generic features of a certain Jennifer Lopez as a convenient standard reference. Incidentally setting p.searchOptions.fullStrip (as opposed to the officially documented p.searchOptions.stripSearch) initiates certain activity on the surveillence camera network, but the details are classified.

    11. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      ...not *one* business or first class passenger was searched.

      I believe most of the 9/11 terrorists were First class passengers, so I doubt First class passengers are now not being checked.

    12. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      haha this should be modded up

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    13. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      I think what people must realize is federal government is run by a bunch of pansies who would forsake freedom for a temporary feeling of safety It doesn't help that our President lacks the crucial ability of actually being able to lead. I've seen stronger leaders in games of Quake.


      More like the feel of incredible power. More like showing off to the other less wealthy countries. These guys are on such a power trip they don't wanna come down. We're plenty safe.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    14. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This from personal expierence on a flight where my wife and I had to take a multiple connection flight (the seperate planes, we got searched three seperate times), and not *one* business or first class passenger was searched. It was *very* random.

      Where is your scientific evidence for this?!? One sample (flight) doesn't count at all. Your puny words mean nothing to me!!

      Yes, this was a rant against all those would-be critics that seem to have lost all common sense and feel for life.

    15. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubt as much as you want, but do you actually believe methods used will be sensible? All this "patrioism" is coming from fear and irrationality. The "small men" have nothing to say in it, while the Man waves about his insane orders.

    16. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by SashaM · · Score: 1

      Since when is sex a religion?

    17. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by gnovos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...not *one* business or first class passenger was searched.

      I believe most of the 9/11 terrorists were First class passengers, so I doubt First class passengers are now not being checked.


      Allow me to enlighten you as to exactly how "secure" this "random" checking of passengers is. First of all, I fly often, and always on one-way tickets in economy. Since 9/11 I have been searched a total of 12 times. That's right, I have been searched on each and every plane I have been on since that day. (I have never, not once in all my 12 plane flights seen a business class passenger get pulled "randomly" out of the search line, and after about the fifth search of your's truly, I have been watching.)

      When I fly, I carry two things with me: one (1) hotel sewing kit complete with aluminum scissor that cannot cut paper, and one (1) ultra hot habenero sauce that I keep in a vial inside an official "biohazard" baggie that I purloined at a doctor's office a while ago. It is heavy duty and complete with the bright orange biohazard flower and many various "danger, do not open" labels on it (and it really IS that hot, yum.)

      Each and every time I fly since 9/11 I have the tiny one inch no-blade scissors thrown away with rathar contemptuous looks, and the biohazard baggie with the vial of red goo untouched, no questions asked.

      THIS is your security in action, my friend.

      (Just for the record, I am your typical white male 20-something in jeans and a tee-shirt, you know, the kind that obviously looks like a terrorist)

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    18. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean gender... As sex has been mine for ages!! :)

    19. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by isorox · · Score: 2

      (Just for the record, I am your typical white male 20-something in jeans and a tee-shirt, you know, the kind that obviously looks like a terrorist)

      Well its its a think geek tshirt....

      Thank your lucky stars you dont have a laptop with linux on - when you have to turn it on you'll be stuck when they cant find the start button.

    20. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by ellem · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pfft I could have written this in 2 lines of Perl

      --
      This .sig is fake but accurate.
    21. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I don't get is why the heck the selection of who is to be searched isn't made by a mechanical device which randomly picks tickets? If they really want random that's a good way to go.

    22. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by swillden · · Score: 2

      One thing I don't get is why the heck the selection of who is to be searched isn't made by a mechanical device which randomly picks tickets?

      Different airlines do it differently. Delta, for example, has the machine that scans your boarding pass before you get on the plane randomly select passengers.

      And, yes, first class passengers also get searched. I usually fly first class, and I've been searched plenty.

      So it is equal opportunity harrassment (that adds exactly nothing to my safety on an aircraft).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by swillden · · Score: 2
      I was searched last week. I was in first class.

      If you want to swap anecdotal evidence, I've been on airplanes at least 80 times since 9/11/01, and from what I can see, if there's any bias at all, first class passengers get searched more frequently than economy class passengers.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:I managed to get part of the source code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also a what could be considered a typical white male 20-something.

      I was pulled out and searched when flying 1st class. Along with another 20-something white male from enconomy class. I think it depends on the airline.

      Nothing short of search 100% of passengers is really going to work, they're just trying to make it a little more difficult (even if only slightly) for would-be bad guys.

  23. I wonder what... by JonWan · · Score: 3, Funny

    The search will say about me. I always wanted to know what the FBI thought of me in the 1960's when they investigated my father for high security clearence when he worked for General Dynamics.

    I can see it now: "Mostly harmless"

    1. Re:I wonder what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what *you* think. They will see a 'suspected terrorist with potential access to classified information'.

      I travelled to the USA a few months ago on vacation. I am a white male, from a NATO country (the Netherlands) and was in the company of similar friends.

      And yet... Whenever we boarded a plane (five times in total) we were given the 'full search treatment' - get pulled out of the line, go through detector, have handbaggage searched, take off shoes (why!?), before being allowed back on. And twice our baggage was X-rayed with the big X-ray machine. Let's just say they were pretty thorough, although the way they performed those searches we could have easily passed small objects back and forth among one another and thus smuggled items onto the plane... But I digress.

      Now, for the funny bits:
      - Each time, all three of us were pulled out of the line, even when we were not in close proximity to one another.
      - Each time, the security check was 'random'. Yeah right...

      So, were we singled out before we ever entered the USA to be searched whenever we wanted to travel? Or was there some mechanism at work that flagged us as a potential threat whenever we came to a terminal? And the most important question of all: will this happen every single time I travel to the USA, or was this a one-off?

      Because that is the problem with these mechanisms: will certain people _always_ be singled out? In that case they won't be able to travel much anymore, and that's a pretty stiff penalty for being a _potential_ terrorist.

    2. Re:I wonder what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Know the likely reason you were picked? White male coming to the US from the Netherlands: they were hoping to find drugs. All this "security in the name of countering terrorism" is BS, it's being leveraged for other uses.

      Me, I always get searched on every flight anymore, and I've got no idea why. Always flights within the US, roundtrip, purchased weeks in advance, so I'm not triggering any of those flags. My friend figures it's because I fit the "young blonde female travelling alone" profile. I figure it's the "nice midwestern girl who won't complain about the delay" profile. Don't know what else it could be.

      The ONLY good thing coming from this profiling business, is that they'll quit pretending it's random. Nobody really believes it is anyway.

  24. the usual stuff by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Firms (operating airports) should be made totally subject to competitive pressures to perform and should be held fully accountable for any breaches in the civil-liberty rights of passengers.

    As if private entities in the US are ever held responsible for violating people's privacy rights. The US government out-sources such violations to companies, after all.

    The system will feed the results to an analysis application that mathematically ranks travelers' potential as security threats.

    It may do so "mathematically", but that doesn't mean "reliably": garbage-in, garbage-out. In this case, the few dozen terrorists we have had do things with planes over the last few years simply aren't enough to establish reliable criteria for who is a security risk.

    What will actually happen is that police make wild guesses on what seems reasonable to them. Once programmed into the computer, stereotyping, racial profiling, and discrimination become "mathematical", and at that point, you effectively lose your right to complain or sue. "Sorry that every check-in takes 8 hours, but the computer insists YOU are a security risk; it's not our fault--WE aren't prejudiced." Overall, this system will result in lots and lots of false interrogations and arrests, and the real terrorists will likely not fit the profile anyway. Eventually, some people will just have to give up flying altogether.

    1. Re:the usual stuff by Student_Tech · · Score: 1
      Besides not riding on the airplanes, what would a person do if they were continually hitting up the "randomly" sekected few to be extra searched? In one of the articles they link to an article by Charles Simonyi entitled "I Fit the Profile" (link http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2058 ) it lists how 2 times recently he has flown that he has been requiered to a search. One way he avoided it was by having no carry on luggage. While 2 for 2 could be random chance (anybody have any actual numbers?), when he inquiered on how he could avoid being selected it said (this is also in the article)
      "Please understand that Federal Regulations prohibit. . . all other air carriers from sharing specific information regarding this program with the public."


      So although they claim random computer selection that can't tell us exactly how they are selecting.

      Just some thoughts. To be honest the last time I flew I didn't need any ID to get on the plane and neither did anybody else in the group I was in, about 14 people.
    2. Re:the usual stuff by g4dget · · Score: 2
      "Please understand that Federal Regulations prohibit. . . all other air carriers from sharing specific information regarding this program with the public."

      As the transition to a police state progresses further, officials don't even bother making up such lies anymore, they just tell you to shut up or get arrested.

    3. Re:the usual stuff by sexecutioner · · Score: 1

      Here here... the two times that I've been dragged off the streets by police to "freshen up" in their cosy little cells for being intoxicated my sober friends, on asking what was happening to me, were told to "fuck off or be locked up too". Sure, they have to do a shit job that mainly involves dealing with ratbags like me, but surely *one* of the seven it took to detain me could have explained something ;-)

    4. Re:the usual stuff by AlexPGP · · Score: 1

      > Eventually, some people will just have to give up flying altogether. You assume this system will be restricted to airline passengers. What happends when the next rev makes it possible to handle, say, transactions at gas stations? Imagine this scenario: Whenever you buy gas, you'll have to have your license run through a scanner, much in the same way your credit card is when you pay for your purchase. The system would be able to "instantly" figure out where you are and whether you seem to be moving far enough away from "home" to have to start keeping tighter tabs on you. Too, let's not forget the "creeping featurism" of any kind of government system of this kind. (Remember when government flaks maintained that DMV photo databases would never be used for any other purpose?) Just imagine the side benefits of license-tracking: with such a system in place, we'd not only nip terrorism in the bud, it'd be a fairly easy job to keep track of people who drive without insurance, or who attempt to leave town without paying their library fines, or whatever. Cheers...

    5. Re:the usual stuff by lorcha · · Score: 1
      While 2 for 2 could be random chance (anybody have any actual numbers?),
      Well, I fly 2+ times per week, and I have been hit twice in a row before. I've also gone for stretches of 5 or more flights without being "randomly" searched.

      The criteria for being searched, as near as I can tell, is whether or not there are fewer than 2 people waiting in line to be "randomly" searched. If there are fewer, congratulations, you are probably selected. If there are not, then you'll probably pass through.

      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
    6. Re:the usual stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have given up flying. It's all part of my plan to do tremendous economic damage to the airline industry, resulting in thousands of lost jobs and extending the U.S. economic recession out to at least a decade. And it's working! Join us! Support the call for things like making people take off their shoes, groping passengers before boarding, and making mothers boarding an aircraft drink her own breast milk first!

  25. Sigh. by Skoshi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm having a hard time deciding if this is the stupidest thing the government has done since September 11 or just the most revolting. For one thing, does the idea that they plan not only to monitor airlines but also "to extend its use to screen truckers, railroad conductors, subway workers and others whose transportation jobs involve the public trust" scare anyone else? Where will the line be drawn? Will there be anywhere in the public or private sectors where people will be able to live outside of a fishbowl?

    The system is supposed to "analyze passengers' travel reservations, housing information, family ties, identifying details in credit reports and other personal data to determine if they're 'rooted in the community' -- or have an unusual history that indicates a potential threat." What is this really supposed to mean? "Anylyze passengers' travel reservations", so everyone beware...set all your travel plans ahead of time and don't vary from them or you could be showing odd behavior that indicates you are a terrorist. "Housing information" - let's not let anyone who doesn't have a permanent address or who lives in an area known to have other suspicious characters in it travel. "Family ties", well, we all know everyone who has a family member who disagrees with the government or who is tied to anti-American activity must be evil, so let's arrest them. "Identifying details in credit reports" - pay your bills or more branches of the government besides the IRS will be after you.

    And the real kicker..."determine if they're 'rooted in the community' -- or have an unusual history that indicates a potential threat." So, if you didn't grow up in the same place your family has lived in for the last six or seven generations you must be a terrorist.

    Yea, I think I've figured it out...our government has completely lost its mind. If we wanted to stop terrorism at its roots, why weren't more steps taken after the Oklahoma City bombing (and please note how young, white, Christian men weren't placed under scrutiny by our government as young Muslim and Arab men have been since September 11)? Why didn't the government take more precautions after they were placed on high alerts after threats were made the summer before September 11?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm proud to be an American. I'm an Army brat who was raised across the US and the Middle East and loves her country. But taking away the rights that makes this country great and alienating the citizens who make it so wonderful is not the way to go about saving it.

    --
    "What are apples? Left, right, socialist...I don't know."
    1. Re:Sigh. by krenshala · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      ... pay your bills or more branches of the government besides the IRS will be after you.

      But ... the IRS isn't a branch of the gov't. Its a civilian company contracted to handle the collection of the Federal Income Tax. (Have you ever looked at paperwork from the IRS? I found it very interesting that the letterhead says its from the 'Department of the Treasury' and not the 'US Department of the Treasury' ...)

      yeah, yeah ... so my post is OT. So report me to the ... oh, wait ...
      --

      krenshala

    2. Re:Sigh. by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      >I'm having a hard time deciding if this is the >stupidest thing the government has done since >September 11 or just the most revolting.

      In my opinion, it might well be both - except for the fact that govt. has done some real whoppers of revolting AND stupid things in the past. (Check out the papers written by military officials about nuclear testing in Utah, post WWII, for example. In one document, it was clearly written that government considered the population of Utah as "expendable" - when trying to discern environmental impact of the tests, vs. value to the nation as a whole.)

      >Yea, I think I've figured it out...our >government has completely lost its mind. If we >wanted to stop terrorism at its roots, why >weren't more steps taken after the Oklahoma City >bombing (and please note how young, white, >Christian men weren't placed under scrutiny by >our government as young Muslim and Arab men >have been since September 11)?

      Well, unfortunately, I think your conclusion here isn't quite on the mark. Government hasn't "lost its mind". It's always been a "group conscience", formed of a mish-mash of politicians and advisors - so it's not really possible for it to lose its mind. It never had one of its own to begin with.

      Young, white, Christian men weren't scrutinized in the same way that young Muslims and Arab men are for a very sensible reason. It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with. If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time. We've got LOTS of them here in the U.S. -- much more than we've got of Muslims. People screaming about "racial profiling" seem to be neglecting the numerical facts. Why focus on a single group at all, unless it's statistically beneficial to you? In this case, focusing on Arabs is.

    3. Re:Sigh. by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2

      I'll be the first to admit it - I didn't read the article. From what I've read in the comments (yours included) though, it sounds like this system is going to be about as useful as making you turn your laptop on when entering the plane.

      However. Is the idea inherently flawed? Or could this be a really, really Good Thing if done correctly? Ideally, what would happen is there would be a few billion (yes, billion) dollars spent on researching everything from people 'rooted in the community' to racial profiling to regional profiling (New Yorkers vs Texans, for instance). This research would result in a list of attributes a terrorist would have, and a way to weight those attributes.

      For instance, a "reliability" rating of 98% would be given to the attribute of sharing a name and place of birth with a known terrorist. Each attribute would have both weight and reliability ratings, which measure importance and lack of false positives, respectively. If the aforementioned research was good enough, there might be a really good system in place. A hundred unrelated details may be able to identify actual terrorists (the violent kind, not the post-9/11 meaning) with 90% accuracy.

      Now here's the kicker. Airline folk (and whomever else may eventually see this data) wouldn't be allowed to see *why* someone is on the list. The computer would simply raise a flag after a certain rating was achieved. The ability to see why a flag was raised wouldn't even be built into the system - as it's reading data from hundreds of sources, it could simply delete the source information afterwards.

      If someone finds out they've been flagged, they can contact a government agency set up for the specific purpose of providing that information. This would be a heavily regulated agency, with regulations in place that limit its power. For instance, getting information on anyone who isn't you would require a warrant.

      I think such a system might actually make me feel safer and protect people's privacy at the same time.

    4. Re:Sigh. by Wateshay · · Score: 2

      Sorry. Not true

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    5. Re:Sigh. by elmegil · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Young, white, Christian men weren't scrutinized in the same way that young Muslims and Arab men are for a very sensible reason. It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with.

      You obviously weren't paying attention to the myriad scare stories about the White Aryan Resistance and the myriad militia groups in remote places during the 80's & 90's. There is a significant and demonstrably violent subculture of young white "Christian" men, among them Tim McVeigh, who are as real and present a threat as your nebulously defined "arab culture". They just aren't half as easy to target and isolate because they look like so many of us.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    6. Re:Sigh. by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      During the 80's, yes.

      But the militia have gone downhill since then, to the point where largish Aryan groups have been smacked around by lawyers and getting their lands confiscated. Odinists, Hitlerites, WCC, and their ilk, et al, haven't seemed to accomplish much lately. The fact that these buggers generally seem to mind dying also reduces what they can achieve.

      The assorted Islamist groups have a decent amount of money, including support / blackmail from governments; more martyr wannabes than they can use, c/o the unholy combination of assholes-in-power on all sides in the Middle East; and a willingness to target just about anybody, instead of, say, just government institutions.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    7. Re:Sigh. by Wateshay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, first off, the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't perpetrated by a "young white Christian man", since McVeigh was an atheist. The sad truth is that there's probably a lot more profiling that goes on as a result of Okalahoma City than you think. We just don't hear about it because the news media is more inclined to disagree with the views of people like Timothy McVeigh, and therefore doesn't care as much if their rights are trampled on. I don't have any evidence, but I'd bet good money that we'd both be shocked if we knew how much surveillance our government does on people who choose to live away from "civilization" for one reason or another.

      I agree with you completely in your conclusions, though. This kind of profiling is just plain wrong, and shouldn't be used to invade the privacy of anyone in this country, be they Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Caucasian, Arab, or Martian.

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    8. Re:Sigh. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2
      And the real kicker..."determine if they're 'rooted in the community' -- or have an unusual history that indicates a potential threat." So, if you didn't grow up in the same place your family has lived in for the last six or seven generations you must be a terrorist

      Where did anything imply that something like that would be a determining factor? Go back last week on slashdot and read the articles on spam filtering by statistical methods. It sounds like this is really nothing different than that, except applied to terrorist filtering.

    9. Re:Sigh. by quinto2000 · · Score: 2
      If someone finds out they've been flagged, they can contact a government agency set up for the specific purpose of providing that information. This would be a heavily regulated agency, with regulations in place that limit its power. For instance, getting information on anyone who isn't you would require a warrant.
      The privacy act already has this provision. You can make an FOIA request to get any information held on you by the gov't, for the specific purpose of correcting errors, etc.
      --
      Ceci n'est pas un post
    10. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have any evidence, but I'd bet good money that we'd both be shocked if we knew how much surveillance our government does on people who choose to live away from "civilization" for one reason or another.

      <sarcasm>That surveillance is oh-so-effective.</sarcasm> Look at the length of time it took to catch the unibomber and that kook (still on the lam) who is accused of the Atlanta Olympic and abortion clinic bombings. The breaks in those cases involved third parties (the brother of the unibomber and a med student jogger who called the cops) and were not the result of Gov't surveillance. Same kind of argument with Timothy McVeigh. They caught him after the fact due to good ole fashioned gum-shoe detective work. Police units at every level have too much real work to do and too small a budget to waste time watching all of the wierdos in the woods. Let alone trying to figure out who the real weirdos are. Hell, most of the people who live in the countryside do so because they prefer not to have too much civilization (excepting, of course, the satellite antenna) around them. The police would have to spy on everyone who lives in the countryside based on your criterion.

    11. Re:Sigh. by autopr0n · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with.

      Well, there are no Arabs in Afghanistan, and we aren't at war with Iraq yet. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. I'm sure That a Young, white, "patriot/militia" type person would be more likely to be a terrorist then an average Arab Muslim. (btw, how do you feel about Arab Christians? are they OK to you? The Israelis certainly don't think so...)

      How does the average Muslim feel about the US? Well, how did the average Capitalist feel about the Soviet Union during the cold war? Would that mean that anyone with capitalist leanings in Russia be treated like a terrorist, harassed, searched, imprisoned, etc? Of course, BECAUSE THE USSR WAS A FUCKING POLICE STATE!

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    12. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > getting information on anyone who isn't you would require a warrant.

      Would that be one of those Post-It Warrants?

      > with regulations in place that limit its power...

      Yea, like that's ever worked in the history of governmental bureaucracy.

    13. Re:Sigh. by jgalun · · Score: 1

      There were a number of Arabs in Afghanistan, in Al Qaeda. And besides that, the general point being made about it being sensible to treat young Arab/Muslim men as a greater threat than white American christians remains true, despite your objections. The fact is, the number of white Christian militiamen is very small. On the other hand, the percentage of the Arab street that is extremely angry at the US is pretty high.

      Similarly, the militiamen have carried out one major terrorist act - the Oklahoma City bombing. Compare that to the first WTC bombing, 9/11, the embassy bombings a few years ago, the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, the airplane hijackings in the 1970s, suicide bombings, etc.

      It's not illogical to come to the conclusion that the next terrorist act is far more likely to be carried out by an Arab or Muslim (who are mad at the US over Iraq, Israel, propping up bad regimes, etc.) than by a white Christian militiaman.

    14. Re:Sigh. by Wateshay · · Score: 2

      You won't get any argument from me. The ineffectiveness of such surrveillance and profiling is all the more reason why our liberties shouldn't be taken away so that they can be perpetrated.

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    15. Re:Sigh. by alienmole · · Score: 2
      But ... the IRS isn't a branch of the gov't. Its a civilian company contracted to handle the collection of the Federal Income Tax.

      You figured it out! Also, you don't have to pay your income tax because the "United States" consists only of the D.C. and other federal territories, so as long as you don't live in any of those places...

      Moron.

      In case you're even remotely serious and not just a troll, you might want to check out this list of tax scams. The one you referred to is covered here, and the one I mentioned is here.

      These IRS scams are the next best thing to Nigerian 419's - and likely to be more dangerous to your financial health, if you try to follow through on them.

    16. Re:Sigh. by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      And have you listened to Bush on the television today? "The enemy hates freedom. We love freedom." He named off free speech, that you are free to worship any way that you want, and we have a free press. Any examples to back it up? Nope. He also said that every single person in America counts. Okay, so why do some people go without a decent meal? Or some without proper health care? It's all talk.

    17. Re:Sigh. by Badanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love it when someone talks about something the government does to enhance security. It brings out all the slashdot crazies jerking off about how their rights are being violated. When you board a common carrier you can throw your expectations to privacy out the window. They were never there to begin with and the governmewnt is being just a little nosier than they have before. What I don't understand why is profiling considered wrong. Consider the 911 terrorist attacks on the United States. They were committed by and had the material assistance of young men between the ages of 20 and 35 of middle eastern descent. NO WOMEN; NO WHITE FOLKS; NO BLACK FOLKS; NO OLD GUYS; Yet, the low standard at airports is that everyone is subject to search even if there is suspicion, and that when that awful standard is not followed, we have the idiots of the world complaining about their rights. If there is a common thread amoungst criminals more likely to carry out suicide attacks, why is it so objectionable to focus on those people when the percentages of preventing an attack are improved by profiling? And by the same token why impair chance of preventing an attack by ignoring that liklihood? I really think that stories like this are only posted to bring out the crazy people who want to move to Canada, etc. Well, I would like for you to move to Canada, too. At least when your rights are swallowed up by a hostile culture in Canada which worships multiculturalism to the extent it would wreck all other considerations, I hope you will at least have some pleasant memories of what it was like to have rights.

      --
      Dawn of the Dead
    18. Re:Sigh. by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      You've made some good points. I was going to say something similar about pointing out the backgrounds of the terrorists. It's funny that we have in place a social stigma against judging people by how they look, and yet we as human beings obviously have the ability to characterize things quickly for a reason. I'm not saying that you should pigeon-hole everyone, but - to put it basically - in an airport if you have a suspicious of someone for whatever reason, even ethnic, that should be permitted. Yes, you are probably infringing on a right of theirs.

      However, why is it okay and different when infring someone's right if they can't see it being done? I'm talking about the database, processing, and monitoring they plan to do in lieu of simply using common judgement of suspicious characters in case they might "offend" someone. I'm already offended that they would even think of forcing such a despicable system on their own people. Freedom - bah. It's going down the crapper faster than you can say booh. People are passive. The evil ones are the ones with conviction. Guess who will win? WE need conviction, and passion, and we need to stand up for ourselves. Otherwise, we get what we deserve.

    19. Re:Sigh. by gnovos · · Score: 2

      Will there be anywhere in the public or private sectors where people will be able to live outside of a fishbowl?

      Oh, fear not! There will most definitly be places that people can go to escape the fishbowl. These places will be in the homes and lives of the congressmen that pass these laws and the corporate businessmen who pay for them.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    20. Re:Sigh. by Badanov · · Score: 1

      To me, the only thing any database does, or should do is to provide at minimum a pointer to a passenger who is in a high risk group for causing problems aboard an airline. Such a person who fits a profile won't, as I understand it, be detained in secrecy while an investigation is conducted, unless there is good reason for doing so. I agree it is a Bad Thing to profile someone based on their race; it shouldnt be done, except that this nation is under attack by hostile elements inside and outside this country and such elements are represented by young men, age 20 to 35 of middle eastern descent or looks. A lot of the postings on this subject have come down to privacy issues, and as I pointed out: you are riding in a public transit system when you board an airplane; there never has been a presumption of privacy. Whether there should be: that's another matter and that there should be is a concept which has been mangled by middle eastern Islamist terrorists and their cheerleaders here in the USA as well as abroad. My whole thesis is: if I walk up to a ticket counter and I have an obvious bulge in the small of my back, regardless of my race, that should raise suspicions, but if there is no reason to conduct an more intensive search, but for a profiling score, then I should be subject to more scrutiny as well. And so it goes, if I appear to be of middle eastern descent. It is clear to the world that the my presence represents a sociological/national/racial group which is prone to making attacks on innocents primarily using common carriers such as airlines; and that these protests against profiling this middle eastern person, tracks perfectly with my purposes.

      --
      Dawn of the Dead
    21. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure. I'll love it when the computer (which won't say why, and therefore can't be checked) says that I am a terrorist because I have the same name as a terrorist, even though I might look nothing like him at all. I'll feel very safe as the FBI drags me off to hold me for an indefinite period w/o declaring charges.. yup.. so very safe

    22. Re:Sigh. by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2

      Or some people without a lawyer or a trial ? I'm suprised you left that out.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    23. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sadly i don`t think we will save it. i would love to be called paranoid and be dead wrong, but human nature doesn`t change and man does not learn from history.

    24. Re:Sigh. by Malcontent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's consider some facts shall we?

      There were numerous arabs on 9-11 that much is true what what about since then?

      Richard Reid was a Jamaican living England. Shouldn't we also profile blacks? Remember there are also lots of black muslims in this country who have a some bones to pick with the US govt.

      John Walker was a nice white boy but I guess we can't really profile white people.

      Jose Padilla is a latino. Apparently there have succesful attempts at recruiting latinos (and presumably blacks) in jails by al quada. Perhaps we should also start profiling latinos too.

      The fact remains that the US has a lot of enemies both external and internal. In the west there are militias of people who are preparing for an armed overthrow of the US govt, all over latin america there are hundreds of thousands of people who hate what America has done them and their countries, same goes for the slum districts of any big city.

      the bottom line is that Al quada is a religous organization and not a racial one. They accept all races and colors as long as you are willing to convert to islam and take up arms. In fact they have consciously tried to recruit american and european citizens. Profiling by race will only give you a false sense of security. If you don't believe me ask yourself this question. If there was a turk, an arab and an israeli all dressed in blue jeans and a T-Shirt could you tell who was who? Of course not! In fact most americans probably would probably confuse hindus and latinos as arabs too.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    25. Re:Sigh. by torndorff · · Score: 1

      But instead of bombing innocent civilians (ie. terrorism) why not get to the root of terrorism? The US needs to not kill more people or attempt to control more lives, they must stop doing what makes terrorists mad.

      And if anyone thinks that the bombs are the only thing thats killing Middle Eastern individuals take a look at the foreign aid being sent over to feed the starving. Approx. $34 million in food is being sent over to feed 7 million people. Subtract the expenses of airplane fuel, employees and other misc. things and you have about 1 out of every 100 people NOT RECEIVING FOOD while the US is blocking UN aid from entering the country (they dont want to be plowed over by war-hungry presidents).

      I love the United States but I hate politicians who use war as a way to raise moral and get their votes up.

    26. Re:Sigh. by be-fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values.
      >>>>>
      Now, I consider myself a fairly easy going guy when it comes to things outside of operating systems, but this pisses me off. First, there is nothing "simple" about this situation. There are many different, weighted, positions along with a huge amount of information about cultural and political happenings over the past few hundred years. Making a blanket statement like the one above just reveals how completely ignorant you are. First of all, there is no "Arab" culture. There is a somewhat coherent concept called Western culture, because (among other reason) the intellectuals who developed it were in communication with (and thus influenced) each other. The situation was entirely different in the Middle East. At the time "Arab" culture developed, there was a large part of the population that belonged to nomadic tribes, with little contact between them. Additionally, this situation doesn't just involve Arab culture. Its not just Arab's who are targeted, but Muslims in general. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not rooted in the Middle East, and those Muslims have vastly different cultulres. The Muslims on the Indian subcontinent have a basically Indian culture, along with a large amount of western culture (thanks to British rule) thrown in. The Muslims in Turkey and Southeastern Europe have, similarly, an Eastern-European culture. Besides, many of the people who travel are fairly well-off, and (because of the British school system) western culture has permeated that segment. That said, none of these cultures is in opposition to Western culture. Islam's cultural history is rooted in the wealthy, intellectual urban areas of the Muslim empires. These cities where cultural meccas that could easily compare with the cultural capitals of Europe much later in history. This cultural history is a whole lot different from the Islamic culture you see on CNN. The culture you see on T.V. is rooted in war-torn, poor desert regions. Basing your opinion of Islamic culture on that is like basing your opinion of Western culture on trailer communities or the inner city. For further enlightenment, take a look at the situation in Israel. You've got a bunch of Muslims committing terrorist actions against Israel. On the other hand, you've got Israel, whose police actions kill just as many Palestinian civilians, and who treats Arab residents of Israel as third class citizens. If you make everything black and white, the Palestinians are terrorists and the Israeli's are fascists. Extrapolate from there, you've got that Islam encourages terrorism/hate of America and that Judaism encourages fascism. What? Does that make any sense? No! Thus, the initial black and white assumption was wrong! Proof by contridiction! If you had any sense at all, you'd realize that this is an isolated situation, with violence caused by people in impovrished/war-torn conditions lashing out at a convenient (and not entirely blameless!) entity. Same thing with Afghanistan. Same thing with Chechnya. Same thing with Ireland. Same thing everywhere else terrorism occurs.

      Now, you've got me riled up. I like history, and I think you could use the lesson, so let's delve into the details of Islamic vs Western culture, while bearing in mind that both are amorphous enough to be impossible to pin down exactly. To start off, the religious distinction is fairly small (and please, people more enlightened then me in religious matters please chime in!) Once you seperate the traditions from the ideology of the religion, you get the following differences. Muslims believe Jesus was just another prophet, no the son of God. Christians, of course, believe otherwise. The both, however, believe that Jesus is the messiah (or savior, I think they're similar, correct me on this) but differ in the fact that Christians believe that he has already come, while Muslims believe he will come in the future. Overall, other aspects of the religions are similar. Both emphasize self-sacrifice (which is reflected in western culture in the idea of hard work) with Islam leaning a bit more towards ascetism. Both emphasize charity, both emphasize belief in one God (the exact same God, btw). Now, once you get outside the core beliefs, then things get strange. All that stuff about the virgins and heaven is akin to the gothic stuff in Christianity. These "details" arose in both religions during the cultural flourishes of their respective civilizations. In this respect, modern Christianity differs from medival christianity just as much as modern Christianity differs from modern Islam. Now, moving on to the women issue. Let me say for the record that my stance on this is that all you women-supressing people can go to hell, whether or not your christian or muslim. This, I must admit, is a point of contention that makes Islam look very bad in the press. Yes, Islam does tend to supress women. Of course, the Bible also says that slavery is okay, and women should be obedient to their husbands. The main thing that people don't realize is that it is characteristic of pre-industrial civilizations to supress women. The western world did it just as well as any other civilization up until a hundred years ago. The main problem is that Islamic countries as a whole tend to be pre-industrial, while Western countries are post-industrial. Again, ideology takes a front seat to economics. Lastly, this whole thing about Jihad. Yes, the Quran does say that people who fight against the enemies of Islam will go to heaven. This statement is *literal*. When Islam was "growing up" as a religion, its central community was vunerable to attacks from neighboring areas. As a result, it became important to fight to protect the community, and by extension the religion. In no way does that mean that the religion condones killing innocent people.

      It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with.
      >>>>>>>>>
      There is no way to parse this sentence in a way that sheds favorable light upon your meaning. I'll assume that you don't think we're at war with a specific country, that you just made a typo. If you mean keeping tabs on people who come from parts of the world that harbor terrorists, that also doesn't make sense. Terrorists are all over the place, and given current incidents, your list of countries would be Afghanistan, France, and Latin America. If you mean keeping tabs on people of the same faith as those who bombed the WTC, then the sentence makes sense, but the concept doesn't. You're talking about the second largest religion in the world. You're not narrowing it down any, and Islam covers so many parts of the world you're not even getting geographical factors to help you.

      If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time. We've got LOTS of them here in the
      U.S. -- much more than we've got of Muslims.
      >>>>>
      No duh. That's why it doesn't make sense to look at race! White men commit far more crimes than Muslims (numerically). By looking at just Muslims, yes you narrow your search, but are you more likely to find criminals?

      People screaming about "racial profiling" seem to be neglecting the numerical facts. Why focus on a single group at all, unless it's statistically beneficial to you? In this case, focusing on Arabs is.
      >>>>>
      Fool. Statistics is only useful for larger datasets. We've got three data points here (Oklahoma and the two attacks on the WTC). One was white, the other two were Arab. Thus, 33% of terrorists are white, and 66% are Arab. Exactly...

      The "people screaming about racial profiling" are the people like me. I've personally been harrassed at the Canadian border by some self-important shithead who thought he had this big important job guarding the fucking US-Canadian border. Protecting Mother Canada from all a manner of evils exported from the US. Yes I'm Muslim. Yes I'm brown. But I've grown up here and understand America better than 90% of those people that claim to be patriotic. I vote, post on /. and watch Will & Grace. I'm about as much a terrorist threat as Jack. Racial profiling would be fine if I was the only one. But I'm not. Like I said, most travellers (even brown ones) tend to be just like me. Well-off, well-educated, entirely unthreatening. Targeting these people makes absolutely no sense. Its false comfort. You might catch the fundementalist muslim, but how about the irate IRA-man? Or a crazy Basque? Well, you say, those two groups haven't attacked us yet. Well hell. We've had one attack, so of course we know exactly what our enemy looks like! Are we just going to wait until one of those groups attacks us to screen for them? Great plan!

      I'm tired of weak-minded people. Those without the brain capacity to handle the idea that the world is complex. Those without the learning necessary to have valid opinions. Those without the mental strength to constantly look at their outlook on life and reevaluate it in light of the current situation. These are the people who champion racial profiling. These are the people who make knee-jerk reactions to events. These are the people that make the world suck, because these are the people that make up 90% of the population.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    27. Re:Sigh. by mpe · · Score: 2

      You've made some good points. I was going to say something similar about pointing out the backgrounds of the terrorists.

      Turns out that over a third of the people identified as the September 11th hijackers were proven to have been using identities stolen from completly innocent people.
      What is to say that future terrorists won't do the same?

    28. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with" We're not at war with anybody right now. We're just bombing the hell out of other countries because we got caught with our thumbs up our asses and we're embarassed.

    29. Re:Sigh. by mpe · · Score: 2

      That surveillance is oh-so-effective. Look at the length of time it took to catch the unibomber and that kook (still on the lam) who is accused of the Atlanta Olympic and abortion clinic bombings. The breaks in those cases involved third parties (the brother of the unibomber and a med student jogger who called the cops) and were not the result of Gov't surveillance. Same kind of argument with Timothy McVeigh. They caught him after the fact due to good ole fashioned gum-shoe detective work.

      Examples are hardly unique to North America. The state with the most Government surveillance was the former German Democratic Republic. Who collected files on a substantial portion of the population. None of this vast effort told them their country was about to cease to exist :)

      Police units at every level have too much real work to do and too small a budget to waste time watching all of the wierdos in the woods. Let alone trying to figure out who the real weirdos are.

      Surveillance is most effective where you already have some kind of suspect.

      Hell, most of the people who live in the countryside do so because they prefer not to have too much civilization (excepting, of course, the satellite antenna) around them. The police would have to spy on everyone who lives in the countryside based on your criterion.

      Probably in the process ignoring tip offs about criminals who lived in urban areas...

    30. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And have you listened to Bush on the television today? "The enemy hates freedom. We love freedom." He named off free speech, that you are free to worship any way that you want, and we have a free press. Any examples to back it up?

      Consider how people get treated who don't wholeheartedly support US policy towards Israel, especially Congressmen.

      He also said that every single person in America counts. Okay, so why do some people go without a decent meal? Or some without proper health care? It's all talk.

      Wonder how much social security and health care all the money the US spends on "foreign aid", let alone how much the US wants to spend on bombing Iraq (and whoever is next on the list), would buy...

    31. Re:Sigh. by gaj · · Score: 2
      Are you sure you've been reading and posting on /.?

      I only ask because your post is one of the more worthwhile I've read; by my user number you can see that I've been here for some time.

      Your points are all good ones. You do seem to have missed the attack on the Pentagon and the (heroicly averted) fourth attempt on 9/11. Doesn't change your point, just a nit I had to pick.

      So, we agree that racial profiling is pointless. What is your take on non-racial "profiling". Keeping tabs on countries that have been visited, patterns of such visits, any suspicious contacts that have been noticed by govt agents, etc. None of these are "private" information. Anyone with enough desire and resources could get this information by having you tailed by a private investigator. So, assuming keeping and analysing such information might help to narrow the list of folk that human agents need to investigate, why not do so?

    32. Re:Sigh. by mpe · · Score: 2

      Young, white, Christian men weren't scrutinized in the same way that young Muslims and Arab men are for a very sensible reason. It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values.

      Arab is not a synonym for Moslem. Some Arabs are Jewish, some are Christian, some are Moslem, some are Athiest, some are probably Hindu and Buddist... Some Arabs are anti Western culture some are very pro Western culture. There is also if they are pro or anti specific Western governments which is not the same thing.
      Another common misunderstanding, at least in the US, is to treat Zionist as a synonym for Jew. Even though some of the most forceful American Zionists claim to be Christian and some of the most forceful ant-Zionists are Jewish.

      It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with.

      Possible they might have relatiation on their mind if they have been subject to an unprovoked attack.

      If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time.

      When did The Klan, neo-Nazi's and various other groups claiming to follow some pervered version of Chritianity disappear from the US?

    33. Re:Sigh. by mpe · · Score: 2

      But instead of bombing innocent civilians (ie. terrorism) why not get to the root of terrorism?

      Possibly because having terrorists makes such a good excuse for government backed military and paramilitary actions.

      The US needs to not kill more people or attempt to control more lives, they must stop doing what makes terrorists mad.

      It's also quite likely to encourage people who wern't previously "terrorists" to consider violent action.

    34. Re:Sigh. by modipodio · · Score: 1

      Good post ,good points , well argued.

      --
      __________________________________________________ "UNIX is a fascist state, Windows is a democracy.
    35. Re:Sigh. by mpe · · Score: 2

      For further enlightenment, take a look at the situation in Israel. You've got a bunch of Muslims committing terrorist actions against Israel. On the other hand, you've got Israel, whose police actions kill just as many Palestinian civilians,

      So far as the body count goes rather more Palestinian than Israeli civilians have wound up dead. Also often ignored or skirted around in Western (and especially US) news is that there is also terrorism from groups of Israelis. The current situation actually starting from a terrorist attack on a Palestinian school.

      Once you seperate the traditions from the ideology of the religion, you get the following differences. Muslims believe Jesus was just another prophet, no the son of God. Christians, of course, believe otherwise. The both, however, believe that Jesus is the messiah (or savior, I think they're similar, correct me on this) but differ in the fact that Christians believe that he has already come, while Muslims believe he will come in the future. Overall, other aspects of the religions are similar. Both emphasize self-sacrifice (which is reflected in western culture in the idea of hard work) with Islam leaning a bit more towards ascetism. Both emphasize charity, both emphasize belief in one God (the exact same God, btw). Now, once you get outside the core beliefs, then things get strange. All that stuff about the virgins and heaven is akin to the gothic stuff in Christianity. These "details" arose in both religions during the cultural flourishes of their respective civilizations. In this respect, modern Christianity differs from medival christianity just as much as modern Christianity differs from modern Islam.
      There isn't really one "modern Islam", one "modern Christianity" or one "modern Judaism" in the first place. Indeed there are plenty of Jews who condem the actions of the Israeli state and even question it's existance.

    36. Re:Sigh. by mpe · · Score: 2

      For instance, a "reliability" rating of 98% would be given to the attribute of sharing a name and place of birth with a known terrorist.

      This isn't as useful as you might think. A terrorist could have a common name or adopt one.

    37. Re:Sigh. by brian_brotsos · · Score: 1

      please note how young, white, Christian men weren't placed under scrutiny by our government as young Muslim and Arab men have been since September 11

      if there were 20 young, white, Christian men you better believe they would be placed under scrutiny by our government. There is a big difference between one Muslim vs. _all_ 20.

    38. Re:Sigh. by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      "So far as the body count goes rather more Palestinian than Israeli civilians have wound up dead. Also often ignored or skirted around in Western (and especially US) news is that there is also terrorism from groups of Israelis. The current situation actually starting from a terrorist attack on a Palestinian school."

      So true. And then consider the fact that two Israeli Prime Ministers were terrorists, Menachim Begin being part of the leadership of the Irgun gang(He's even admitted to having given the order to bomb King Davids Hotel, killing over 200 people. Read his book The Revolt, story of the Irgun), and Yitzhak Shamir, who led the Stern gang.

      Nowadays, the Palestinians have to live in Ghettos surrounded by razor wire, and have special ID's identifying them as palestinians.
      Anyone other than me that is reminded of Warzaw?

      And no, I don't have anything against Jews, that's why I use the term Israelis, since not all Israelis are Jews.

      My regards go to all those in the region who do their best to stop the violence and barbaric actions perpetrated by both sides in the conflict. I hope for your sake that you succeed some day.

    39. Re:Sigh. by Skoshi · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is possible to have airport security without destroying personal rights...European airports and Middle Eastern airports (I haven't been in airports anywhere in the world besides America, Europe, and the Middle East, so I can't speak for them) have been doing it for years. I always wondered why American airport security was so lax...

      --
      "What are apples? Left, right, socialist...I don't know."
    40. Re:Sigh. by Skoshi · · Score: 1

      If we're going to talk about Israeli prime ministers who are also terrorists, let's not forget Ariel Sharon. He (in case anyone doesn
      t know, he was a military commander for years before joining the government in Israel) and his troops slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians in various raids on Jordanian villages and Palestinian refugee camps (even after they knew the PLO members they were originally after had already left) and also stood by and watched other groups do the same.

      If you want more information on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I recommend reading a book by Avi Shlaim called "The Iron Wall". He's a modern Israeli historian who does a great job of presenting the facts about both sides and doing it in a way that makes the book easy to read.

      --
      "What are apples? Left, right, socialist...I don't know."
    41. Re:Sigh. by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Ariel Sharon isn't surrounded with the same glorification as both Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir are. Another curious thing is how Sharon stopped the inquiry into the IDF methods that was started by the Israeli Defence Minister...

      I'm gonna buy that book someday. Gotten it recommended to me from several persons, one of the persons recommending it is a Lieutenant in the IDF reserves, who is protesting against the Israeli methods.

    42. Re:Sigh. by Badanov · · Score: 1

      And that is all the more reason to profile.

      --
      Dawn of the Dead
    43. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did The Klan, neo-Nazi's and various other groups claiming to follow some pervered version of Chritianity disappear from the US?

      Since the total membership of these orgs, who are not undercover FBI agents, is probrably in the hundreds, I'd say they disappeared about 35 years ago.

    44. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...our government has completely lost its mind

      Why do so may people view the government as some thinking, feeling entity? It's just a mass of selfish ignorant people. They're not any different than the rest of us.

    45. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...be they Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Caucasian, Arab, or Martian.

      As far as I can tell, any Martians that I've heard of have been held indefinitely at Roswell. No charges have ever been filed. Hell, the gov't won't even acknowledge that they exist. Oh well, it's probably because they were uncooperative when they were captured. Or maybe it's because they mumbled something in some other language.

      Posted anonymously to reduce the chances that the profiling machine will find me. Collaborating with aliens? That's gotta get me near the top of the list.

    46. Re:Sigh. by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2

      White men commit far more crimes than Muslims (numerically).

      You were doing a pretty good job of deconstructing profiling until you made that statement. That your positions regarding profiling somehow failed to undergird your very own arguments casts everything you say in doubt.

    47. Re:Sigh. by be-fan · · Score: 2

      The stuff that you're talking about, keeping tabs on visited countries, suspicious contacts, etc, are all part of basic intelligence work. Stuff the CIA should be doing anyway. CAPPS II and all its "rooted in the community" crap is quite a different thing.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    48. Re:Sigh. by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Err, let me clarify my point somewhat. It was a long post, written late at night, so I feel I'm entitled to a little revision :) I didn't mean that we should profile white men because they commit more crimes. I meant that, numerically, white men commit more crimes because, numerically, there are more white men. If the number of crimes commited by both groups is similar (taking into account differences in economic situations, which have a far bigger impact on criminal behavior than anything else) in percentage terms, then it doesn't make sense to profile any particular group. I hope I understood your comment correctly. If I didn't, please clarify.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    49. Re:Sigh. by gaj · · Score: 2
      I'm not seeing how CAPPS II is different that what I mentioned. From the second link in the story:
      The system is likely to focus on passengers who pay cash, buy one-way tickets or have questionable or conflicting identification documents, criminal records or other information in databases that arouses suspicion, he said. Similar automated background checks are common in the financial industry and commerce, Shay said. Banks, for example, check employment, credit and financial records when marketing loans.
      As for the question of whether or not someone is "rooted in the community", again, I don't see the issue; someone new to a community is obviously not going to elicit the same level of trust as somone who has been around for years. So? This is a pre-screening tool. It is to flag folks for further scrutiny. I don't doubt that there is much room for improvement, and I certainly think that a close look needs to be taken at providing a way for folks to correct bad data.

      How exactly do you see this as being "quite a different thing" from basic intelligence work?

    50. Re:Sigh. by be-fan · · Score: 2

      I agree with the entire first sentence. It's the second sentence that's getting to me. It seems to imply that they'll bring financial records and whatnot into it, which is a bit too personal for my taste. As for rooted in the community, that's not right. Yes, a person new to a community does elicit less trust, but should they? And undoubtedly, foreigners are far less "rooted in the community" than others, and will get disproprotionalty targeted.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    51. Re:Sigh. by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2

      I return your graciousness in revising your statements by accepting those revisions. It's refreshing to see someone more dedicated to the discussion than to their ego.

      Although I accept that you did not intend to impune white men, your analysis leads one to the conclusion that white men and Muslims are not mutually exclusive. After all, there are those who are members of both groups. Consider Aukai Collins:

      • white
      • male
      • Muslim
      • extremist
      • fought jihad (in Chechnya)
      He's 100% on the American side vs. Al Qaeda and would have worked undercover to help the feds break it up if not for bureaucratic quagmires. I'd be honored to sit next to him on a plane, despite the fact that he meets several criteria for concern as a Muslim terrorist.
    52. Re:Sigh. by gaj · · Score: 2
      Financial records are pertinant. They should be considered, in concert with all the other points. No one point should necessarily produce a warning. But in concert, they may well. For instance, a sudden large deposit followed by the purchase of large ticket items in cash (say a private plane, plane tickets, flight school tuition, etc.) might be an indicator. Again, not to have someone hauled off in chains, but to flag them for closer inspection. Most folks so flagged would be immediately cleared. It is one way to help prioritize the actions by human agents, but certainly couldn't replace them.

      As for the trust issue, I'm afraid I'm of the opinon that trust is earned. I agree that "foreigners" would be disproportionally targeted for investigation. So would people who like to move around a lot. So? Makes sense to me. Someone who has lived in an area for a long time, has worked there in long held positions, has family in the area, etc. is unlikely to be a threat. Unlikely, I said, not impossible. If enough other factors point to a person being a threat, they should be investigated even if they and their family have been living in the same town for three generations.

      I'm not advocating constant, wholesale observation here. I'm just pointing out that, while the methods and means need to be watched closely, they have not yet (IMHO) reached concerning proportions. The phrase is "eternal vigilence" not "constant paranoia". If and when proposals are made (or prolicies are uncovered) that go beyond what is reasonable, I'll be on the front lines of the fight to defeat them. Until then, I'll just watch and consider. I do think that rational people can disagree on where the line is drawn. Perhaps you and I just draw our line in a different place? I don't know. I'm not willing to trade liberty for security, but I'm not convinced that this is a check on my liberty.

    53. Re:Sigh. by rol7805 · · Score: 1

      You rock!!! You hit the nail on the head. I could not have said it better myself. You expressed so many thoughts that I have when I hear the typical American reaction to anything political/global in aspect, particularly in relation to 9/11.

      Americans need to step into the 21st century and recognize and respect different perspectives and cultures. I'm so tired of everyone in America talking about how "cool" America is and how the U.S. "rocks", and then when the rubber meets the road and they come up to foreign ideas or concepts, suddenly it's "Eww..that's different! That's wrong!" It goes for religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, everything. Equality and openmindedness don't just stop at the door when you reach something unpalatable.

      I'm atheist and I love to discuss religion. I've talked to Hindus, Muslims, Christians. I hear about some ideas and traditions that honestly, sound really stupid to me! But I don't suddenly think the person is any less for those traditions. I think they're that much more...they have a rich and unique culture and perspective that I look to learn from, not run away from.

    54. Re:Sigh. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Ariel Sharon isn't surrounded with the same glorification as both Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir are.

      At least not yet. I read this morning that there are even Israelis calling for him to face trial for war crimes.

  26. New Target For SPAM... by mbogosian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great. Now I'm going to get SPAM that reads:

    "Have a poor terror score? No problem!"
    "Get plane tickets with bad or no terror info!"
    "Poor terror index? No terror index? We can help!"
    "Repair your terror history instantly!"

  27. ^Troll above^ by leerpm · · Score: 0

    Save yourself the time of replying to this AC's comments. Thankfully we have evolution, which among other things, is designed to weed out AC's such as above.

  28. Function creep isn't the half of it. by van+der+Rohe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The first article mentions the threat of function creep - the possibility that the technology will EVENTUALLY be used for purposes besides the one that it was initially designed for.
    What it fails to mention, however, is that airport security has almost nothing to do with this project. It's ALL about building a huge, commercially-mineable information database filled entirely with people who aren't even a little bit of a threat.
    Do you really believe that hi-jackers board planes using legit ID that leaves a paper trail right into their DMV records and credit reports? Absurd.
    The only people that this system will "catch" are Joe Average and his family. Think of it as a great big grocery-store scan card system disguised as a security precaution.
    This, and everything else in America right now, doesn't have a damn thing to do with security or terrorism prevention. It has to do with manufacturing more consent and getting people to march in tighter formation so that they don't spend any time thinking about how little their rights mean to the people in charge.
    The fact that people are even talking about it as if it has only the POTENTIAL for abuse just shows that the media machine and their corporate/government handlers have already won.

    1. Re:Function creep isn't the half of it. by DavittJPotter · · Score: 1

      MOD THIS UP!

      He's right on, folks - we need to spread this information around.

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    2. Re:Function creep isn't the half of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The fact that people are even talking about it as if it has only the POTENTIAL for abuse just shows that the media machine and their corporate/government handlers have already won.

      This is the part of the whole paranoia arguement that I don't get. What exactly have the media-machine/big corporations/bad government/big brother/iluminati/blah won?

    3. Re:Function creep isn't the half of it. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      Do you really believe that hi-jackers board planes using legit ID that leaves a paper trail right into their DMV records and credit reports? Absurd.

      Well, the last ones did.

      I doubt the next will. But then, I also think the next ones will get stomped on by the passengers, so honestly I don't see the point in any of this. But whatever.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    4. Re:Function creep isn't the half of it. by van+der+Rohe · · Score: 1

      "Do you really believe that hi-jackers board planes using legit ID that leaves a paper trail right into their DMV records and credit reports? Absurd.

      Well, the last ones did."

      Really? Then why are some of them still alive?

      http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm l? xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
      http://news.inde pendent.co.uk/world/middle_east/st ory.jsp?story=94438
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wo rld/middle_east/15591 51.stm
      http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc- hijacker s.htm

    5. Re:Function creep isn't the half of it. by van+der+Rohe · · Score: 1

      "What exactly have the media-machine/big corporations/bad government/big brother/iluminati/blah won?"

      They've won your unquestioning trust. They've won the right to tell you anything they want and have you believe it.
      The media is owned. You think you hear ANY news that isn't filtered propaganda?

    6. Re:Function creep isn't the half of it. by SailorBob · · Score: 1
      What it fails to mention, however, is that airport security has almost nothing to do with this project. It's ALL about building a huge, commercially-mineable information database filled entirely with people who aren't even a little bit of a threat.

      Do you really believe that hi-jackers board planes using legit ID that leaves a paper trail right into their DMV records and credit reports? Absurd. The only people that this system will "catch" are Joe Average and his family. Think of it as a great big grocery-store scan card system disguised as a security precaution.

      I have to agree with you about the silliness of this system. Terrorists actively involved in the operational side of things almost never travel with real ID, unless they've got some kind of special situation set up, like the PLO for instance.

      For example, after the war, Bosnia gave Bosnian passports to hundreds of mujahadeen that had come to fight for the Muslim side. All of these mujahadeen are islamic fundamentalists contected to the al-qaida and the midrass' in afganistan and pakistan, who were smuggled into the former yugoslavia with PLO help. Many have since went to fight in Chechniya and the rest are ripe for terroist attacks in western Europe and the US. How are they going to catch people with real Bosnian passports printed with fake identities using this system? Not allow anyone traveling on a Bosnain passport in?

      --

      Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!

  29. This is just an upgrade by Space+Coyote · · Score: 3, Funny

    Albeit a big one. The current system's source code looks like this:

    if skin == brown then threat = high

    This is just as great an invasion of civil rights as somebody checking out what you bought on EBay. Of course it might not seem like it if one hasn't been unjustly targetted because of one's race before.

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    1. Re:This is just an upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Race has nothing to do with it. Just like declaring that Israel is fucking hypocritical is not anti-semitism.

    2. Re:This is just an upgrade by redhotchil · · Score: 0

      You're proof is where?

      I just went to las vegas and saw a 80yr old woman (white retired midwestern money-spender mind you) getting a full search.

  30. Re:pie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey!

    When come back, bring pie!

  31. I can see it now by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Funny

    Customer: "I thought you said the ticket was $125!"

    Ticket Girl: "Well, yes. But you owe taxes for 1987, have five unpaid parking tickets in NYC, and you, (pauses), heh, have an unpaid citation for, heh, urinating in public that you got in June of '92."

    Customer: (red faced). "Uh, look, I was drunk, I mean, i looked.... *sigh*, just whatever. How much?"

    Ticket girl: "that'll be $790.45"

    Customer: "Fine, whatever" (hands her the money)

    Ticket girl: "Remember, there are bathrooms conveniently located at the fore and aft of the plane" (makes stewardess hand gestures.

    Customer: "Just, just shut up."

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that ALMOST made complete sense. However, they can only go back seven years for taxes.

    2. Re:I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ticket girl: You have a hostile tone in your voice.

      Customer:

    3. Re:I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > they can only go back seven years for taxes..

      No, they can only go back looking 3 to 7 years. But, once they've caught you -- you own on that debit forever.

      Now I'd bet a system like this would be pretty good at catching you, day 1.

    4. Re:I can see it now by thogard · · Score: 1

      They already do this in Singapore.

      You can't get on the plane till you pay your parking tickets and other fines.

  32. Why do you care if they spy on you by danny256 · · Score: 1

    if you arn't doing anything wrong? This is the thing I never understood about privacy concerns. If I'm looking at kiddie porn, and the I get caught because the government has access to my ISP records, I deserve to get caught. People who arn't breaking any laws don't have anything to fear, why dosn't anyone see that? Violations of privacy only hurt people who something to hide.

    1. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people do have something to hide. When a tyranical goverment takes power, rebels need to be able to hide what they are doing.

      When injustice becomes law, Resistance becomes duty!

    2. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by danny256 · · Score: 1

      We live in a democratic system, so any government that takes power was elected, which means that more than 50% of people support them. That would make anyone who wanted to overthrow the government... terrorists, and thwarting that is exactly the point of this system. If you live in a democratic society, you have to accept than any government who gets power was voted in fairly. When you don't accept that, and start blowing things up and killing people because of it, you're a terrorist.

    3. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because everyone has something to hide. Not necessarily illegal things, but personal things. If the current trend in policy continues then we will no longer have a right to privacy.

    4. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by blank_coil · · Score: 1

      First: No, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. We *elect* people to represent us, we never represent ourselves.

      Second: You obviously don't study history, otherwise you would know of all the attrocities and injustices that governments all around the world have wrought upon their own people in the guise of safety. Even our own government has shown time and time again that it is willing to compromise our rights and privacies for their own gain, and yet I still see people like you posting false arguments like "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide".

      This power WILL be abused. Do you understand that? Not maybe. Not possibly. It WILL be. And that's why it should be stopped.

      --
      No sig for you.
    5. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you live in a democratic society, you have to accept than any government who gets power was voted in fairly.

      you're either trolling or stupid. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're stupid.

      "fairly voted in" does not mean "good", or "just", or "fair", or even "should not be violently opposed by any halfway sensible, decent, upstanding human being". i could name at least one famous homicidal maniac dictator who was fairly voted in to power - in an election with record-breaking voter turnout, at that. i'll refrain from naming names only for fear of violating Godwin's law.

      arguably, one should not start bombing things and shooting people just because one happens to dislike the government - i believe Thomas Jefferson made a quick comment to that effect in the declaration of independence; some people seem to like that text. but equally arguably, one should not submit to just any sort of tyranny of the majority just because it happened to be voted into office democratically.

      When you don't accept that, and start blowing things up and killing people because of it, you're a terrorist.

      <sarcasm>
      you're only a terrorist if you're not winning. once your revolution is successful and the tyrannical old order is overthrown, you're a virtuous and valorous freedom fighter, striving for the good of the people. 'course, if by some chance you don't succeed, then you'll be either a dirty stinking subhuman terrorist traitor, or a martyred hero who laid his life down for the greater cause, depending on whether or not any of your bomb-throwing buddies survived.
      </sarcasm>

    6. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by danny256 · · Score: 1

      History has nothing to do with this. Obviously no government has ever had this much access to information about the people simply because the technology didn't exist. This is a whole new era of history and maybe it will be a good one. We do have systems in place within the government to protect against corruption.

    7. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by Yunzil · · Score: 2

      Why do you care if they spy on you if you arn't doing anything wrong?

      If I'm not doing anything wrong, why are they spying on me?

      Violations of privacy only hurt people who something to hide.

      So it would be OK by you if we put a closed-circuit camera in your house?

    8. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 1
      We live in a democratic system, ...

      This is not Democracy .


      --
      "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
      -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
    9. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by blank_coil · · Score: 1

      History has nothing to do with this.

      Of course it does. It shows us the signs of things getting worse. This survailance is bad because history has shown us what can happen when it's abused.

      Obviously no government has ever had this much access to information about the people simply because the technology didn't exist.

      Because before the Internet there was no way to record information, right?

      We do have systems in place within the government to protect against corruption.

      Yeah, that's why we have senators like "the senator for Disney" Hollings whoring themselves out to corporations for $$$? Ever heard of the DMCA? You think it was passed with the benefit of the citizens in mind?

      --
      No sig for you.
    10. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      We live in a democratic system, so any government that takes power was elected, which means that more than 50% of people support them.

      Should I point out the obvious, or not?

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    11. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to watch...

    12. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Whether or not you're doing anything wrong and whether or not you're doing something the government doesn't like are two different things. Let me give you an example (for you republicans, feel free to replace 'democrat' with 'republican' and 'Bush' with 'Clinton' and the policies with your pet-peeves). I'm a rabid, vocal democrat. I don't like the Bush admistrations domestic policy, and I think its foreign policy is totally braindead. I doubt I'm the current government's favorite type of person. They more data they have on me, the easier it is for them to keep me quiet (I'm not talking FBI halo, but stuff like auditing my taxes or looking closer at my parking tickets, etc). Everyone has some dirt on them. Its fairly easy for someone to use that dirt against you, even if its minor. If the government has reason to dislike you, and has the mechanism to cause some problems for you, then the situation is problematic to say the least.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    13. Re:Why do you care if they spy on you by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Do you know how naive that is? Human civilization has existed for thousands of years. After thousands of years, it still sucks. It has alternating periods of sucking less, and sucking more. We're in one of those periods of sucking less, but don't doubt it, eventually, it will suck more. We have no protections that weren't in place when McCarthyism happened. Or the internment of the Japanese. The only thing we have is the vigilence of the people. That *is* this country's protection against corruption.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  33. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If anyone says to RTFA, they can eat my ass! >:] I like choice. I don't like being overwhelmed.

    In any case, profiling is just too complicated to work all that well. There are going to be tons of false positives falling out of this AND it won't matter anyway. So what if the system fingers someone as a potential threat - you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system.

    There are plenty of crazy militant types itching to rip the system - how do you sift through to find the "credible" threats? You need a full psychofuckinglogical profile to even start to figure that one out.

    And what about the closet psychopaths? The ones that just go off all of the sudden - maybe there was a buildup, but that doesn't mean they've been having clandestine meetings with the PLO or something, right? With a system like this in place, people will become complacent and we'll overlook the obvious signs (ie/ that twitchy, sweating guy with the laptop full of electronics jamming equipment and plastique might just make it through because he's lived and worked in Houston his whole life without a single brush in with the law and because the former guitarist from Rage Against the Machine was on the same flight).

    Why don't they just sedate us and put us in little pods for the flight. Less of my rights would be violated that way and at least that would be more effective.

    --
    Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    1. Re:1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by just4now · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I just loved the "psychofuckinglogical" thing. Need to spend some time learning how to pronounce it though. If I get stuck, I'll just say F*ck three times in a row really quick - maybe it'll sound intellectual. ... Umm...never mind.

    2. Re: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > So what if the system fingers someone as a potential threat - you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system.

      Oh, like that matters these days.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by hyperturbopete · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just sedate us and put us in little pods for the flight. Less of my rights would be violated that way and at least that would be more effective

      Hmm you might have something there. I'm surprised noone thought of it, it would pretty much guarantee that theres no passenger-caused funny business (unless they eat a bomb and have it go off from their stomach or something...)

    4. Re:1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system
      Ever hear of the patriot act?

    5. Re:1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by mbogosian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In any case, profiling is just too complicated to work all that well. There are going to be tons of false positives falling out of this AND it won't matter anyway. So what if the system fingers someone as a potential threat - you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system.

      This is exactly why profiling should be kept in advertising where it belongs. Profiling (i.e., demographics) is for taking a set of people, and tossing out those least likely to fit your market. In the set that's left, one is statistically more likely to fit your ideal customer (however, there's still a lot of noise, just less than before).

      For crime, it doesn't really work, unless one is willing to prosecute a lot of innocent people. In the United States, there is the presumption of innocense. Based on this, a perfect system is one in which no innocent people are found guilty. In real life, this means that no people are found guilty. Realizing this, the founding fathers knew they had to have a compromise. It was this: for every one innocent person convicted, ten guilty people go free. Profiling strives for the scales to be tipped (i.e., for every ten innocent people convicted, one guilty person goes free).

      That's not to mention that profiling is only "effective" if members of the profilied population make no efforts against being profiled (again, that's why it's effective in advertising, but not in detecting crime). I used to work for a large on-line retailer in automated fraud detection. Automated fraud detection (i.e., systems which detect the likelihood of fraud with minimal human intervention) is based on profiling.

      Well guess what? As soon as fraudsters find out what they're doing doesn't work, they change the properties of their transactions to more closely mirror legitimate purchases (as seen by the profiling model). The population has incentive to become homogenous. So once the model is implemented and deployed, it reduces fraud for about a week, until people figure out what it's doing, then levels climb back up to where they were before. However, after repeatedly deploying new models, unless the number of data points increases, the incidence of false positives steadily climbs.

    6. Re:1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by BitterOak · · Score: 2
      you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system.

      You can be lawfully detained for up to 24 hours without charges being laid. In practice, they need only detain you long enough to miss your flight, possibly forcing you to pay upwards of $100 to change your tickets, if you're lucky enough to get on another flight the same day.

      And do you want to be stopped and searched each and every time you fly simply because you grew up in the wrong neighborhood?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  34. You have a lot to lose though by thelexx · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was on a site somewhere that I've lost the link to, but I saved the bulk of the text:

    Imagine a country where agents of the state install surveillance cameras at sporting events and scan the crowd looking for criminals and suspects.

    Imagine cities where agents of the state use surveillance cameras to observe the activities of citizens and tourists under a watchful eye for suspicious goings on.

    Imagine roadblocks being set up to randomly, and sometimes selectively, stop automobiles so that armed agents of the state and trained police dogs can inspect your car.

    Imagine being at an airport in a country where you are questioned about where you have been and why you were there, while a dog sniffs about and an agent of the state ransacks your personal belongings, only to return them in disarray.

    Imagine armed agents of the state just outside your home with high-tech surveillance equipment which monitors your every movement, listens to your conversations and observes what you are watching on TV.

    Imagine a country where just being under suspicion of a crime is cause for arrest and justification for your car, home or other personal property to be confiscated by the state.

    I recall learning about these types of countries in my junior high and high school civics classes. Does living in a country where you are watched and recorded by the state seem a little scary?

    Is it Romania? Iran? Russia? Maybe, I can't say for certain. But, a country where these activities take place and continue to spread is America.

    Does this bother you deeply? Or do you really not care because you maintain, I have nothing to hide.

    When is the last time you read the Constitution? Have you read it since you got out of school? Have you read it as a mature adult? What about the Bill of Rights?

    [Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.]

    [Amendment V. No person....shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. .... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.]

    Are the above-mentioned activities of the state violations of the fourth and fifth amendments? Do they constitute just powers? Are these powers to which you consent because, I have nothing to hide.

    The greatest enemy to our freedom is not a foreign power; we would eagerly rally and band together to defeat a common enemy. Nor is it the criminal element; they will fight for their rights tooth and nail. No, the greatest threat to our freedom is the law-abiding citizen who through quiet acquiescence consents to the usurpations of our rights because, "I have nothing to hide".

    It is not the government which makes us free. It is not the law which makes people free. It is not the government which guarantees our freedom. No government can ever be trusted to do that. It is the people - who force the government through freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, the right to petition, and the ballot - who guarantee our freedom. Our government was instituted to secure your rights. It is your job to see to it our government doesn't forget why it is there.

    As a youngster, I attended a church which taught me that God is always watching you. And this God was one mean, tough, angry hombre who would punish you for all eternity if you didn't play your cards right.

    I can tell you that the feeling of being 'watched' is no way to live. Most of us are uncomfortable when a stranger looks at us for more than a fleeting second. Now that God and I have our relationship squared away, I don't need my government watching me. "I have nothing to hide", and so there is no just cause for me to be watched.

    Demand your rights, protect your rights, watch your government at all times. Do what the constitution requires of you. You may have nothing to hide, but you have a lot to lose.

    --------------

    LEXX

    --
    "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    1. Re:You have a lot to lose though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll throw some different questions in response.

      How many of your friends have been hauled away by secret police?

      How many times have you personally been harassed by security?

      How have your rights personally been affected by recent legislation?

      Can you sue the government based on perceived violations of your rights, unlike the countries named in your copied rant? (Hint, yes)

      I was just watching the wonderful Civil War series on PBS, and the stuff that Lincoln pulled makes even Nazis look reasonable. We have not lost any fundamental rights since 9/11, other than the right to be freely slaughtered by terrorists.

    2. Re:You have a lot to lose though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tell me about it. even those with something to hide still get all of the usual trial rights. check out those 6 from buffalo.

    3. Re:You have a lot to lose though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can you sue the government based on perceived violations of your rights, unlike the countries named in your copied rant? (Hint, yes)

      Hint: no. It's called "Sovereign Immunity." Look it up, dipshit.

  35. Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by e_n_d_o · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Airplane hijackings used to end with everyone, or at least most people, surviving the event. In the last four hijackings, everyone died, and thousands more were killed on the ground. As a result of this, people who are on board an airliner that is being hijacked will attack the hijackers. Remember what happened to the terrorists aboard Flight 93 as well as that shoe-bomber idiot.

    I certainly wish these facts were more often considered in our response to the events of September 11.

    1. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      You mean the Air Force will shoot them down?

    2. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by phillymjs · · Score: 2

      Yup. One of the first thoughts I had after the 2nd plane hit the WTC was, "Well, from this day on, any fool crazy enough to try to hijack a plane will be torn apart by the passengers."

      I don't think there have been very many hijackings, if any, since that day. I'd be interested to see world hijacking statistics for the year preceeding 9/11/01, and the year since to see exactly how much of a decline there has been.

      ~Philly

    3. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      You mean the Air Force will shoot them down?

      Yeah, basicaly. Seriously though, there is enough physical security for airlines these days. With angry passengers, Air marshials, and the eventual shooting-down possiblity. All of this bullshit is just totaly overboard.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    4. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Chess+Cardigan · · Score: 1
      Actually, there was an attempted hijack in India a couple of weeks ago and that's pretty much exactly what happened - some guy was apparently trying to hijack a plane and he got overpowered by the crew and passengers. Here's some links to the story:
    5. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Agreed.

      What scares the sh*t of me is ...

      a.)Several terrorists taking down a huge building not by flying planes into them but rather driving trucks or Uhauls filled with explosives and donating them near the support structures. I also wonder if about 10 or 15 guys with just flame-throwers could take down a steel structure from the bottom. 9/11 taught us that steel structures are vulnerable to heat. The south tower went down first because the plan hit further down and their was more pressure on the steel rods. 15 or 20 guys with flame throwers could go into the garage or basement of a big building and just heat up the support rods. Under the enormous pressure, it would not take long for them to buckle. Or at least place dynamite on each one. These 2 things would bring down a building for sure in just minutes. Unlike 9/11 no one would have time to espace. The casualities would be alot higher. I fear the sears tower. I just have a funny feeling about it.

      b.)Someone may bring in, god knows what in our harbars. I saw on 60 minutes that 2 reportes brought in low grade Uranium!! Literally bought it on the black market in Romania, shippped it to Turkey and had turkey ship it to New York. And listen to this? The coast guard used radation dectectors and it was not detected! They can easily hide the radiation in a led plated box unless the device is just inches on top of it.

      c.)Some terrorist buying lots of suitcase sized nuclear weapons in the blackmarket in russia. Bin Laden claimed to have bought several of them for several million each.

      d.)Biological weapons which are so easy to grow with a pretri dish. They may throw them in the water supply or put them in a hairspray can and drop it in a NYC subway line that carries millions to work each day.

      e.)Leaked classifieds mentioned that insiders from AL-Qaeda talked about destroying America in 3 waves. My guess is the topics mentioned above could kill not thousands but hundreds of thousands or millions if it is well planned and carried out.

      Bin Laden likes to do one act more destructive then the other. My guess is next he will take out more buildings. Instantly this time killing tens of thousands, them will use biological or even dirty bombs near water supplies. This would pale in comparison to 9/11.

    6. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. hijacked will attack the hijackers.


      You're right - a potential hijacker now knows that they're mince meat if anyone on the plane finds out what they're up to. So, the next hijack will be either using overwhelming force - lots o hijackers -or- the hijacker will find a way to subdue everyone on the plane either with gas or by reducing the air pressure on the plane. This is harder to do than weilding box cutters.


      Given this - I still can't figure out why they confiscate nail clippers or nose hair tweazers ? Puhleeeze ... Oh I got it, 50 PAX's with nose hair tweazers are an overwhelming force - aha ..


      Motto - there will allways be some really nasty, evil and just outright bad people who are really really smart and have nothing better to do but make as much of a dent in your day as they can.
      So, do we just sit back and wait ?

    7. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why bother hijacking a plane? With sufficient resources (and airlines going bankrupt), they can buy a fricking airplane, load it with 'tractor parts' and schedule a flight from, say, Europe to DC, or from Western Russia into Seattle. Or, as the parent poster suggested, drive a truck bomb someplace. How would California's economy be affected if a couple of well-placed truck bombs took out the border crossing at San Diego at the beginning of the fruit harvest? Apparently a large number of Mexicans legally cross the border daily during fruit-picking season...

      Anyone care to bet that 50 to 100 well-armed, highly trained terrorists couldn't overwhelm security at, for example, a nuclear powerplant? Either to melt it down by wrecking the controls, or to steal fuel for contaminating major cities?

      If they didn't care to land that sucker they could load up 200lbs of explosives per regular seat plus whatever the normal cargo capacity would be. There would not BE any regular passengers on board to fight back...

      Or do both - pop a door and drop a team by parachute, then go on to crash into some stragegic target.

      Speaking of targets, how about Microsoft? I know just about everybody here would cheer, but what would happen to the global economy if 50 terrorists levelled the MS campus at Redmond? Maybe they wouldn't get everyone, but if enough key people died we'd be stuck with XP... It doesn't matter that MS has more actual cash in the bank than the entire population of Canada - it would take the new-hires significant time to understand the interlocking bits and pieces sufficiently well to be able to update and bugfix.

      Just to get back on-topic - it won't make any difference if the profiling is perfect or not, unless every other country does the same and not just profile the passengers, but also the pilots, the baggage loaders, the refuelers. Heck, especially profile whoever even touches every privately owned airplane ...

    8. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Insanity · · Score: 1

      And once the spin machine is done with this statistic, the decreased number of hijackings will be attributed to the success of airport security armed with CAPS.

      --
      Nix absolutably seriousness.
    9. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Bin Laden likes to do one act more destructive then the other. My guess is next he will take out more buildings.

      Buildings are too easy to take out.

      Besides which they don't do any real effective damage. Inconvience people, but no real damage.

      >Instantly this time killing tens of thousands, them will use biological or even dirty bombs near water supplies.

      BioChem attack. Thus far there has only been one successful attack using chemicals. Two if last year's anthrax scare turn out to also be an attack.

      I remember reading in 1980, about the different ways to take out the population of the US. Contamination of the food supply was the easiest to do, and most difficult to detect. [ I doubt he will do that. the USDA ensures that food is contaminated by the time it gets to the grocery stores. ]

    10. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      I saw on 60 minutes that 2 reports brought in low grade Uranium!! And listen to this? The coast guard used radiation detectors and it was not detected!

      It wasn't "low grade" uranium, it was depleted uranium. You know why it wasn't detected?

      BECAUSE DEPLEATED URANIUM IS NOT RADIOACTIVE, IDIOT!

      It isn't in any way dangerous.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    11. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
      "Speaking of targets, how about Microsoft? "



      No. From what I read, Al-Quada could do a hell of alot more economic damage attacking several key points in the power grid. Another is the gas pipeline. Remember that it was only one transformer in north-eastern canada that brought down new york for 5 days in 77. If they attack not one, but several points like high towers or power plants, that could mean weeks of a nationwide or a portion of america without power! Many bussinesses would go under. I read in the california power crises that it cost individual wine producers $45k a day! Think of the grocery stores and the famers who supply them? Ouch.

      The gas pipeline would also really wreak havoc and could do the same amount of economic damage. Every single item in america is shipped. Perishables would go bad. Gas would sky rocket up and eat into profit margins of nearly every company in existance. A big mac at McDonalds would cost more to ship the beef then what you normally pay for over the counter. They would have to raise their prices or make a loss! I am sure layoffs would follow well after the pipeline is fixed causing even more economic trouble. Power plants that rely on oil could be shut down and create another black out. Especially in states like Texas.

      Dam, I do not like posting these things. I feel like I am going to get someone a bad idea. Or at least have the feds read this page and assume I am a terrorist.

      But back to the point, yes I think the terrorists are done with airlines. Trucks of explosives or biological and perhaps nuclear could be next if they are non stopped. I fear if we take down Sadaam he will instruct his guards to give away his biological arsonal to Al-qauda. That would be very scary and a very real threat. Well, I think I need to cut down on my coffee and take some paxil. :-)

    12. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
      "DEPLEATED URANIUM IS NOT RADIOACTIVE, IDIOT! "



      Want to make a bet?

      Depleted uranium can stay hot for tens of thousands of years. A suitcase can easily be modified to shield even non-depleted uranium! IT was mentioned in the report. You just need thicker layers of shielding. If it wasn't radioactive, then why is the government urging waste companies to increase their security on depleted uranium rods?

      They may only only contain a faction of the radiation of enriched uranium, but they are still deadly. They could be used in a dirty bomb that could contaminate a whole city block and impede rescue workers. Ask any terrorism expert?

    13. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      there will allways be some really nasty, evil and just outright bad people who are really really smart and have nothing better to do but make as much of a dent in your day as they can.

      Hmm, that kinda talk scares me. You do realise that the 9/11 terrorists had legitimate reasons to dislike America? Nothing to do with freedom and democracy. Or western culture. They just don't like the shit the US does in the middle-east. If you only were to educate yourself into WHY these people want to attack you, then told your leaders that you don't want that kinda stuff going on in YOUR name, then that would be far more effective than attacking the symptoms of the problem.

      Or, you could continue with the present course, screw yet another middle-eastern country over and create the next generation of terrorists. Your call.

    14. Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. by thirdrock · · Score: 1

      This post is hilarious, lets take it one by one.

      I also wonder if about 10 or 15 guys with just flame-throwers could take down a steel structure from the bottom.
      Err, no. Not even burning 10 tonnes of jet fuel would accomplish that aim. Perhaps you should investigate the melting temperature of steel and the combustion temperature of fuel.

      The south tower went down first because the plan hit further down and their was more pressure on the steel rods.

      Riiiiight.

      15 or 20 guys with flame throwers could go into the garage or basement of a big building and just heat up the support rods. Under the enormous pressure, it would not take long for them to buckle
      Yeah, I'm sure building security wouldn't notice 15 or 20 guys carrying flame throwers into the garage.

      Or at least place dynamite on each one.
      Sure, just pull it out of your pocket, stick it to the support with gaffer tape, light the fuse and run. That would work.

      I fear the sears tower. I just have a funny feeling about it.
      You should see someone about your irrational fear of the sears tower.

      Someone may bring in, god knows what in our harbars.
      Yes, it might be something incredible, like information on the world outside the US, or drinkable coffee or edible food.

      Some terrorist buying lots of suitcase sized nuclear weapons in the blackmarket in russia. Bin Laden claimed to have bought several of them for several million each.
      Did he tell you that himself, or was you hearin that on the Tee Vee?

      Leaked classifieds mentioned that insiders from AL-Qaeda talked about destroying America in 3 waves.

      Were those New York Times or USA Today classifieds?

      Wanted
      Angry young men for new organisation currently in the planning stage for second wave of operations. No experience necessary. Must have life insurance.
      Call 555-7856 and ask for Osama.

      Bin Laden likes to do one act more destructive then the other.
      What do you base this statement on? Leaked classifieds? Did CNN tell you? Or did you come to this unverifyable, idiotic conclusion on your own?

      My guess is next he will take out more buildings.
      Yeah, and maybe next time he will strike buildings that are strategically important, like the stock exchange, rather than buildings with a brand spanking new insurance policy and a 100 million dollar tax lien.

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
  36. One little mistake. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Identifying details in credit reports" - pay your bills or more branches of the government besides the IRS will be after you.

    Oh, nononono... they don't care wether or not you actually paid. All they care about is what those bills are for.

    As long as you never buy anything suspicious, you should be fine.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:One little mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > suspicious

      Please define. Fertilizer for my garden? Fuel Oil to head my house? Box cutters so I can open my UPS package?

    2. Re:One little mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget 'fail to buy something you should be buying'. After all, not being interested in learning how to _land_ a plane was a clear indicator that the terrorists never intended to do so.

      Similarly, if you buy cornflakes but never buy milk... Well, *I* wouldn't trust you anymore.

    3. Re:One little mistake. by Skoshi · · Score: 1

      So, what are they claiming is suspicious to buy... box cutters? Nail clippers? Scissors?

      --
      "What are apples? Left, right, socialist...I don't know."
  37. Yes by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    Probably I will.

    If they're catching criminals then their system is obviously working right?

    I'm as concerned as the next person with privacy but I think there is still room for us to expand law enforcement without envading privacy.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Yes by mbogosian · · Score: 1

      If they're catching criminals then their system is obviously working right?

      I'm always skeptical of the term "criminal". If the mere act of saying something unpatriotic becomes a crime, then most slashdotters will be considered criminals.

      If the definition of the system's success is number of criminals caught, then equilibrium will be achieved when all members of the system are criminals and all are caught.

      Don't get me wrong. I sincerely believe that anyone who maliciously impedes the liberties of another deserves no access to the liberties s/he made efforts to deny.

      However, I'm not happy with the directions in which the authorities and lawmakers are going. As a result, I may be considered anti-US (though I am not; I feel the ideas on which this country was founded are the greatest on earth).

      For the most part, I am a law-abiding citizen (save a few speeding tickets). The more new laws that are made to squash unpopular thoughts, the more likely it will be that I will break the law (with no increased effort on my end).

      I am scared of being jailed for my opinions. I mean that literally. I am also now reluctant to travel via airplane, for fear that I heighten the activity of my profile.

    2. Re:Yes by spoco2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because they are catching criminals doesn't mean the system is working.

      What about the people on death row that are innocent? There have been numbers of cases of people being found innocent just in the nick of time... or worse, after the execution.

      Do you call that system 'working'?

      What about if you were classed as a terrorist due to your heritage, your religion, and you went to school with someone who turned out to be a terrorist? (Maybe you never even knew them)

      Is that a system that 'works'?

      What about if, as someone from the article suggests, that these systems were privatised (That's damn scary)... then really, what is to stop these private companies 'delaying' a few members of some particular activist group that may be threatening their activities in some part of the world?

      Who decides what ranks you highly as a terrorist?

      Who decides who gets to see this conglomeration of information?

      Who ensures that the information that is used in these rankings is accurate?

      How long does your 'terror' ranking stick for? If you took part in some protest march, are you unable to fly anywhere for the next 5 years?

      This all just sounds damn close to so many grim Sci Fi Movies... :(

    3. Re:Yes by Bartab · · Score: 1

      There have been numbers of cases of people being found innocent ...after the execution.

      Care to cite these executions? Lets give it a realistic limit, in the US, and from 1960 to now since that's when executions started being done after a long pause.

      Here's a hint: It's not a problem with the system when the system gets people off prior to being executed. It's called "working as intended".

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    4. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not a problem with the system when the system gets people off prior to being executed. It's called "working as intended".

      you seriously think the judicial system is meant to condemn people to death for no good reason, just so long as some other part of it comes along and exonerates them later? this is one of those classical "then you wouldn't mind if it happened to you, right?" situations...

  38. dont talk to cops about war. by gimpboy · · Score: 1

    open your history books, and look at what has transpired. this is no more violent than many acts of humanity. take for example the use of nuclear weapons on civilians in japan. surely any old cops around now can remember that.. perhaps not first hand, but they can remember that.

    ask someone from japan if crimes have gotten more violent. you may call the attacks on the wtc a crime, when the people who committed it consider it to be part of a war. just as we considered bombing hiroshima and nagasaki part of the war, many japanese would consider it to be a crime (considering the civilian loss of life).

    really though it's all about perspective.

    --
    -- john
    1. Re:dont talk to cops about war. by tyrani · · Score: 1

      Ya, it is about perspective.

      I was referring to the job a police officer does, not specifically what s/he remembers in their lifetime. A cop regularly observes crime scenes.

      So, I'll rephrase. Go ask an old cop if they think that the crimes they observe on a day-to-day basis have become more or less violent.

      --
      rejected (19) accepted (0)
      Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    2. Re:dont talk to cops about war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nuclear weapons the Unites States dropped on Japan were not targetted solely at civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers building things that were planned to kill American servicemen.

      Had America not dropped atomic bombs on Japan America would have invaded Japan. A hell of a lot of Japanese people would have died in this situation - more than if we dropped the bomb. And more servicemen would have died.

      Had the Japanese not attacked America first then we would not have had the need to defeat them in the first place. America and Japan had a declared state of war, whatever the Japanese got they deserved.

    3. Re:dont talk to cops about war. by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      So, I'll rephrase. Go ask an old cop if they think that the crimes they observe on a day-to-day basis have become more or less violent.

      I'm in my mid-30's, so I don't know that I'm old enough to qualify. That being said, not a whole lot has changed in the 14 years I've been doing this crap.

      With one exception: Juveniles have become worse and worse. They're not all sweet innocent little darlings. The average juvenile hard case has always been someone with no acculturation, no understanding of right and wrong, and no understanding that society frowns on certain acts and employs cops because of this. However, there are a lot more of them now than there were when I first became a cop during the Bush the Elder administration.

      It's changed, but even if you could quantify overall violence as a single scalar quantity, I don't think that's changed a whole lot. Dad sometimes gets loaded and beats the snot out of mom, who stabs dad with a fork, leaving Junior in the loving-but-overloaded hands of XXX County Social Services, and there is nothing new under the sun.

  39. HAHA, NICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny part is, I think that could actually happen.

  40. Political correctness is for pussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of political correctness, you can screen any and everyone *BUT* arabs and those with turbens. Because if you profile, you lose your job as a security agent at the airport.

    Fuck political correctness. We *SHOULD* be profiling, it's the only way to ensure that our country is safe in the best possible manor. So to those that are against profiling, sut the fuck up and leave the USA!!!

  41. What can you "profile" actually? by MoThugz · · Score: 1

    The system will feed the results to an analysis application that mathematically ranks travelers' potential as security threats.

    How can a person be potentially more of a security threat than another? How do you actually mathematically calculate this threats?

    Profiling tools:
    <form action="profiling.cgi">
    <select name="persona"</option>
    <option value="white">Almost Harmless</option>
    <option value="black">Possible Thug/Thief</option>
    <option value="arab">OH GOD! A Muslim, must be a TERRORIST!!!</option>
    </form>

    1. Re:What can you "profile" actually? by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      You estimate it from the data. Like it or not, their are trends, such as the fact that air terrorism tends to be the domain of Middle Eastern Arab Islamist terrorist groups, in contrast to "standard" suicide bombings (which are also used by the LTTE, for instance), whereas lynchings, mutilated bedsheets and cross burnings tend to be indicative of Klan activity.

      It may not be nice to say it, but it's true that a Yemeni fundamentalist Moslem is more likely to be a member of al-Qaeda and its member groups than, say, a Bavarian beer brewer.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re:What can you "profile" actually? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      It may not be nice to say it, but it's true that a Yemeni fundamentalist Moslem is more likely to be a member of al-Qaeda and its member groups than, say, a Bavarian beer brewer.

      Or like a Mexican thug, or a so-cal middle class white, boy who likes rap music?

      er wait, both of those guys were al-Qaeda. oops. (allegedly, anyway)

      It only takes one guy to smuggle the equipment in. Al-quada might be mostly Arab, but if they have a few non-Arab, non profile matching, these systems will make their chances of success GREATER not less.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    3. Re:What can you "profile" actually? by neocon · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Which exactly holds up stonehand's point -- you can come up with two counterexamples, against the hundreds of al-Qaeda members being held in Camp X-Ray, and the thousands captured or killed in Afghanistan.

      Looks like pretty good odds to me...

  42. Errr.... duh? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

    i would have the same reaction if they wanted to fingerprint everyone who flys on planes.

    You do know that your fingerprints (and that of everyone else in the United States) are on file in the town in which you were born, right?

    You could complain all you want, but you'd sound pretty retarded.

    - 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?"
    1. Re:Errr.... duh? by rwj · · Score: 1

      Umm, no....

      Possibly you might be right to state that the fingerprints of everyone *born* in the US are on file. (Even then I'd doubt it -- I don't know that fingerprints are a requirement for a birth certificate.)

      But, I've been living in the US for 4 years now, and was never asked to provide a copy of my fingerprints. (When I file for my green card I'll have to provide them, but not for a temporary work permit)

      -dj

    2. Re:Errr.... duh? by lommer · · Score: 1

      Wtf are you on?

      Kids under 3 years old don't have fingerprints at all, and the fingerprints only fully develop after age 5. Don't believe me? go out and try to fingerprint a kid under 5 - I guarantee you won't get anything but I black smudge.

      I found out this interesting piece of information when my cousin was going to get her toddler fingerprinted for one of those identity kits in case of a kidnapping, but apparently they can't fingerprint young children. Extremely odd...

    3. Re:Errr.... duh? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      You do know that your fingerprints (and that of everyone else in the United States) are on file in the town in which you were born, right?

      Wtf are you talking about?

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    4. Re:Errr.... duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that your fingerprints (and that of everyone else in the United States) are on file in the town in which you were born, right?

      Why would they keep the fingerprints of everyone in the United States on file in the town where I was born?

    5. Re:Errr.... duh? by sinserve · · Score: 2

      So you could get a job when you get your Record Keeping degree from Devry.

    6. Re:Errr.... duh? by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      You do know that your fingerprints (and that of everyone else in the United States) are on file in the town in which you were born, right?

      Wrong.

      Some people are voluntarily fingerprinted. That's pretty rare.

      Usually, in the US, people are only printed if they enlist in the armed forces, are booked into jail (or released on summonses for certain offenses-all felonies and Class One misdemeanors here in Colorado), or for the purposes of background checks for certain jobs: police, fire, teaching, and almost any real security clearance.

      Here in Colorado, an index finger is LiveScanned when you get a driver's license. I don't think it's included in AFIS, however. I'm not sure but I'm guessing it's mostly just to keep the same person from having two licenses with different names.

      It's almost impossible to get a useful print from a small child anyway. Believe me, I've tried. That's why those "Kidnap Kits" are a sad joke.

  43. heh by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, at least it's not racial profiling by morons who can't even tell one race from another.

    But seriously, any kind of system that 'unevenly' applies security screening actually opens a door for terrorists. All they have to do is send their cell members on flights frequently, and see which ones get checked more often. Pack the weapons and stuff on the people who get checked less frequently, and now you're mission has a greater chance of success then with random checks.

    "Well, why not just do both random and profiled checks?" you might ask, well, why not just do more random checks? I mean, either the airport can search everyone, or some other percentage. The best security would be gained by "spending" all your checks doing random checks. Any other system unevenly distributes the chances of being checked, and decreases security.
    br> I saw a paper online about this a while ago. It was a bit more rigorous, but I can't dig up the link. Ah well.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:heh by Snafoo · · Score: 2


      Could someone mod this up please? This is actually quite insightful.

      --
      - undoware.ca
    2. Re:heh by bnenning · · Score: 2
      The best security would be gained by "spending" all your checks doing random checks. Any other system unevenly distributes the chances of being checked, and decreases security.


      As I pointed out when Bruce Schneier made this claim, this assumes that terrorists have a pool of every possible demographic group that can be sent on missions, which is not the case. If you're recruiting for a suicide bombing mission against Americans, you're going to have a much easier time getting a 25 year old Saudi male than a 70 year old female from Nebraska.


      The optimal solution is to always have some possibility of a random search, but to increase the chance of a search for passengers fitting certain profiles (e.g. male, age 16-50, Middle Eastern, probably in that order of importance). This is like the minimax solution in game theory; ideally any lowered risk of detection the terrorists achieve by using "innocent" looking agents will be balanced by their increased costs of obtaining those agents in the first place.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    3. Re:heh by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      As I pointed out when Bruce Schneier made this claim, this assumes that terrorists have a pool of every possible demographic group that can be sent on missions, which is not the case.

      How the fuck would you know? Should I be reporting you to TIPS?

      Seriously though. If Al-Quaeda had 5,000 saudi men between 18 and 26, and 3-4 'regular' americans, this system would work.

      I know of at least two 'regular' americans that have been caught. Would you be willing to risk your life betting that there are no more?

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  44. Bad News for Canadians by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Former Olympic gold medalist Ross Rebagliati was denied entry to the United States when he attempted to travel to the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was eventually allowed entry later in the week, after getting an attorney involved. I think this dragnet will extend much farther, potentially denying entry to any Canadian every busted for smoking a joint, unless said Canadian can afford an attorney.

    --
    "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
    -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
    1. Re:Bad News for Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think this dragnet will extend much farther, potentially denying entry to any Canadian every busted for smoking a joint, unless said Canadian can afford an attorney.
      What Canadian in his or her right mind would want to go (back) to the USA? ;)
    2. Re:Bad News for Canadians by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 1

      I never thought aboot that. Good point.

      --
      "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
      -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
    3. Re:Bad News for Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a difficult time feeling sorry for this Canadian. Canada has been doing just this sort of thing for years to US citizens. If you have any sort of criminal history, including a single conviction for drunk driving, Canada will deny you entry unless you apply for special dispensation. And, they have access to US databases to find out about such things.

  45. Algorithm ingredients by jetlag11235 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) Will the algorithm be made public? Should it be? Though it would appease the privacy-folk, it may also undermine the usefulness to some degree.

    2) Some things I think the algorithm should consider (this is a mathematician speaking ... it may be that some of these things are not appropriate to collect ... although I suspect that insurance agencies have access to them all):
    previous flights
    age/sex/nationality
    recent credit history
    insurance policies
    police record
    payment method
    passenger group (family, friends, alone, etc.)

    Anyone else want to add or complain?

    -- jetlag --

    1. Re:Algorithm ingredients by dakoda · · Score: 1

      i think those criteria may be mostly useless?

      using any sort of statistics, an extremely small percentage of all flight passengers in any of those catagories. summing up worsst case would still be very small, and probably useless...

      im not sure this could be implimented at all with any reliability, privacy and race issues aside.

  46. The Next Attack by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    The next atack will be cyber virus and worm attacks against all fiancial data systems:

    NASDAQ
    Sotck exchanges
    Federal Reserve Cash Clearing Ssystems
    Companies that make these systems sucjh as NCR

    Bu tnotice that place slike the FBI is refusing to hire exp hackers because they want hackers to go thorugh FBI agent training..

    GOv IDIOTS!

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:The Next Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the next attacts will be arabs with C4 surgically implanted into the chest cavity (replacing a lung or what not). Then, they just press up agains the cabin door or wall and BOOM....that's all she wrote. How are you going run screens agains that??!!

      Look, the point is if there is a will, there is a way. It's just a matter of time.

    2. Re:The Next Attack by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, dude. That's sick. Please tell me you didn't think of that yourself!

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

  47. i've said it before... by claude_juan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if you dont have anything to hide, whats the big deal? privacy? i doubt your renting of that porn at the movie store is going to throw a flag. now if you happened to be incarcerated for say, porn with a 12 year old, then it serves you just fine by me.

    in short, get over it. if your freaked, you probably did something wrong.

    1. Re:i've said it before... by Ace905 · · Score: 1

      In short, what does porn with a 12 year old have to do with terrorism.

      I can't wait until everybody accepts whatever the government decides to use this for. That woman calling Bush Hitler... whoa, she was way off base, cuz Hitler didn't have the same technology at all.

      --

      Ace
    2. Re:i've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if you dont have anything to hide, whats the big deal? privacy?"
      you know that`s just what Hitler said to the jews!

      "in short, get over it. if your freaked, you probably did something wrong."
      yeah, they were freaked and no they didn`t do anything wrong. so where did it get them? a one way ticket to a gas chamber!

      human nature doesn`t change and man does not learn from history he only repeats it.

    3. Re:i've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you have nothing to hide..."

      But when I foget toput my trousers on in themorning, people complain!!!
      Hey, all men (just about) have a willy!

    4. Re:i've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the what the nazis said back in those days: "if you got nothing to hide you got no reason not to show everything"
      and we all know what this lead to.

    5. Re:i've said it before... by Starknight · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.'

      It didn't help the Jewish people in Germany during WWII. It didn't help the Japanese-American citizens on the west coast, either. And it didn't help hundreds of people summoned to appear before Congress in the 1950's, who tried to stand on their rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution - and whose only crime was being a member of a political organization, or being affiliated with someone who was a member of said organization.

      The simple fact is, the Federal Government has arrogated to itself the right to decide who is and isn't a terrorist - then decided to shop out that right to independent contractors. They are going to be gathering up this huge database to 'protect the citizens of this, our great country'... even those who don't WANT their ineffectual attempts mucking with their personal privacy.

      How would you like it if you got tagged as a terrorist because some policeman got pissed at you for flipping him off as you pulled away from a routine traffic stop? Couldn't happen, you say? Well, if this system works as it seems to be designed, input from law enforcement agencies will be heavily weighted...

      Face it, most of us have things that we don't want to show up in any kind of 'official record'. Remember when your high school teachers threatened you with black marks on your 'permanent record'? THIS is a lot more permanent, and damaging, than that ever was. And I'm not talking about things like murder - I'm talking about unpaid parking tickets, or being a man who wants to dress in womens clothing from time to time.

      Basically, it comes down to this: the government has no business poking about in my private life until AFTER I have proven myself a threat. Or would you feel comfortable living in the world of Minority Report?

      "claude_juan, you're under arrest for the future treason of posting on slashdot...."

      Of course, if this doesn't bother you, why not invite an FBI agent to read your email, a CIA agent to tap your phone, and a policeman to move in with you? After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?

    6. Re:i've said it before... by achurch · · Score: 2

      Two words: false positives.

      Suppose the system decides, for one reason or another, that you're a potential terrorist, and you get body-searched, dragged off somewhere, or whatever. Now maybe you come back out unscratched, demonstrating that there's really nothing suspicious about you. But the 50 people behind you in line are now thinking "gee, the computer said he's dangerous, is our flight okay?" Suddenly, without having ever done anything wrong, you've got a big black mark hanging over your head. Think "legalized defamation of character".

      There are lots of other problems, too, which the other comments in this article explain well. But the issue of false positives is probably the clearest example of why you don't have to have ever done anything wrong to be worried.

  48. Wait a sec.. by dissonant7 · · Score: 1

    .. CAPPS II ?!? Whowhatwhenwherewhyhow is there a CAPPS I? Little help?

    1. Re:Wait a sec.. by Fredge · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's a CAPS 1 and it's been in use for quite some time. Here's one mention of it from late 1997: http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr16897.htm

    2. Re:Wait a sec.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See John Gilmore's court case against the FAA for requiring ID of passengers. The CAPPS I program is why they demand your ID -- so they can run you through the CAPPS I database. FAA ID suit

  49. Making the lives of foreign students hard by saihung · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a friend who is a graduate student from a Western European country. Every time he's flown to/from/within the US in the past year, he's been pulled out of line and searched. If he has a connection, they pull him out of line and search him again before boarding the plane. He's never been convicted of so much as jaywalking in his life, but he is guilty of having taken a vacation to Southeast Asia with his mother several years ago. If this is the quality of the risk-assessment we can expect, then excuse me for not feeling safer.

    1. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by rob-fu · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with people coming to the US to further their educations, since in many cases what they have in their home countries isn't much, but after 9/11, I understand why people want to cut down on student visas. If I recall correctly, weren't many of the 9/11 hijackers on student visas?

      Furthermore, weren't there two of the 9/11 hijackers granted student visas, even though they were dead?

      In cases like these, I completely agree with the idea of cutting down on student visas and introducing a much more rigorous screening process. Foreign students will just have to deal with it. The US has to be more restrictive on who comes into the country, which is why I completely agree with the story.

      If screening like this can stop some kind of terrorist attack like 9/11, then I think we (in the US) should be 100% behind it.

    2. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulling someone out of line for a search isn't really making their lives any harder. I have no criminal background and have been searched while boarding flights. It's no big deal. Everyone always seems to be searching for a reason to have hurt feelings.

    3. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, weren't there two of the 9/11 hijackers granted student visas, even though they were dead?

      I finally got my student visa! What a country!

      --
      "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
      -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
    4. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by rob-fu · · Score: 1

      Depending on what airline you're on, specifically the ones that board by groups as there are no assigned seats, you get bumped up to the front of the line if you get pulled aside for a search.

      Shit, I'm the whitest white guy and I still get searched all the time. Do I bitch about it? No, I think it's pretty funny, but at least they're doing something.

    5. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by garcia · · Score: 2

      I'm American. I'm 23. I'm 230 pounds. I'm white. I have brown hair and eyes. I'm 6 foot tall. I dress (according to my mother) like a piece of fucking shit.

      I was pulled from TWO fucking lines, same trip. Once from Pittsburgh to god damn Scranton. The other time from Pittsburgh to Toledo.

      Yeah, major fucking flights there. Stop whining about profiling morons.

    6. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by renehollan · · Score: 2
      If screening like this can stop some kind of terrorist attack like 9/11, then I think we (in the US) should be 100% behind it.

      The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it is not much different from the argument that if one can kill all but 13 citizens, they can walk on a murder rap: you need a judge, prosecutor, and 12 jurors to convict. More frighteningly, it justifies the apriori killing of everyone else becuase that assures that there will be no one to left to possibly kill one.

      See how absurd those arguments are? Yet, they stem from the same line of reasoning. While it is not being taken to that logical conclusion, the reduction in civil liberties we we see today simply represents a compromise in the same kind of absurdity.

      The truely sad thing is, I don't think this increases security one iota.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    7. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by jgalun · · Score: 1

      Yes, but everything is silly when it's brought to its extreme.

      You're arguing that it's silly to reduce civil liberties in order to gain security, and to make your point, you say that trading civil liberties for security leads to a foolish extreme (I presume a polic state). But trading security and social rights for civil liberties can also lead to a foolish extreme (anarchy).

      There's a reason why there are very few libertarians in the world - most people see that libertarianism is a foolish extreme. That doesn't mean that one can't be more or less supportive of libertarian ideas.

      Similarly, there are very few pure civil liberties and pure social rights/security people in the world. Most people don't like police states, and most people think that nothing but civil liberties is ineffective social policy. Most people fall in the middle, because when it comes down to it they'd rather live than have freedom and they'd rather have freedom than have no crime. Arguing that one extreme is foolish doesn't really say where in the middle we should fall.

    8. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by saihung · · Score: 2

      I'm assuming that you say this because you're not at a large university. My school depends on the attendance of graduate students and professors from abroad in order to function properly. In many departments foreign students make up more than half of the TA's. There simply is no one to do their job if they're not here, and yet at the beginning of the semester each department discovered that TA's and prof's had been denied their visas, despite full documentation from the school. We need to understand that the government is only creating the illusion of safety. What's really going on is a completely arbitrary process of visa denials. No explanation is ever offered when a student with a full ride gets turned away from the US embassy in China, because there is no explanation. They are doing this to appease the alarmists, but in fact there is no increase in safety.

    9. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      screening is NOT necessary, the FBI the INS etc should do their jobs they already have with the tech they already have. They are a bunch of useless govt workers that are too busy with paperwork.

      local FBI agent "we have several students with terrorist backgrounds wanting to fly planes, but dont want to learn landing/takeoffs"
      head fbi office "ehhh"

      INS: "here's your student visa hijacker #12, sorry for the delay"

    10. Re:Making the lives of foreign students hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

  50. The world... by pclminion · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Has become unstable.

    Time to reboot?

  51. hypocrisy run amok by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Troll

    You know, I just read an interesting article on bayesian filtering... which I find interesting, but I find no different than the statistical analysis that our elected govornment is using.

    Why is it OK to use these techniques to get the spammers, but not the terrorists?

    Could somebody explain this one to me?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:hypocrisy run amok by DavittJPotter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it's *not* about catching terrorists. These systems are merely being introduced under the blanket of "stopping terrorism" so the government can have a little more control, and a little more influence on your life.

      9/11 was a terrible day - but the days that are coming are worse. The victims of that day will roll in their graves when they see the vulgar abuses of power that are being committed in the name of "National Security."

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    2. Re:hypocrisy run amok by marauder · · Score: 1

      Why, certainly. One analyses emails entering a computer system, the other analyses a huge database of private information about human beings. Email doesn't have rights, humans do.

    3. Re:hypocrisy run amok by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      >Why is it OK to use these techniques to get the spammers, but not the terrorists?

      Probably because

      a) Spam filtering is not yet widely a criminal matter, it's more of a civil matter (for the time being) involving property rights, trespass to chattel, etc.

      b) Even if spam filtering were a criminal matter, you can bet your bottom dollar that spammers would be given a trial amongst a jury of their (supposed) peers

      c) Spammers will never be subject to secret military tribunals after which they could very well be executed without a soul knowing what took place, or that they had even been detained to begin with

      d) The penalty for spamming is not death, and realistically never should be, regardless of how annoying it is or whatever cynical comments are made

      e) In the end, when it comes to spam filtering, it's up to the individual - not the government - to decide the "punishment" of the "offender" (which at maximum is limited to rejecting the email or perhaps complaining to the originating ISP)

      f) Being labeled a spammer, or even a convicted spammer, might get one blackballed in the marketing or IT industries; whereas being labeled a terrorist will prevent one from finding work just about anywhere or getting fired from their current job, even if they're found not guilty, or even if they're not tried for any crime at all (see: Richard Jewell, Steven J. Hatfill, Sami Al-Arian)

      That's enough reasons for me.

      Shaun

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    4. Re:hypocrisy run amok by 3x37 · · Score: 1

      Because spam filtering isn't being done by the government!

  52. The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is because the majority of these workers are niggers. Niggers all hate whitey so its a no brainer as to why 80 year old ladies are searched and not Abdual with 15 suitcases and a dish towel on his head.

    1. Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was flying out of Heathrow back to the US of A days after 9-11, two 80yo women were fully searched directly in front of me. Strip searched right in the terminal... OH THE HUMANITY!!!

  53. This system is no better than CAPPS I by smiff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Samidh Chakrabarti and Aaron Strauss developed the Carnival Booth Algorithm to defeat CAPPS I. They proved that any profiling system is less effective than searching passangers at random. In fact, the more consistent a profiling system works, the easier it is to defeat. If CAPPS II is an 'improvement' over CAPPS I, it will simply make the airlines an easier target for terrorists.

    1. Re:This system is no better than CAPPS I by bnenning · · Score: 2
      They proved that any profiling system is less effective than searching passangers at random.


      Only if terrorists are distributed over all demographic groups with equal frequency, which is obviously not the case.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    2. Re:This system is no better than CAPPS I by be-fan · · Score: 2

      which is obviously not the case.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      Really. Proof. I'd think about the situations in China, Ireland, Spain, and Italy before posting...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:This system is no better than CAPPS I by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      Or maybe they just made it less consistent?
      Computerized random searches.... Aah money put to good use.

    4. Re:This system is no better than CAPPS I by frp001 · · Score: 1

      I once watched a program on how French customs dealt with drug smugglers. It seems that most often they know who they are going to search before the plane even lands. One of the information they were using was how often the person travels. I have personally experienced this when travelling for work throughout Europe: on one of my flights I got pulled aside by the Norwegian customs and my luggage was searched.
      Based on this knowledge, one could assume that frequent travellers may also be a relevant parameter to the system. Therefore sending six times the same individual would really make him stick out of the pack.

      --
      May I use your sig please?
  54. Fun at LAX by wytcld · · Score: 3, Funny
    Some years ago I was returning to this fine country on a round-the-world set of tickets and entering through LAX with a backpack. I was singled out and taken into a small room by a large agent (I'm 6'6", but he had a hundred pounds on me). The interrogation basically consisted of his asking a couple of dumb questions, then grabbing my balls. Then he ordered me to hold my hand out. He said, "See, it's shaking." What could I say? "Oh I always get excited when a large black man grabs my balls", or "Yes, that's because I'm terribly guilty, just tell me of what"? I said nothing; he let me go.

    Anyway, that's what passed for sophisticated screening back when they were real concerned about young tourists coming back from Taiwan, where my passport showed I'd spent the last few months. Consider where it goes when they not only look to see if you're somehow unusual, but make sure your credit history is thoroughly mainstream, and you're not behind on college loans, and they haven't correlated your /. handle and posts with your passport ID ... a whole lot of people getting grabbed by the balls for nothing but the fun of the customs a*holes, and a lucky few getting indefinite detention without charges or legal representation, or even publication of their names.

    Of course 80% of Americans don't even have a passport, so it's just the coastal elites and foreigners who will complain. Who needs foreign travel when we can always visit Texas? To view anything more primitive, colorful or barbaric than what we can find in Texas you'd have to find the last tribe of canibals in the last acre of rain forest ... and that's about gone anyway. Ah, America, fast becoming the Texas of the world.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:Fun at LAX by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

      Who needs foreign travel when we can always visit Texas? To view anything more primitive, colorful or barbaric than what we can find in Texas you'd have to find the last tribe of canibals in the last acre of rain forest

      Have you ever been to Texas? How about some examples before you simply paint Texans as all the same? Funny that sounds a lot like the profiling you're complaining about, hypocrite.

    2. Re:Fun at LAX by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Informative
      Then he ordered me to hold my hand out. He said, "See, it's shaking." What could I say?
      Interestingly enough, this same justification was used by Shelby County Sheriff's Department deputies to detain me in the back of a squad car - in front of my own house, no less - for more than 2 hours in 1999. I stepped out for a smoke; after they noticed me, I was called down to the sidewalk where a couple of police cars had parked. They asked me to hold out my hands, then to turn them over; when I did so, the older officer asked, "Why are your hands shaking?" I replied, telling them "It's not every day there are 4 cops questioning me."

      The next instruction was "Place your hands back down at your side," and when I did so, a deputy behind me promptly cuffed them and put me into the back of one of the cars. For the next 2+ hours I was questioned about an apparent explosion that had taken place nearby. I was threatened with the bringing out of bomb-sniffing dogs, and "those dogs can smell drugs too." After two hours of me being quite clear in the fact that I hadn't done anything, invitations to bring out the bomb/drug dogs, and encouraging them to get the search warrant they claimed they could get at a moment's notice, I was finally let go.

      I have to wonder: do law enforcement officials honestly view shaking hands as a sign of guilt? Don't they realize that the average citizen does not come into confrontation with them on a regular basis, and is (understandably) rather shook-up when such an encounter takes place?

      I'd probably be nervous if they chose me for random inspection at the airport. Not because I'm doing anything wrong, but just because it's an uncomfortable and unnerving situation. I hope nobody's been detained just because they had shaky hands or a nervous voice.

      Ever since my own incident, I go out on the back porch to smoke. And I'm incredibly nervous when I see a cop car, even though I haven't done anything wrong. Such is life in America, and that was before 9/11.

      Shaun
      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    3. Re:Fun at LAX by bani · · Score: 2

      you should have taken down his name.

      grabbing your balls is assault, a criminal offense.

    4. Re:Fun at LAX by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I have to wonder: do law enforcement officials honestly view shaking hands as a sign of guilt?

      I know that airport customs (not security) look for people who are not nervous. It's normal to be intimidated under those curcumstances, and they look for the out-of-the-ordinary.

      The old one about looking someone in the eye for truth detection is false as well. If someone looks you in the eye while telling you something, and they don't usually act like that, chances are they are lying.

  55. A new market like credit scoring! by bloo9298 · · Score: 3, Funny

    If we are refused permission to fly, are we allowed to get our CAPPS II report free for 60 days?

    Or perhaps we'll get endless pop-up adverts for CAPPS II monitoring services: "Worried that your terrorist score might have gone up? Get your report monitored for $10 per month."

  56. Basic problem by Animats · · Score: 2
    The trouble with all this, of course, is that the opposition knows it's being done, so they'll factor this into their planning. The next attack probably won't involve aviation. Why attack at a strong point?

    I'm more worried about utilities and industrial plants. Read up on the Bhopal incident.

    1. Re:Basic problem by just4now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The objective of any terrorist group is to get the non-military portion of a country (like the US) concerned about their day-to-day life and force them to change it.

      The 9/11 WTC thing has already achieved what these guys wanted: having everyone hyper-sensitive and (potentially) over-reacting to perceived *threats*.

      On this one, I'm with Bush & co. - what's the point of being the remaining superpower if everyone knows you'll cave in at the sight of american blood?

      Hopefully, the US keeps this to al-Quaida et. al. and does not further dominate how other democratic countries operate. I think this is what the other western countries are really worried about.

  57. Shit dog, it works by BSDevil · · Score: 3, Interesting
    but seriously, any kind of system that 'unevenly' applies security screening actually opens a door for terrorists

    I'd like you to tell that to El Al security and then report back to the crowd what they say and do to you - as much as we all hate to say it (and the constitution bans it) properly-done racial profiling works. El Al is everyone's favourite case study bacsue they're so hard-core about it.

    • Who are their average terrorist threats (and this is Israel - terrorists all around the neighborhood)?
      Arabs in general, specifically Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians.
    • Who do these groups employ for the most part (by virtue of their ideology and appeal)?
      Arabs in general, specifically Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians.
    • So who does El Al most heavily scrutenize?
      Arabs in general, specifically Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians.
    Does this miss all the John Walker Lindhs out there? Not the way they do it, with their full-out systems integration between the security services and airline computers. If you've been to one of the countries that is generally on the enemies list, then you get interrogated more than usual. JWL was in Pakistan for awhile, so he would have been flagged for the list.

    So can and will this system happen over here? No bloody way. Dosen't work on physical, temporal, economical, and political grounds. On a more basic level, Israel's got 60 million people and one airline, the States has 250 million and say 20 airlines that fly into it, under various flags. So that total level of security won't work here (ask anyone who has flown El Al and they'll know what I mean), but it can, and the government may try; this massive integration could be the start of the dreaded Big Brother, or at a lower level, the Man may simply record everywhere you travel (which brings up an interesting point - if terrorists are trying to destroy the American way of life, then haven't they already won if such an anti-American-ideals system comes into effect? And if we don't implement it, then they win by physically blowing everything up...)

    --
    Cue The Sun...
    1. Re:Shit dog, it works by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd like you to tell that to El Al security and then report back to the crowd what they say and do to you - as much as we all hate to say it (and the constitution bans it) properly-done racial profiling works. El Al is everyone's favourite case study bacsue they're so hard-core about it.

      oh, I had no idea that racial profiling was El-Al's only tool. The dudes with submachine guns on the plane probably don't have anything to do with it...

      On a more basic level, Israel's got 60 million people and one airline

      6 man, isreal has 6 million people, not 60.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    2. Re:Shit dog, it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel has about 6 million people, not 60m. A very large number of the ones in power positions came from USSR when they learned people had no rights when the security of the state was concerned.

  58. Reboot by Tonetheman · · Score: 1

    Maybe the whole thing will be windoze based...

    "Uh hold on Mr. Terriorist we have to wait for it to reboot before you can get on the plane."

    1. Re:Reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overheard at any international airport in the US: "OK. Habib Towelhead. Age, 21. Went to flight school, spent some time in Afghani... Ahhh shit. Blue screen." *several minutes later* "Alright, here we go. Spent some time in Afghanistan, has bank accounts in... FUCK! Another blue screen!" *several more minutes later* "Accounts in Switzerland and The Bahamas. GOD DAMNIT!!!" *security guy then walks out to confront Mr. Towelhead* "Look, pal. We're going to put you on a flight that goes over Redmond, WA. Could you do us a favor and aim for the Microsoft offices?"

  59. Maybe you're right. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    I don't know if this system will help or hurt. All I can think of is that it seems a system like this could have possibly prevented the disasters of 9/11/2001.

    I guess it allows them to push the limits a little more every time they come up with something like this.

    Slightly OT: Do you have any links to documented information about people who died on death row and were proven innocent afterwards? I'd be interested in reading that.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Maybe you're right. by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 2
      I don't know if this system will help or hurt. All I can think of is that it seems a system like this could have possibly prevented the disasters of 9/11/2001.


      How? All this anti-Muslim racist bull crap started after 91101. Before then, how would we know to target "persons of Middle Eastern descent?" These were guys who could have just been wantin to live the American dream, and become commercial airline pilots. Even if their links to international crime organizations were known beforehand, what if they themselves had never done anything wrong, and decided to change their ways? Without sufficient data, it's impossible for an algorithm to prevent crimes. Mostly the people who might be caught by the system this article refers to would be copycats, who would be taken care of by the existing means. I am convinced there is no way that the hijackings could have been prevented (Unless you choose to believe the conspiracy theorists who suggest that the administration allowed them to happen in order to improve public opinion of Dubya).

      Naturally, I was grieved as I listened to the news that morning. I was hoping though that some good would come from it and the country would realize that some reformation of foreign policy is necessary. Instead, the exact opposite happens, the wool is pulled over the eyes of the people, and "The Beast" is as aggressive as ever. I'm not a cursing man, but hearing the things our government does "for your safety" makes me want to jump up and scream, "Who the **** gave you the right?" and so on.

    2. Re:Maybe you're right. by morethanus · · Score: 1

      Re to the OT question: The system is not working. Since 1963 a total of 102 now proven innocent people once were on death row waiting an average 8 years for their exoneration. (source: deathpenaltyinfo innocentlist) Joseph O'Dell was executed 1997 for murder after he was denied DNA tests to prove his innocence. Three Supreme Court Justices had doubts about the verdict in a 1991 review, obviously the case was never based on evidence "beyond any reasonable doubt". (source: deathpenaltyinfo innocothers) Being in the wrong place at the wrong time could just be enough to make you number 103. And stuff like CAPPS II makes it all the more likely, that people are falsely prosecuted, filed or even charged. This government is not defending freedom anymore, it's regulating and dismantling freedom every day a little more. Read the constitution! This is not patriotism, not at all.

    3. Re:Maybe you're right. by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      This system is for passengers travelling into and out of the USA.

      AFAIK, the 9/11 terrorists all took internal flights. Had the intelligence authorities done their job better, it might not have happened

      As for info regarding death row, have a look here

      Tim

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    4. Re:Maybe you're right. by vldmr_krn · · Score: 1

      4. The hijackers did not require vast financial resources to pursue their plans.

      You understimate the costs of education and organization. Some of these people had to be trained as pilots, educated about the system they were penetrating, trained to pull off the mission successfully, and organized so they would all work together. You're making the classical geek mistake of ignoring the value and costs of good organization.

      Just like there's more to making complex software than some dude with a compiler, there's more to terrorist attacks than boarding a plane with a box-cutter.

  60. Forgot the imporant part by KarmaBitch · · Score: 2, Insightful
    // Book em, danno
    if (p.securityThreatScore > 0.0) {

    Dialog d = new Dialog(SUSPECTED TERRORIST!!);
    p.Detain();
    p.StripOfRights();

    JailCell cell = new JailCell();
    cell.LockRoom();
    cell.ThrowAwayRoom( );

    p.PutIn(cell);
    }
  61. re: testicles by crm114 · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, the etymology of 'testicle' and 'testify' is not a coincedence. Many old cultures (the ancient jews, for example) used the threat of crushed testes as an ajunct to interrogation in court.

  62. Re:pie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what fuck wrong you? that where poop come from!

  63. Re: testicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm an ancient jew, and you're full of shit

  64. Re:Errr.... us air doesnt have access... by gimpboy · · Score: 2

    to my birth records.. duh?

    for what it's worth, i believe they have my footprints on file. still though, those prints taken at birth aren't readily available to say american airlines. also, i dont have to provide my fingerprints for verification when i wish to fly. so if that were the case, then i would complain.

    --
    -- john
  65. oops.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that should have been in reply to wakko.

  66. That was meant as a joke... by pclminion · · Score: 2
    Not an offtopic comment.

    If you don't get it, or think it's stupid, rate me '-1, Dipshit', not '-1, Offtopic'

    1. Re:That was meant as a joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (-5 dumbshit)

      that, also, was a joke. har. har.

  67. I've said it before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Number IV:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Here in America we enjoy the right to privacy. Many noble men and women have died to protect this right. Almost 3000 died on Sept 11th. How do we repay their sacrifice? We throw away everything they suffered for because some scared little rabbits want to feel safe.

    Privacy is my right. If you don't like your privacy or your civil rights please, move to china. I'm sure you'll be pleased with the lack of privacy and civil rights there.

    And while you are there you fsck'n coward, I hear there are people there willing to die for their civil rights. Please send them our way!

    Nexion

  68. Wake up! by smiff · · Score: 2
    tell me about it. even those with something to hide still get all of the usual trial rights.

    You mean just like Jose Padilla? Oh, you mean he doesn't have the right to a trial at all, even though he is a U.S. citizen and was captured in the United States?

    1. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jose Padilla is not your friend, first of all :-)

      On a serious note, he is being held as an enemy combatant, which means he is not entitled to the usual rights of the accussed. And it's legal too. Ho hum.

      My only concern is why the same standard isn't being applied to every other suspected terrorist.

    2. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wide awake buddy, unlike you, and grasp the legal implications of this case.

      Actually read the Padilla case and understand it. You'll see what an idiot you are in supporting him in any way, shape, or form.

    3. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if an iraqi soldier was caught getting off the plane on a mission to blow a dirty bomb, then he is not entitled to a trial.

      by taking up arms against your country, you nullify your citizenship. it's just that simple.

      there was an exact case of this during ww2, with a german decended american citizen being caught invading new jersey iirc. he and his buddies were all executed after a secret military trial. go figure.

    4. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part about the Padilla case, is that he has lawyers fighting to remove him from his imprisonment status.

      That's America. You can legally challenge the government on anything you take issue with.

      If things are as bad as you suggest, would he even have the chance to be defended?

    5. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike what ever president since Ford has thought, terrorists are not criminals, but enemy soldiers. They need to be treated as such. They are not entitled to the same rights as American citizens, which Padilla no longer is due to his transgressions.

      BTW, this also means that those in Cuba need POW status now. Now there is a true transgression which needs to be addressed.

    6. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      On a serious note, he is being held as an enemy combatant, which means he is not entitled to the usual rights of the accussed. And it's legal too. Ho hum.

      You might think it's legal. I don't. The only basis Bush has to claim it's legal is a Supreme Court ruling regarding eight Nazi sabatoures during WWII. In that particular case, the court pointed out two critical issues:

      1. The United States had officially declared war on Germany.
      2. The defendents took orders straight from the German high command. A fact which the defendents did not contest.

      On the other hand, all U.S. citizens have the right to due process and the right to habeas corpus. Without those rights, there is no check or balance on the president's power to arrest. If the president points a finger at you, say good-bye to your loved ones, because you're never getting out of jail (doesn't matter if you're innocent, guilty, committed a misdemeanor or a felony).

      No doubt, you probably think we are at war, and that all of our rights will be restored when this 'war' ends. Let me ask you, when will this so called war end? The simple fact is, there is absolutely no way to wipe out terrorism. Like any other crime, it will exist forever. The war on terrorism will continue to erode our rights just like the 30-year-old war on drugs continues to erode our rights. I know numerous people who have been effected by that (and no, they were not involved in drugs).

      My only concern is why the same standard isn't being applied to every other suspected terrorist.

      I suspect that you are a terrorist. You want to turn my nation into a dictatorship, so you post messages on slashdot asking people to disregard the fact that their rights (which are critical for a free nation) are disappearing. Once you've gotten all the milage you can out of the World Trace Center attack, you'll go off and commit another attack.

    7. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might think it's legal. I don't. The only basis Bush has to claim it's legal is a Supreme Court ruling regarding eight Nazi sabatoures during WWII. In that particular case, the court pointed out two critical issues:

      1. The United States had officially declared war on Germany.
      2. The defendents took orders straight from the German high command. A fact which the defendents did not contest.


      It's a precedent. And if the September 14th, 2001 joint resolution of Congress isn't a declaration of war, it's the closest we've had since WW2.

      On the other hand, all U.S. citizens have the right to due process and the right to habeas corpus. Without those rights, there is no check or balance on the president's power to arrest. If the president points a finger at you, say good-bye to your loved ones, because you're never getting out of jail (doesn't matter if you're innocent, guilty, committed a misdemeanor or a felony).

      Yes.... and.... ? I never contested this, and never would.

      No doubt, you probably think we are at war, and that all of our rights will be restored when this 'war' ends. Let me ask you, when will this so called war end? The simple fact is, there is absolutely no way to wipe out terrorism. Like any other crime, it will exist forever. The war on terrorism will continue to erode our rights just like the 30-year-old war on drugs continues to erode our rights. I know numerous people who have been effected by that (and no, they were not involved in drugs).

      The World Trade Center just fell of its own volition. The September 14th, 2001 joint resolution of Congress really isn't a declaration of war, but just a nice way of saying that we're all united in mourning.

      My point is that I don't believe that any fundamental rights have been eroded since 9/11. You seem to thing that Ashcroft has armed thugs rounding up every person who even said "terrorism". People know the truth despite the drivel you slop here.

      I suspect that you are a terrorist. You want to turn my nation into a dictatorship, so you post messages on slashdot asking people to disregard the fact that their rights (which are critical for a free nation) are disappearing. Once you've gotten all the milage you can out of the World Trace Center attack, you'll go off and commit another attack.

      My god. I'm speechless as to how to respond here. Those pills aren't optional buddy. Better take 'em before the orderly comes around or he'll be pissed at you.

      If you actually believe that, you need serious help.

    8. Re:Wake up! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      by taking up arms against your country, you nullify your citizenship. it's just that simple.

      They you had better lock up Washington, because he once did the same thing. How different would the world be now?

      Granted, you can't compare the two people, but the whole point of a fair system is that everyone is treated the same. You can't treat someone differentantly just because you don't like them.

    9. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      by taking up arms against your country, you nullify your citizenship. it's just that simple.

      simply wrong. U.S. citizenship law (as amended, including precedent cases in SCOTUS and federal courts) goes something vaguely like, "once you're a citizen, you stay that way until and unless the U.S. government says otherwise" - there is, by law, effectively nothing you can say, do, or intend to do, that will rob you of your U.S. citizenship if Uncle Sam doesn't wanna kick you out.

      look it up for yourself, don't take an AC's word for it. i've only researched this because i may some day decide to naturalize and turn my green card into a passport. (i'm undecided on the point as yet.)

      the only real point here seems to be that being a citizen doesn't actually give you anything. seems you can still be searched without reason, arrested without evidence and held forever without trial or counsel, whether you're a citizen or not, so long as the president goes on national TV to call you a "bad man" and say you "deserve it". since when's he even in the judicial branch of government to make that decision, anyway?... ah well, at least i don't have to be a citizen here if i don't want to. had i been born here, i wouldn't have a choice.

    10. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. He was not treated as an 'enemy soldier' or any such bullshit, he was treated as a mass-murderer, was given a trial and was sentenced to death.

      Imagine that, a terrorist being given his rights as a criminal. Doesn't sound so fucking bad to me, as this particular terrorist is now DEAD

    11. Re:Wake up! by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      The Taliban gave people trials too.
      They even had a process for appeal.
      Even "China" has that, though just like our 'enemy combatant' designation it's not very useful.

      Military tribunals are used by all kinds of countries. For instance such sterling examples of human rights as Columbia, El Salvador (before the Maxist, and after the Marxist left), Panama, Peru, Bolivia. I'm sure you'll get a 100% completely fair trial there. Israel has a system for making people disappear as well, and far more people in it that we have here.

      In all honesty, I don't see much different between what we are doing now and what the Soviets did, what China does, what the Taliban did. Do we have a process for forced psychiatric treatment and detainment? Sure. Is it subject to the same kinds of abuses? Yep. Can we designate anyone an enemy combatant? Yep. Can we hold people without informing anyone of their whereabouts? Yep. Can we hold them without legal council? Yep. Can we hold them under some material witness clause and not give them council, not tell anyone we have them, nor give them a process to get released? Yep. Is that any different that making someone disappear? Not that I can tell. Do we have secret courts? Yep. Do we have secret military tribunals? Yep. Do we have secret evidence and secret witnesses? Yep. Are we recording conversations with those lucky enough to fall under a process to have council? Yep. Do we have gag orders on searches, witnesses, council, and a ton of other things? Yep. Do people who violate that gag go to jail and or disappear? Yep.

      I don't know where you get off saying we are so much more free than any of these other places.
      Stalin would be impressed.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  69. The sad thing is... by Dan+Crash · · Score: 2

    your code is probably not too far off from the real code.

    --
    He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
  70. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know one of the best way to stop terrorist? Maybe we shouldn't be international bullies, pretending we own the world.

    Or maybe we shouldn't be hypocrites, saying "Shame on you for killing...let's kill them!"

    Maybe even being at the top of the world economically, we could help some of those poor countires.

    I think the terrorist of our own creation. With their families/friends dead, are you surprised they are motivated by revenage?

  71. ... or license plates by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    for that matter. How did they ever convice the bleeding heart liberals to allow license plates on cars?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  72. Modern buildings, not modern bombs... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    Modern buildings, not modern bombs, are the reason that the bombs are more effective.

    If the Oklahoma City Federal bBuilding had been a building built as a result of a WPA project, it would have suffered far less damage.

    Modern buildings are built by engineers who are blancing cost vs. minimum required strength. If you know for sure what the minimum required strength is, then you can give yourselves much less margin.

    The worst disaster most WPA buildings could befall is that they are so massive that they might sink into the ground.

    Or, to put it another way... if we built nothing new for 100 years, the only things left standing would be more than 200 years old.

    -- Terry

  73. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  74. You have never been to Ontario then!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not hot, and they are really slow. Nothing is more fustrating then trying to get something other then a "regular" coffee.

  75. Have some perspective. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    I'm having a hard time deciding if this is the stupidest thing the government has done since September 11 or just the most revolting.

    Um, what about the thousands of people who were put into 'indefinite detainment' without access to a lawyer, their families, or anything else? In some cases, their families weren't even notified.

    Stupid? Maybe not. Revolting? That doesn't even begin to describe the action. Certainly more revolting then this.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  76. the ass doesn't help in reproduction but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's good for practice.

  77. What's the fitness function? by tlambert · · Score: 2

    "...an analysis application that mathematically ranks travelers'potential as security threats."

    OK... so what's the fitness function?

    I'd be satisfied with anything that, if we were to run it on all of the people who flew on September 11th 2001, it:

    o flagged every one of the hijackers

    o didn't flag anyone else ...yeah, that's what I thought...

    -- Terry

    1. Re:What's the fitness function? by forkboy · · Score: 2

      OK... so what's the fitness function?

      Male, Score 1
      Muslim, Score 2
      Arabic, Score 3
      Other foreign national, Score 2

      All scores of 5 or higher are detained and questioned. Scores of 3 and 4 have their person and bags thoroughly searched. All others are eyed suspiciously and treated like criminals.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  78. Uh by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Why don't you do it, and then get back to us. I mean, it's pretty obvious you're not a cop, and that you've never asked one. If you had, you would be telling us I'm sure. Why are you so positive you're right?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because he is? newsmedia vill not make any money if they report "all thing is good, just som minor disturbancies" the only way they sell is by blowing things out of proportion, and only report on the violence..

  79. D'oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >a) Spam filtering is not yet widely a criminal matter

    That should have read "spamming" and not "spam filtering," but the point remains.

    Shaun

  80. Re:Who ever stops? by noshellswill · · Score: 0

    Ya know how it goes, pad're ... first they came for the wog terrorists, but I wasn't one so screw it. Then then came for the nazis, but I wasn't ...

  81. This is a crisis by xmnemonic · · Score: 1

    Well, obviously, this is a crisis .

  82. shouldn't it be... by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    cell.PutIn(p). Makes more sense to me, and, how can you put something in something that's been thrown away?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:shouldn't it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they meant to throw away the key...?

  83. Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, they took all my money in taxes to pay for this blasted crap.

    Oh, well, I'm pro-carry but unsecured guns on planes are a bad idea. Even for pilots that aren't trained to the marksmen skill level. Putting a hole through the wall, or window, of a plane at 40K feet is A Really Bad Idea(tm).

    1. Re:Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by radish · · Score: 2

      The only reason they could is because people have always been told that when you are hijacked you sit down and do as you're told. The story was always the same, you get hijacked, fly to some crappy airport and sit there for 2 days. One or two passengers will be shot for show - so make sure you don't stand out or they might pick on you. In the end everyone else is let go unharmed.

      This has now fundamentally changed, people will NOT sit still as there is no guarantee that they will survive the experience. The only hope of survival is to take out the hijackers - in this situation 4 guys with knives would NOT be able to hold a plane. It doesn't matter how well trained you are, the ratio of 400:4 is hopeless.

      Allowing guns onto planes would be simply insane, as has been pointed out one shot could take down the plane. You've just made killing 400 people trivially easy - what on earth would make you think that's a good idea?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by TyZone · · Score: 1
      Allowing guns onto planes would be simply insane, as has been pointed out one shot could take down the plane. You've just made killing 400 people trivially easy - what on earth would make you think that's a good idea?

      You appear to be assuming that firing a single shot aboard a passenger jet would cause the plane to crash.

      If you are referring to the problems of decompression, explosion of the fuel tanks or structural failure of the airframe due to gunfire piercing the skin, I feel obliged to point out that these dangers are heavily overplayed in movies and are not nearly the risk that many people appear to assume they are.

      Horrible decompression: aircraft pressurization systems are engineered to handle lots of leaks, and even a failure of several entire window panels would not cause immediate decompression of a modern aircraft. There would be a lot of noise, and if enough panels are blown out, then the aircraft *would* decompress, but there would be plenty of time to for the pilot to descend to a safe altitude. They *practice* for this kind of thing.

      Exploding fuel tanks: aircraft fuel tanks are punctured by birdstrikes with some regularity. Jet fuel leaks out and the wing & tank require repair. The planes don't explode from this. They're designed to tolerate this kind of thing -- the choice of fuel and the construction of the tanks makes explosion very unlikely.

      Aircraft structural failure due to gunfire: due to a gunshot? Get real. A couple of years ago, a passenger jet lost a lot of it's outer skin due to the failure of *many* of the rivets that normally hold the skin in place. In spite of the loss of much of the upper skin, the aircraft flew on (with the passenger compartment wide open) and landed (approximately) normally. Now this was a terrible thing and several people did lose their lives but the point to remember is that lots of skin fasterners failed and still there was no structure failure despite the violent loss of many skin panels. Gunfire inside the passenger cabin isn't going to create a situation even approaching this.

      --
      TyZone
    3. Re:Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by radish · · Score: 2



      Horrible decompression: aircraft pressurization systems are engineered to handle lots of leaks, and even a failure of several entire window panels would not cause immediate decompression of a modern aircraft. There would be a lot of noise, and if enough panels are blown out, then the aircraft *would* decompress, but there would be plenty of time to for the pilot to descend to a safe altitude. They *practice* for this kind of thing.

      Well that makes it ok then, we'll just have that happen once a week shall we? It'll give the pilots more practice. Sheesh. Pilots are trained to fly with an engine missing - that doesn't mean we can save fuel by switching one off all the time. Cars are built to withstand impacts without killing the passengers, so who needs brakes? Emergency drills are there to try and make safe a dangerous situation. The best way of preventing a catastrophe is still to prevent that dangerous situation ever occuring. You might want to fly on a plane where people are free to take potshots to "test the pilot" but personally I'd rather not.

      Exploding fuel tanks: aircraft fuel tanks are punctured by birdstrikes with some regularity. Jet fuel leaks out and the wing & tank require repair. The planes don't explode from this. They're designed to tolerate this kind of thing -- the choice of fuel and the construction of the tanks makes explosion very unlikely.


      A few years ago an Air France Concorde exploded shortly after takeoff due to a piece of rubber from a tyre puncturing a fuel tank. To be honest, when I'm at 30k feet "very unlikely" isn't good enough.

      Just put away your gun-toting wild-west thoughts for a second and consider this simple question - which is safer - A metal box with 400 people and no weapons, or a metal box with 400 people and lots of weapons? I simply cannot comprehend how anyone would choose the latter.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by radish · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but you are wrong - the concorde accident was caused by a ruptured fuel tank, this article quotes the final report by the french aviation authorities - you can find many more similar quotes on google. I tried to find a transcript of the actual report in english but failed.

      Somehow you think that if people had guns onboard that it'd be a free for all, people shooting all over the place, gun slingers having target practice all over the place. To justify this, you have claimed the "decompression" line

      No, to justify this I have looked at the only western society where guns are regularly and essentially freely carried, the US, and it's astronomical rate of shooting "incidents".

      You neatly sidestepped my question by asking your own, which neatly misses the point entirely. Why do YOU need a gun on a plane if no one else has one? The 9/11 hijackers DID NOT HAVE GUNS, they only had knives. You don't need a gun to defend against a knife - you only need a couple of willing people. If you allow guns onto a plane then suddenly everyone needs them. Suddenly the only people who can sleep easy are those who are "armed, trained, and proactively protecting your life". I am not that (trained or armed), I don't want to be that, and I refuse to sink to that level. I don't want to have to be sitting there with an itchy trigger finger all night waiting for all hell to break loose. I have a right to be safe - and the best way to stay safe is to stay away from weapons.

      You need to get over your collective (national) paranoia, get rid of the fsking guns and give your children a chance to grow up in a safe country. The world is not out to get you, you do not have to carry a small arsenal in your pocket to defend yourself. I have never carried a gun, no one I know has ever carried a gun, hell I have only rarely SEEN a gun - and yet do I get murdered in my bed on a regular basis? No. Do I get carjacked as I drive the streets? No. Do I feel in anyway unsafe due to my lack of firepower? No. Am I glad I live in a country where people just don't have guns? Damn straight.

      ** EOF **

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by spoco2 · · Score: 1
      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGH!

      Bloody hell! There aren't neighbourhoods in Australia that are really considered 'unsafe'... there are not nice ones, there are ones where crime is higher, but there's NOTHING like South Central LA or countless other extremely dangerous areas like in the US.

      Why?

      Because Australia has tough gun laws, therefore, while the bad areas are not nice, generally any type of violence that there may be is limited to beatings and knife attacks etc... which you're MUCH more likely to survive than a gun attack.

      But... what about the OTHER statistic with damn guns? What about the ACCIDENTS?

      Lets have a look at some statistics shall we. (All from here 1990-95 study)

      Country | Accidents with Firearms per 100,000
      Canada 63
      Australia 18
      New Zealand 4
      USA 1,441!

      Oooh, yeah, guns are good.

      Or what about some actual crime figures, if the ridiculous number of firearm accidents doesn't matter?:
      Country | Homicides per 100,000
      Canada 2.2
      Australia 1.8
      New Zealand 2.6
      USA 9.8!

      That's over 400% more than Canada, and you share a border!

      WHEN are people going to realise that having f&*king guns does not make you safer! It DOESN'T, look at the number of damn accidents! These are the kids who accidently kill a friend with dad's gun, the scared homeowner at night who shoots their kid coming in late because they thought they were a burgular... If they had no gun, THESE THINGS WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

      And putting them on a plain... yeah top f&*king idea... just great, I really want this f*&king gun culture in an enclosed space where tensions tend to get high at the best of times... yes please.

    6. Re:Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      OK, I give you that higher density populations can cause a higher level of crime... but what about Japan? With half the USA's population in one WAY smaller country... what's it's murder rate like?

      Let's look at some more figures... (Aren't these fun?) (1999 data from here: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa012599 .htm)

      North America - 32 people/sq.mi
      South America - 73 people/sq.mi
      Europe - 134 people/sq.mi
      Asia - 203 people/sq.mi
      Africa - 65 people/sq.mi
      Australia and Oceania - 9 people/sq.mi

      Ok... so we have Asia with about 630% higher population density than the USA. (Granted, you've got the same thing as Australia, of having some damn large areas with bugger all population in them, and some smaller areas with much higher density, but still)

      So, we have Japan, with a ridiculously high population density, and what is their murder rate? About 1 in 100,000... So... um... high density, moreso than American cities... yet very low murder rate... hmmm.

      Now, I've just taken Japan as an example, as I knew it would be an extreme one, as I know that their culture has something to do with the low murder rate. But then again so does their very strict gun control measures.

      So, population density is NOT a nice, easy excuse for needing guns... There are many things, and I think one of the greater ones you'd find in common with the cities you mention is poverty. There are some extremely poor communities in these cities, and in large numbers too. This coupled with the ready availability of guns does not a happy community make.

      It comes down to community attitude & community idealologies... In the US it's far too swayed over to the "Well the bad guys have guns, so I damn well will have them too, just so I can protect myself"

      Well, that's great, except by having easy access to guns, that means more of the 'bad guys' get them, which means more of the 'good guys' feel they need to have them to be safe, which effectively means that everyone ends up being armed... as has on a number of occasions, children at school.

      Basically I don't think that either of us is going to convince the other that they are right. There are a LOT of studies out there that proport to support each side of the argument, and in fact a single report can end up being read both ways by just focusing in on particular figures...

      Basically what it comes down to is that I hate guns, they are far too quick a way to kill someone with far too little effort, meaning that far too often people end up doing so in a moment of rage, panic or just through plain bad luck, that ends up destroying one life and quite often making the survivor's one full of remorse and sorrow...

      Oh, and I have travelled to LA (Including Compton, Inglewood etc), Mexico, London etc... and I have felt somewhat 'unsafe' in some of these areas, but have I ever felt the need to arm myself?

      Not for a moment... it never even crossed my mind.

    7. Re:Hey, I'd pay you for that insight... by TyZone · · Score: 1
      Well that makes it ok then, we'll just have that happen once a week shall we? It'll give the pilots more practice.

      That's a strange thing to suggest. The pilots already get adequate practice in simulators without placing actual aircraft at risk.

      To be honest, when I'm at 30k feet "very unlikely" isn't good enough.

      When you are travelling over 400 miles per hour at 30,000 feet, you are already betting on "very unlikely" -- the number of things that can go fatally wrong in that situation is huge, and by getting in the aircraft, you have accepted the risk.

      Just put away your gun-toting wild-west thoughts for a second [...]

      Sorry, but the "gun-toting wild-west thoughts" seem to be yours. Law-abiding citizens who choose to carry firearms are among the safest people to be with. Cop bars never get robbed. There are virtually *no* violent assaults at gun shows. The number of concealed-carry permit holders who are arrested for violent crimes is infinitesimal compared to the general population. The hysterical yelling about "shoot-outs" and the "wild west" almost always comes from people who have little or no experience with weapons and no real knowledge of the social and political issues involved in their own civil liberties. For the most part, they have no basis for their opinions other than what they've seen on TV and in the movies (hardly a non-biased source of information).

      [...] and consider this simple question

      No, I don't think I will. The problem before us is NOT simple. Like most human affairs, it is fearsomely complex if you look at it more closely than just listening to the 30-second soundbytes on the nightly news.

      This problem involves making important decisions about our civil liberties, about who is responsible for protecting whom, about acceptance of risk and willingness to take action. It's about who is in in charge of your life and mine. It is about who is going to protect your family when the chips are down.

      Posing simplistic either/or questions is not particularly helpful.

      Anyhow, you've asked the wrong question. You should have asked: would the terrorists prefer to face an aircraft full of unarmed people or an aircraft where as many as 40-50 anonymous passengers have arms equal to any that the terrorists managed to smuggle aboard? Which aircraft would *you* rather be on, when this situation arises? If your answer is that you'd rather be on the plane where the passengers are unarmed because you are so afraid of *the other passengers* then you are afraid of the wrong things.

      Regards,

      --
      TyZone
  84. Snake, you are under arrest for by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    the murders of Moe Sizlack and Apu Nahasapapa...

    Moe. Just Moe.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  85. No need to search databases... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need is a camera and an American watching it. "Uh oh, Arab national. Put up the red flag." Problem solved.

  86. thank god there are people like you, leerpm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure nobody could've figured out that this was a troll without you. It seemed like a very sincere, very relevant comment. ...I think the term is "catch of the day"

  87. Because it doesn't work. by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

    Spammers don't care about people who receive email and don't respond, so they won't try and change their signatures to get past the system. Terrorists, OTOH, are smarter than that, and have different goals.

    "What may be more alarming is that evidence from the September 11 investigation shows that Atta already knew the kernel idea behind this algorithm. Newsweek reported[21] that in the weeks before September 11, Atta and his conspirators practiced their attack by boarding the exact same target flights they intended to later hijack (same planes, same times, same origins and destinations). They wanted to ensure that they didn't raise any suspicions or red flags. This is a clear demonstration of Atta's cleverness. Like Atta, terrorists are smart. They already know this algorithm. And they are already using it."

    This is part of a paper about defeating the system written by Samidh Chakrabarti and Aaron Strauss over at MIT. You really should read it.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  88. Check your facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The best part about the Padilla case, is that he has lawyers fighting to remove him from his imprisonment status.

    That's America. You can legally challenge the government on anything you take issue with.

    Jose Padilla did not challenge the government. He did not hire a lawyer. The government did not appoint a lawyer. His lawyer was hired by his family. That lawyer has had absolutely no contact with Mr. Padilla. The legal proceedings going on right now are not about removing him from his imprisonment status. It is about whether or not he can even go to court to argue that point. If the courts say 'no', as you seem to think they should, the little loophole that makes you so complacent will no longer exist.

  89. Why? by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Informative

    I dunno, maybe because human beings are worth more then peices of fucking SPAM?!

    Just a theory.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  90. Actually, you're a fag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is good, because you'll never be in the gene pool in the first place. ...unless it's Gene Simmon's pool! Hahahahah!

  91. Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are lies...
    There are damn lies...
    And then there are statistics...

    1. Re:Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) said it best by dasboy · · Score: 1

      You should remember that Twain attributed the quote to Benjamin Disraeli.

  92. The artticle? by drank · · Score: 1

    This is probably the article you were referring to.

    It makes perhaps the most damning case against the proposed profiling: it won't catch more terrorists. The crux of the argument is that a terrorist cell can probe security multiple times with multiple people to determine who the system will flag. They then carry out their operation using the people not flagged by CAPPS.

    The authors mathematically model this proposition, and conclude that security is best increased by focusing on "administrative measures" that apply to all passengers, such as better metal detectors and El Al-style passenger interviews.

  93. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  94. Racial profiling? by Snafoo · · Score: 2
    Bad joke:

    Q: Why would anyone want to profile a race?

    A: To remove the loopier elements so that the rest will figgin' fly.

    --
    - undoware.ca
  95. The rights and influence of citizens and aliens by alienmole · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don't get me wrong, I'm proud to be an American. I'm an Army brat who was raised across the US and the Middle East and loves her country. But taking away the rights that makes this country great and alienating the citizens who make it so wonderful is not the way to go about saving it.

    It's not just citizens that get alienated - or, for that matter, who make it wonderful. There are plenty of aliens, both legal and illegal, living and working in the U.S., many of whom have the kind of backgrounds that are likely to throw up red flags in a system like this.

    Alienating the aliens may actually be a worse strategy than many people are willing to acknowledge, in the long run. Aliens in this country tend to provide a lot of feedback to people in their home countries, and can influence attitudes around the world. If America thinks it is "hated" now, wait until policies like CAPPS II have been in effect for a few years.

    This kind of thing isn't just limited to poor immigrants from third-world countries, either. As a sort of reverse example of what I'm talking about, look at America's almost irrationally strong pro-Israel policy. That is ultimately driven by a powerful Jewish constituency in the U.S. (Not trying to be anti-anything, someone please let me know if you think I'm wrong.)

    The same sort of thing can happen in reverse. If the unambiguous and unvarying message coming from aliens in America is that it is a country where it sucks to be an alien, where its much-vaunted human rights are selectively applied to those who are "rooted in the community" etc., that is going to influence attitudes, and will be bad for America in the long run.

    The Bush administration's policies have already led to some unusual international reactions. For example, Germany has recently taken the position that it will not help the U.S. in a war against Iraq, even if U.N. approval is obtained. The reason for this essentially seems to be unhappiness with U.S. unilateralism - not consulting its allies, including those in NATO, before embarking on a course which could create major international conflict.

    The Germans have a point. If the U.S. decides that it doesn't need goodwill from anyone else in the world - including the aliens within its borders - it will soon find out that it only has 5% of the world's population, and that it can't simply invade everyone else.

    1. Re:The rights and influence of citizens and aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the U.S. decides that it doesn't need goodwill from anyone else in the world - including the aliens within its borders - it will soon find out that it only has 5% of the world's population, and that it can't simply invade everyone else.

      Even if the other 95% of the world dosn't decide to catagorise the US as a "rogue state".

    2. Re:The rights and influence of citizens and aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... look at America's almost irrationally strong pro-Israel policy. That is ultimately driven by a powerful Jewish constituency in the U.S. (Not trying to be anti-anything, someone please let me know if you think I'm wrong.)

      Hmmm, I've always thought the reason was from the Christian values that say they will always help protect Israel. It depends on the type of Christian you ask as to how strong this bond actually is. The idealogy stems from (a) reference(s) in the Old Testament that say those who believe in and protect Israel will be blessed.

    3. Re:The rights and influence of citizens and aliens by alienmole · · Score: 2
      I think that the Christian attitude towards Israel may predispose the U.S. towards a pro-Israel policy, but I think that the specifics of the policy, and the degree to which it is has been carried out by administration after administration, are heavily influenced by Jewish-Americans and their lobbyists and political representatives. I live in the New York metro area, and it's hard to miss the signs of this sort of thing.

      By contrast, the political representation of Arab-Americans in the U.S. is very small. It's not surprising that U.S. Israeli policy is skewed.

      As for religious injunctions to protect Israel, I think the U.S. would do a better job of protecting Israel, and itself, if it had a more balanced policy.

  96. Great quote (from 1st reference article) by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    "The trick is to tie this kind of surveillance to some kind of benefit or transaction that large numbers of people must periodically sign up for or renew, like car registration or renewing a driver's license. You don't have to chase people down; they come to you."

    Isn't that amazing? So that's what my thumb print was for when I got my driver's license. Makes me want to go out and create a new category for them - "person who buys strange things just to spite the gov't statistics people".

  97. Re:exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, Flaimbate for a Chomsky quote. Huge suprise.

    I find it hard at all to sympathize with a country where Chomsky is considered "radical" thought. Compare the column inches people -- it is a systematic patern of behavior, not one or two or three times, all the time. Regarding 9/11, ignorance is bliss and we had it coming -- right or wrong. Regardless, it is hilarious that because of 9/11, there is not enough money to support the rampant corporate corruption that has obviously been going on for decades.lol

    Props to gimpboy for the ability to see beyond the nationalist bullshit.

  98. I just can't wait.... by CMRichar · · Score: 1
    OK, so they're starting to put mechanisms in place to keep people from entering or exiting the country... How long before they start arresting people solely on what they know?

    it's gonna be fun when the government starts rounding people up and arresting them because they "might have knowledge of how to make explosives out of household ingrediants that might possibly be used in a negative manner against the United States of America."

    Also looks like it might be time to get rid of all those episodes of MacGuyver that i have on vhs... :-(

    --
    "Good night, good work, sleep well, I'll most likely kill you in the morning." - Dread Pirate Roberts
  99. Remember "brittle" systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember a while back someone posted a Bruce Schneier article, in which he stated that the consequences should not be catastrophic if a security system failed? I.e. that they should be flexible and not brittle? Well in the past, they obviously were flexible - if someone hijacked a plane, then the chances of disaster were almost nil. But now see what happens when planes get hijacked...the system fails completely and utterly.

  100. The F00F Bug by CBNobi · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those that don't know, the F00F bug was a notorious bug occuring on Pentium processors around 1997.

    The above is a technical article on it; here is a simple one, which only lists the actual exploit.

  101. that was an amazing article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yah... see header....

    I'm sold Random brand searchs are search of choice for me..:)

    p.s. thanks for the link

  102. Ya, and bush is really hitler by danny256 · · Score: 1

    Government officials don't have evil agendas any more, i think they care about making money. Evil agendas don't appear in the U.S. because most people are to lazy to pull them off, they just care about the money.

  103. heh by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    These cities where cultural meccas that could easily compare with the cultural capitals of Europe much later in history.

    Like Mecca, for example.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  104. Checkpoint employee or terrorist? by robdeadtech · · Score: 1

    Checkpoint's (and many other companies) International HQ is in Israel... So is there a giant "IF...THEN" for megacorp employees with offices in the middle east? and what about journalists like my girlfriend who just flew to Israel this week. How bad has she just been dinged in the CAPPS system?

    --
    Heil Sig! -Rob
  105. Why don't they just... by magi · · Score: 1

    ...use a modified version of Spamassassin?

    Call it Turbanassassin?

    "...mathematically ranks..."? Rright. That of course sounds much more scientific and non-discriminating than just calling it racial profiling what it really will be...

  106. They made no such assumption by smiff · · Score: 2
    They proved that any profiling system is less effective than searching passangers at random.

    Only if terrorists are distributed over all demographic groups with equal frequency, which is obviously not the case.

    They made no such assumption. The only assumptions were:

    • The system would have systematic false negatives once in a while.
    • The suspects were able to determine when they were flagged (e.g. when they were searched).
    • There were at least some passengers that were not subjected to an extensive search (a prerequisite for having false negatives).
    • Suspects could conduct their research and carry out an attack before the rules change.

    To turn the system against itself, terrorists would first study it by sending people through and checking if they get flagged. The terrorists' demographic make-up does not matter. The system will be wrong once in a while. If the system decides if some people are terrorists, it effectively also decides if some people are not terrorists. By probing the system, the terrorists discover non-terrorist profiles, which they can exploit.

    Let's consider a flight with 200 passengers. The system flags 40 people for an extensive search. If the system flagged people at random, the odds of each terrorist getting searched are 20%. But the government thinks they can increase the odds by flagging the 30 most likely terrorists, and picking 10 people at random. The system, however, incorrectly flags the terrorists as harmless. Now the terrorists have only a 5% chance of being searched (they could be one of the ten people picked at random).

    The point is, because the terrorists have found people who are incorrectly flagged, the profiling system does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. The paper goes on to discuss how the terrorists can find innocent-looking people with as few as six probes.

  107. that woman by Unordained · · Score: 1

    uhm, she didn't call bush hitler -- she said that bush was using war to distract attention from problems at home, and that this was obvious to everyone, that it was a standard tactic, and that -even- hitler (oh goodness) had used such a tactic.

    A causes C.
    B causes C.
    therefore, A is just like B!
    no.

    i'm not usually one to defend bush, but i'd at least ask that we not make the same logical mistakes his aides did when they responded, just like you, to the german minister's comment. if i say that even the town idiot knows that 2+2=4, that doesn't mean that just because you know this too, you're the town idiot.

    oppression doesn't require technology -- it only requires that people be stupid enough to be blinded by whatever's going on.

    1. Re:that woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one long winded explanation of simple logic, thank you for the irony.

      It's me making the connection of my own volition for comedic and satyrical purposes. Bush is worse than Hitler because his mindset is the same and his abilities are infinitely more serious / potentially dangerous.

  108. Imagine the monetary possibilties... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    This could be a cash cow with some modifications..
    add a little survey of what kind of products the suspect likes, and sell the data to the voracious marketers..

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  109. Re:pie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmmmmmmmmmm, poop

  110. Re: testicles by silvaran · · Score: 2

    The Romans used to hold their balls when they gave a "testimonial". And yes, I believe you're full of shit.

  111. Reminds me of ... by pantropik · · Score: 1

    For some reason, this made me think of that scene in Airplane (or maybe it was Airplane II, it's been a few years), where the helpless little old lady is being brutalized by airport security while a group of terrorists carrying ammo cases and rocket launchers stroll by in the background.

    And, of course, Sonny Bono at the gift shop, saying, "...and I'll take the second timebomb on the right."

    It just seems sad to me, the whole "security crackdown". People have been flying commercially for decades, which is pretty much the same length of time crazies of one variety or another have been trying to [blow up | divert | crash | take over] planes. So after all this time, we finally decide it's time to do something about this shocking, unsuspected and unexpected, brand new problem facing air travelers. That's just great. I'm sure everyone who's been blown up, diverted, crashed, or held hostage is really pleased they might not have to go through it again.

    A big shiny new lock for the barn must be a good thing, right? Of course, the horses ran off ages ago ... I guess I can accept that, in theory at least, this and other measures are potentially good things if handled properly (which would be only slightly more shocking than MS Office 2003 releasing for Linux two weeks ahead of the Win32 version, replete with nifty Linux-only features).

    Too little? Who knows. Too late? Definitely.

    Besides, it's been proven over and over that profiling and amassing large databases of personal information (unhackable and infinitely secure, I'm sure) on private citizens is a fair, even-handed means of separating "them" from "us", right?

  112. Like credit scores by quintessent · · Score: 2

    This is just like today's credit scores. They factor in a variety of data points, but they keep the formula secret.

    Racism, sexism, and ageism can all be included, often indirectly, because it's all so "scientific" and therefore sacred.

    What you don't know can't hurt them.

  113. Guns? by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let anyone who wants to carry a gun.

    Sit in the right seat, shoot the gastank in the wing. say good by to 300 people.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Guns? by TyZone · · Score: 1
      Let anyone who wants to carry a gun.

      Sit in the right seat, shoot the gastank in the wing. say good by to 300 people.

      No, you don't say goodbye to 300 people.

      You say "slow leak in wing tank until landing." Jet fuel is not dynamite, nor is it even gasoline. Aircraft fuel tanks are punctured all the time by birdstrikes, which damage the tanks and drive bits of metal into the fuel supply at hundreds of miles per hour. The planes don't explode from this. In order to ignite jet fuel, you have to have the right mixture of air and dispersed fuel. That doesn't happen when you just pierce the tank. Even with a bullet.

      You also say "severe beating administered by passengers in adjacent rows of seats."

      --
      TyZone
  114. Now that's what I call a ... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    ... honeypot!

  115. Wait until the next terrorist attack! by ites · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you think the US goverment has overreacted to Sept. 11, just wait.
    Al-qaeida has struck 5 times against the US so far.
    They will almost certainly strike again.
    They hit the WTC twice, so why not planes again?
    But I think simple suicide bombers are more likely.
    Computer profiling may seem offensive today. But we will have to get used to it.
    In a country as large and porous as the US, there are few other real options.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  116. Learn to read by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Only if terrorists are distributed over all demographic groups with equal frequency, which is obviously not the case.

    except, you're wrong. al-quada could have 10,000 arabs, and only one white guy, and they could use the system (as long as the white guy didn't get caught hanging out with them..)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  117. Art by screwballicus · · Score: 2

    One place this will really become a hindrance, I believe, is in the movement of artists. As a Canadian, I've gotten used to disappointment where concerts/shows are concerned. Any given indy band, be it hip-hop or punk, seems to have around a 50/50 chance of getting over the border to Canada. My ex-boyfriend was a harpsichordist. He used to go down to the states to perform a fair amount. Now, just getting over the border with a harpsichord in his vehicle becomes so logistically impossible that he's unable to attempt it anymore. And that's a shame.

    What's true of copyright lawsuits is true of "security precautions" such as this: if there's a large enough possibility of financial and personal inconvenience as a result of a perfectly legal action, for most of us, it's not worth even taking the risk of fighting it. If, for example, my Lebanese, Arab-in-appearance, American citizen aunt is threatened with strip-searching on every flight she takes (which is, as proven by her experience, absolutely the case), she's just going to avoid flying at all cost (which she does).

  118. Only international ? by _Spirit · · Score: 1

    This seems to be something that is considered because of 9-11. Weren't all the flights involved on 9-11 national flights ? Does it make sense to start using this system to check who boards international flights ?

    Security on international flights is already better than on national flights, this only seems to widen the gap. (Assuming the method works, which is questionable)

    --

    beauty is only a light switch away

    1. Re:Only international ? by Starknight · · Score: 1

      That's because this system really ISN'T intended to screen out terrorists, despite what they're saying. What it IS intended to do is get the American public used to the idea that the authorities can stop and search you on any pretext - and not even tell you why! I've taken some business trips since 9/11/01. On the first one, I was searched 5 times in a row - that's every single time I boarded a plane, both to and from my destination. During the first three of those searches, I had a small amount of a controlled substance on me, which wasn't detected even when I walked by a group of MP's and their guard dog... (Note to law enforcement personnel: Prove it. 8-p ) For the non-math inclined, if they randomly search one person in ten, the odds against my being selected 5 times in a row is 1 in 100000 - not as bad as winning the lottery on one ticket, but bad enough. If it's one in twenty, the odds jump to 1 chance in 3.2 million. I just wish they would ADMIT that they're profiling instead of claiming that all of the checks are random. The next trip was even better. I went through 4 airport security checks that time - and was randomly searched only before boarding the last flight. In my personal belongings, the lady searching discovered a box knife (which I had completely forgotten was in there)... mind you, this is after 4 separate XRays of my baggage. In their defense, I suppose, the knife was mixed in with a bunch of pens and pencils... but shouldn't they have checked that out sooner? Nice to know all this extra security is working, isn't it? I had a knife with a 4 inch blade available to me on 3 different flights (the fact that I didn't remember it is immaterial). Fortunately, the security person who found it didn't press the issue - probably because I told her to throw it away when she brought it to my attention... There. Doesn't that make you feel safer?

  119. Sure complain now... by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's really bothering me. 9/11 happens and everyone goes bezerk "How did these terrorists get weapons aboard a plane!" and "Why didn't anyone realize what these terrorists were up to!" Then now they actually try to "fix" the system and now everyone's shouting "Hey this is an invasion of privacy!" or "Well it'll do no good now!" Sure it is a stupid system, it will probably be cost ineffective, fail misserably, burn down, fall over, and sink into the swamp, but still it's better than nothing.

    I flew to Puerto Rico in January, and I live in NYC, I flew From JFK to an airport in Aguadilla (or something like that.) My bag was searched, my shoes were examined, but the search was completely random. There was one person near the end of the x-ray machine picking up suspicious BAGS (remember, that's BAGS not PEOPLE). They didn't go out of their way and say "Young white male traveling with an old woman! Let's search him!" So it really bother's me to hear people complaining about how annoying airport security is. What bothered me about the search is that I had razors in my bag (for shaving, not on board the plane but I like to keep toiletries in my back pack.) What they actually examined the most were my juggling balls (I guess that makes sense, I'm sure through an x-ray machine it must look like small balls filled with gun powder.)

    Anyway, if they stop 10,000,000 people, search them and just one of them is a terrorist deciding to hijack a plane or blow it up or whatever, and they stop that terrorist, won't it be worth it? You know if they don't you'll just complain "How did they not get this guy?!?! That airport security is so bad, why don't they do something about it!" Plus stuff like this help kill time at an airport, where there's a 90% chance that your flight will be delayed, you'll probably arrive an hour early and your row doesn't board till last (no matter where you're sitting unless it's in business class you lucky bastige!)

    *patiently awaits the -1 troll moderations from the hypocrites who praise disney for releasing anime in the US when 5 minutes earlier they were bashing the MPAA for whatever new evil thing they did*

  120. Lucky for me by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My life is so boring, even if the government was able to find out everything about me, I doubt they would care.

    I actually feel sorta bad for the government guys who have to deal with this stuff. When I go through the computer, I must set off some red flags, but if they examine it closely the worst they will find is I tend to get too drunk in the airport bar before I board the plane, try to flirt with the airline attendent in a terribly clumsy way, and fall asleep.

    I guess they could tap my phone, but the most contraversial thing that I've discussed was bugging my mom for spending too much money on curtans for her house.

    I don't like the fact that profilling happens, but I also feel bad for the people who have to do it. On paper I'm a real bad person. In reality, I'm just dull and any investigation of my life ends up in a innane exercise in tedium.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  121. The begining. by modipodio · · Score: 1

    This is only a preview of things to come . A lot of people are very scared right now due to terrorism and alot of people do not know what to do about it and how to combat it effectively . The war on afghanistan , the patriot act ,the israel/palestine conflict and the possibility of military action in iraq do not by any means spell the end of muslim extremist terrorism. There will be more terrorist attacks on America and its allies , the real question is how big will these attacks be and will anything which America has done thus far be of any use in limiting these attacks in terms of scale and location ,(i.e will The U.S be able to stop attacks within there own borders).

    When considering everything the American government
    has done thus far in its quest to anihilate terrorism we should consider a few questions . How much of what the U.S goverenment is doing right now is cosmetic ? I would say alot . Is it entirely nessecary . No. will it have a big impact on terrorism. No . Do the American public need to feel safe . Yes . Do you think that there will be another Major terrorist attack against America despite every thing that has been done thus far to prevent one. Yes.

    This is the begining of a cycle , a downward spiral
    which has not reached full momentum yet. What really scares me is , what would Happen if there was another attack of a similar scale to sept 11.
    If some one say crashed a plane in to an airport?

    This airport data base is like so many other cosmetic moves to solve problems , it sounds great to the general public who believe that it will save them from evil but in reality it causes more problems than it is supposed to solve ,(even if it worked reasonably well), and it does not even solve the problems which it was ment to solve. If there was another attack on America tomorrow you would have two tons more of shit like this which would stink twice as bad as this does kind off crud does right now .

    Politics in America,(Like in many other places), is run more on appearances and business interests and less on substance and the public interest.Expect more and worse things like this.

    --
    __________________________________________________ "UNIX is a fascist state, Windows is a democracy.
  122. I can see the commercial now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Travelling on a one-way ticket...+5 points
    Being an adherent of Islam...+50 points
    Being a young male of Arab descent...+500 points

    Violating the privacy rights of millions of Americans in a vain attempt to catch a few terrorists who either won't travel by air or won't be found when they do...Pointless

  123. if( p.isRepublican() ) { by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    System.out.println("Thank you Sir, have a nice day.");

    exit(0);

    }

  124. This is NOT off-topic by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

    Twp points:

    I once ranted about a completely different subject, but it was also about what I considered an invasion of privacy (the suject was roadblocks to check seatbelts). One person replied: "End this madness. Vote Libertarian." I know, it sounds trite, and if people continue to think that way, then they have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, but, they really ARE the only ones (in my mind) who would really try to fix the privacy issues in this country. So I'm going with them. It's not like voting any other way is working...the same people in office seem to be content to do whatever they want, our concerns be damned.

    To the people who say increased security--whatever the cost--is a Good Thing(tm):

    LIFE IS RISK

    Sheesh, a hundred years ago there were head-on train collisions because an ENGINEER'S WATCH STOPPED! Do we even want to get into risks of disease and famine? Anyone remember the Black Death? The Irish Potato Famine? And I'm sure life for people in the Dark Ages was positively peachy. How about life in the Roman Empire (senators and other bigwigs DON'T COUNT). They were always on the brink of starvation. A flight leaves JFK every three minutes and you're so worried that you might be on the one flight that contains a terrorist that you want to live in a police state? Get friggin real. You're lucky--damned lucky--to live in a free country at all; we are a historical aberration. Usually it works the other way around; the powerful simply make the weak do whatever they want, on pain of death. Try taking your high-and-mighty "I want to be safe" rhetoric to anyone who has suffered under the Nazis (the entire population of Europe from the English Channel to Russia would be a good start, and don't forget anyone who emigrated to the US from Europe in the last fifty years). Don't be surprised to see where they tell you to stick it.

  125. Depends on the goal, doesn't it? by /dev/zero · · Score: 1

    This is, as the articles say, much wider in application than just airline passengers.

    "Security" is the justification we are given for this system. As you (and others) point out, it provides litte if any.

    On the other hand, what a marvelous tool for enforcing conformity (obediance) while conditioning us to accept more surveillance and more control.

    Once the system is fielded and tested and we're used to it, it will expand again and again. It will be tied to our de facto National ID Cards, whatever form they end up taking. You will not be able to legally work, travel, buy, or sell without the approval of the State.

    We have perhaps five years left as a nominally free country.

    --

    He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
    -- J.R.R. Tolkien
  126. Re:Please Tell Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I know one of the determining factor in CAPPS is what your occupation is. Just over a year ago I worked a lumber company doing grunt work. I had taken some schooling and got into the IT field. So now that my occupation has changed I'm suddenly safer?? Please tell me how that works. Moronic.

  127. Who controls what? by HighTeckRedNeck · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Young, white, Christian men weren't scrutinized in the same way that young Muslims and Arab men are for a very sensible reason. It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with. If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time. We've got LOTS of them here in the U.S. -- much more than we've got of Muslims. People screaming about "racial profiling" seem to be neglecting the numerical facts. Why focus on a single group at all, unless it's statistically beneficial to you? In this case, focusing on Arabs is.

    Well actually statistically there have been only two (count them two) terrorist attacks on American soil by Muslims since 1776. You can look that statistic up for yourself. What we have here is a country being controlled by the press (find me one politician that isn't) and a press that is not controlled by the American population. If the numerical formulas were based on historical evidence then Muslims in America would be given a free pass while born again white male Christians (like the president and much of congress) would all be strip searched. As a Muslim that works as a subcontractor for the military I can tell you about a lot of problems with "hate crimes" and the military being used by hate groups as a training ground.

    My wife works with law enforcement (she has worked with the same PI firm that found the flight school in Florida, which happened to be run by a Lebanese that was called back into service by the Coast Guard ) and I have read their training books on profiling. It is a big negative. The extreme amount of false positives creates such a hassle for the officers that they are told not to do it. The false positive rate causes them to become lax and inattentive to the things they really ought to be looking for. And you can only imagine the social problems profiling creates. This is not what this country should stand for.

    None the less racism is alive and well in DC. Profiling is just a way for "them" to be institutionally harassed (like in the 60's). And if they complain then they can be labeled as "anti-American". No this in not democracy this is tyranny in all its standard forms. I have to ask you, do you really think our present president would not have George Washington shipped off to Camp X-ray for suspicion of terrorism without right of redress or habious corpus. Read the deceleration of independence people and see how many of the grievances mentioned within it can not be leveled against the present US.

    If you wish for these United States to represent the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you need to be vigilant against all enemies to a government of the people, by the people and for the people both foreign and domestic. We have seen the enemy and he is us. When we start to think of the government as an entity in and of itself then we are thinking of a government that rules us not serves us.

    Start looking at the foreign press, both our "allies" and our "enemies". It is a real eye opener. For instance Kol Yisrael radio reported on Oct. 3, 2001 that Ariel Sharon told Shimon Peres (and you should know what their government positions are) "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear: don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

  128. Raising the bar by jfengel · · Score: 2

    I don't think that anybody expected that it would be impossible to get a terrorist through the system. It's incorrect that the profiling system is "less effective" than random searching. The system requires much effort on the part of potential terrorists, and that effort exposes them. They have to spend money, which means that more money must be obtained, and if that money is coming from a tracked source, they risk exposure. It takes time, which means extra opportunities for law enforcement to find them.

    The point is only to raise the bar high enough that it becomes less and less likely for an attack to be made before the perpetrators are caught by other means. The system does make it harder for terrorists to get on a plane. It costs time and money and provides opportunities for them to make mistakes which result in capture.

    I suspect that people would prefer to get a perfect system in exchange for giving up some of their liberties and privacy. Every system involves trading some liberty for security; you're already not allowed to bring a gun on a plane despite your second amendment rights.

    I cannot say whether this particular tradeoff is a good one or a bad one, and that will only be resolved by much debate like this and an eventual unhappy compromise. But it seems to me that demanding a perfect system is not a valid way to reach that consensus.

  129. TWA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I ever fly again, it will likely find out that I onced threatened to sue TWA over some lost luggage that had been stolen and partly returned, and I'll likely be strip searched and anal probed.

    I'd rather walk. They can go to hell.

  130. Oh, I see by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    So, thats why the concord didn't explode after being hit by a peice of an exploding tire a few months ago, right?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Oh, I see by TyZone · · Score: 1
      So, thats why the concord didn't explode after being hit by a peice of an exploding tire a few months ago, right?

      Thank you for your interest.

      You are right. The Concord did not explode as a result of the damage from the failed tire. Rather, it crashed after the crew could no longer control the aircraft.

      The Concord's lower wing and engine nacelle were perforated by numerous pieces of debris. The leaking fuel caught fire. The fire destroyed the controls and other aircraft components in the wing. Despite the efforts of the crew, they were unable to keep control of the aircraft. The aircraft departed controlled flight, rolled inverted and basically flew into the ground.

      This tragedy resulted from (probably) fist-sized chunks of debris which are in no way comparable to bullets. Modern aircraft are designed to sustain lots of different kinds of problems, but this, sadly, isn't one of them. Because of what is probably a maintenance failure (ground crew did not detect and replace the deteriorating tire), many people lost their lives.

      It does not help anyone to confuse the issue here. The Concord crash had nothing to do with guns.

      --
      TyZone
  131. Planes will never truly be safe by asscroft · · Score: 1

    have you ever considered your credit card as a weapon. Imagine you file it down and sharpen it up and now you've got a little blade. You could even cut it diagonally so that it appears to be a rectangle but in turn is two blades. There are all sorts of prison style weapons you can bring on to a plane, or make in transit. Hell they still server some juices in glass bottles and you can get a can of soda if you ask for it. You can squish and rip that can and it's razor sharp. You could even take a bottle of water, freeze it like the hikers do, and let it thaw a little. With your coke can knife you cut open your water bottle and you now have an Ice Pick Dagger like in basic instinct. Even your clothing can be used as a weapon. You can strangle someone with a long sleeve shirt or sweater. Hell, even bare hands can be a weapon, just grab the nearest child.

    The are only two ways to truly be safe.
    One is to have wooden benches bolted to the floor, and to have everyone ride completely naked - and hand cuffed.

    Or to give everyone on board a gun. Then the terrorist will always be out numbered. It won't prevent deaths, but it will prevent full scale attacks.

    Both of these are completely extreme. I think my point is that we need to balance a quest for safety with a respect of privacy and common sense. There is a line of acceptability somewhere between metal detectors and strip searches that last for the entire trip. I think a database that has my entire life history as described above is on the wrong side of that line - and ineffective to boot. It's a bad idea, and it won't make us any safer than we are today.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  132. Sky Marshals on the other hand are a good idea by asscroft · · Score: 1

    However, if you throw one or two armed and trained undercover sky marshals on every flight you'd actually do a lot more to counter real threats of safety, and keep some civil liberties around. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I start to realize that this database isn't about keeping flights safe, its about being big brother. The airplane - hijacking is just a "reason" to go through with this plan. Why? Because knowledge is power. They want the power of knowing everything about you. You need to ask yourself what they will do with such power.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    1. Re:Sky Marshals on the other hand are a good idea by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Asscroft: However, if you throw one or two armed and trained undercover sky marshals on every flight you'd actually do a lot more to counter real threats of safety,
      That's what YOU think. Read this Op-Ed in today's NY Times.

  133. Re: Reply - Muslims, etc. by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Ok... (where to start? Geez....)

    First off, the "Slashdot history lesson" on the religious differences of Muslims and Christians is fine, but I feel rather irrelevant to my original point I was trying to make.

    The fact is, throughout history, people of just about all faiths have done things in the name of their "god" or "gods" which run counter to what their religion claims they believe in. (I can't think of anything more hypocritical and ridiculous than a "Black Muslim", for example - considering the Muslims history of enslaving people.) The bottom line is, I don't really care what a group claims their religious beliefs are. I care much more about the actions they take (or don't take) against others.

    People are singled out by their physical appearance all the time, and it's quite simply done because it makes some logical sense to do so.

    In the U.S., people are singled out for closer inspection by police simply based on their age, or whether or not they've got long, scraggly hair. It's well-known that blacks are pulled over much more often than whites by the police. Try wearing a long trenchcoat and walking around stores in shopping centers. Will security staff keep their eyes and cameras focused on you more than the other customers?

    Are any of these things really "fair" or "just"? In a perfect world, no... But it's also flying in the face of reason to claim that they have no merit. Again, the numbers don't lie. The fact is, there *are* statistically more blacks in prisons than whites, here in the U.S. They commit a larger percentage of the crimes, so police are going to scrutinize them more closely. It's a simple matter of trying to do one's job more efficiently. It's also statistical fact that people over a certain age (around age 40? I don't have exact figures in front of me.) are much less likely to commit violent crimes or thefts. Knowing this, as a security guard or police officer, you're going to pay more attention to the younger people - when trying to stop crimes.

    The U.S. claims simply to be "at war with terrorism". IMHO, this means we probably should be declaring war on Israel, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other countries that generate tyrany. Who knows where it will stop, really? Hell, China is as deserving as anyone else - but we'll, of course, leave them untouched because they're not easy to beat.

    The oil in the Arabic countries was only obtained in the first place using technologies created by the U.S. We, arguably, screwed up years ago when we let them take control of all the oil fields, and now they're selling it all back to us at the highest price they can get through their cartels.

    I don't really care whether or not I can physically identify somone as Israeli or Palestinian. If they're over here in the U.S., in the current political climate, I think it's worth checking them out. Such is war....

  134. "The Siege" by Travoltus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Has ANYONE seen this movie starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis???

    Cheese and Crackers, people, what went on in that movie is what is going on in America right this minute. Terrorists jack us up a good bloody one, and we reply by cutting our own freedoms down to the quick.

    This is like some DDoS attack on the Constitution, and we're playing right into it.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  135. Lock out.... by The+J+Kid · · Score: 1


    Imagine what happens when they accidently turn off capps-lock...

    HAPPENS TO Me all the time!

    --
    Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
  136. Re:Sigh religious innaccuracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably, no one will ever see this, but you said to enlighten you, so here it goes:

    The Mohammedians started this is 800 when they invaded the Christian west. Christianity almost didn't make it. They came through Turkey and up the Iberian penn. and made it to Tours (in France) before they drive out began (wanna know about that battle in France, think "Braveheart" and the mooning scene).

    The Crusades were a direct result of this invasion.

    Allah is NOT the "same god" as Christianity, at least not originally. Why are there little moon's on the top of Mosques? Good question. It is because at one time Allah was a moon god. There is much debate about this because modern Islamic believing scholars are having a hard time dealing with the evidence.

    In Mohammedianism, you make it to Paradise by your good works. In Christianity, you make it to Paradise by the faith in the person who was the Son of God (Yes, even in Catholicism, despite which you might have learned in catcheism class -- read Augustine and Aquinas).

    In Mohammedianism, you have a clear mandate in the later Sirah's to convert people by the sword. There is no coverting people by the sword in the Holy Scriptures of Christianity.

    In Mohammedianism, you must become Islamic when you convert and so must your culture. In Christianity's Scriptures, the message is to adapt yourself to your culture, yet remain above it.

    A Mohammedian should not live under a non-Mohammedian ruler according to Mohammedian scriptures. Christianity's Scriptures say you must respect the authorities becaue they are appointed by God.

    Just a few differences, and there are more, brought to you by a guy who's job it is to teach comparative religion

  137. Terrorists already go to that 'effort' by smiff · · Score: 2
    The system requires much effort on the part of potential terrorists, and that effort exposes them.

    "Much effort" amounts to sending a minimum of six people through the system. Al Qeada probably sends dozens of people through the system anyway. The whole point of the paper is that the system lowers the bar. Once terrorists have collected data from six flights (that they would have taken anyway), they know enough about the system to make it useless. Once they've collected data from seven flights, they can turn the system against itself.

    that effort exposes them.

    The terrorists can probe the system without committing any crimes. They do not take any risks by taking a routine flight that they would have taken anyway.

    Every system involves trading some liberty for security

    With CAPPS, we surrender our privacy, and end up with a system that is less secure.

    it seems to me that demanding a perfect system is not a valid way to reach that consensus.

    I'm not demanding a perfect system. I am pointing out that CAPPS is assisting terrorists.

  138. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  139. national spam filter by mikeee · · Score: 2

    What that don't tell you is that the computer system is just a big MySQL database and a slightly modified verison of SpamAssassin...

  140. CAPPS I identified several of the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, CAPPS I identified several of the terrorists on Sept. 11. Under the procedures in place that day the luggage was X-rayed for bombs, and the CAPPS identified passengers - soon to be terrorists - were allowed to board the planes. Now such identified folks get searched as well.

  141. Re: Reply - Muslims, etc. by be-fan · · Score: 2

    (I can't think of anything more hypocritical and ridiculous than a "Black Muslim", for example - considering the Muslims history of enslaving people.)
    >>>>>>>>
    History goes back a lot farther than you are taking into account. Blacks were only enslaved for a few hundred years. People in the Middle East have been enslaving each other for thousands. Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. The Romans enslaved people. The Chinese enslaved people. Africans enslaved people. A Black Muslim is no more hypocritical than a Black Christian.

    The bottom line is, I don't really care what a group claims their religious beliefs are. I care much more about the actions they take (or don't take) against others.
    >>>>>>>>>
    Keep this point in mind, I'll get to it in a second...

    In the U.S., people are singled out for closer inspection by police simply based on their age, or whether or not they've got long, scraggly hair. It's well-known that blacks are pulled over much more often than whites by the police.
    >>>>>
    And the fact that blacks are pulled over more often is disgusting. Statistically, blacks commit more crimes yes. But there is nothing about being black that causes people to commit more crimes. The real reason is that statistically blacks tend to be poorer, and poor people statistically commit more crimes. There is something about being poor that could lead to criminal behavior, so if anything, the police should be pulling over people in beat-up Honda Civics. But at that point, you've got a moral issue. Yes, pulling over poor people might get you more criminals, but is it right? Well get to that in a second as well...

    Try wearing a long trenchcoat and walking around stores in shopping centers. Will security staff keep their eyes and cameras focused on you more than the other customers?
    >>>>>>>
    You have to seperate profiling based on race/ethnicity from profiling based on behavior. A black or brown person cannot help being black or brown. He cannot do anything to keep from being profiled if racial profiling is in use. A person wearing a trenchcoat (or with the long-scraggly hair above) makes a concious decision to draw attention to himself. If he doesn't want to get profiled, all he has to do is change clothes and get a haircut. Beyond that, you have to look at corralation. There is little statistical evidence that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than other groups. Americans might think so, but that's because Muslim terrorists are the only ones in their experience. I'm willing to bet a fair amount of money that the majority of the people on the British/Irish border believe that most terrorists are Irish. You have to ask yourself, why is the person behaving the way he is. Why is he wearing a trenchcoat and going around eyeing things? If the answer to that question includes a signficant possibility that he's up to no good, then by all means watch him carefully. By the same token, you can ask why someone is going around being Muslim. If the answer to that question includes a significant possibility that he's up to no good, then by all means watch him carefully. But in that case, haven't you blown all semblence of good police work out of the water?

    Now, to return to the two points I held of on earlier. You cannot try to summerize the overall viewpoint of a group by the actions of a few people. If I looked at just Falwell, I'd surmise that all Christians hated women. If I looked at just some hardcore European groups, I'd surmise that all Europeans hated America. Not only is it morally wrong, but its dangerous. The key in any fight is to keep an eye on your enemy. If you take the weak-minded person's way out and use simple logic (rather than *correct* logic) to pin down you're enemy, we're screwed. I was just thinking of a very real example of this. Why is a young Muslim man any more dangerous than an old women from Nebraska? After all that talk of the Nigerian scam, I got to thinking. Wouldn't it be insanely easy of terrorists to take advantage of some person's stupidity and greed and trick them into carrying a weapon into a plane or subway? If some fly-by-night con-men can trick a women into stealing millions of dollars, its almost assured that a giant terrorist organization could do it. At that point, doesn't concentrating on young Muslim men just make you blind to your real enemy?

    Are any of these things really "fair" or "just"? In a perfect world, no... But it's also flying in the face of reason to claim that they have no merit. Again, the numbers don't lie. The fact is, there *are* statistically more blacks in prisons than whites, here in the U.S. They commit a larger percentage of the crimes, so police are going to scrutinize them more closely. It's a simple matter of trying to do one's job more efficiently.
    >>>>>>
    First of all, I'd like to think there is more to being human than being efficient. If there isn't maybe I'm an anachronism from a bygone era. That said, blacks do commit more crimes, yes. But that's just a perfect example of weak-minded people using comfortable stereotypes to get around doing real work. Being black doesn't make you a criminal, being a criminal makes you a criminal. Growing up in bad neighborhoods with careless parents makes you a criminal. That's what police should be looking for. Besides, racial profiling is a sutble issue as far as law-enforcement is concerned. Its a 1% thing. Almost all criminals emit far stronger signals (a fact, btw, which is recognized by police departments). If the police were 100% effective in flagging these far more important signals, then maybe we could debate about what kind of increased efficiency racial profiling would bring. As it stands, the minor increase in efficiency is far outweighed by potential increases in other areas.

    It's also statistical fact that people over a certain age (around age 40? I don't have exact figures in front of me.) are much less likely to commit violent crimes or thefts. Knowing this, as a security guard or police officer, you're going to pay more attention to the younger people - when trying to stop crimes.
    >>>>>>>>
    Again, it goes back to the 1% issue. You might be 1% more efficient if you look at age. But if you're not fully analyzing all the bigger signals of criminal behavior, that 1% doesn't mean much. And yes, police departments agree with me on this. That's why they're phasing out racial profiling (because in todays environment, they certainly could get away with it). It just diverts attention from areas of observation that have far larger potential gains.

    The U.S. claims simply to be "at war with terrorism". IMHO, this means we probably should be declaring war on Israel, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other countries that generate tyrany. Who knows where it will stop, really? Hell, China is as deserving as anyone else - but we'll, of course, leave them untouched because they're not easy to beat.
    >>>>>>>
    Oh god. One terrorist attack and we go flying of the deep end. Clue: The real world is not so simple. International politics is something that only the knowledgable should even pretend to understand. Do you even understand the potential ramifications of what you're suggesting? Do you realize that in almost all of these situations, its not a nice black/white case where the US is right and everyone else is wrong. We've got as much blame in this as most anybody else. I certainly can't analyze an international situation as complex as you describe. Unless you've got some special qualifications I should know about, then I doubt you can either. Its exactly this kind of "armchair diplomacy" that makes US foreign policy suck as much as it does.

    The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. Go read a book. In fact, read several. Spend a summer studying this, because its damn important. Until then, don't give me any of this bullshit.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  142. Re:This is no crisis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How long can you milk a one-day incident into a crisis? Will it be a crisis ten years from now? Why is it a crisis today when a year has passed peacefully (except for wars started by the US government)?

    911 isn't even a crisis like heart disease is a crisis. In one crisis, 5000 people die in a week. In the other crisis, 3000 people die in a week. The media doesn't report the 5000 people dying in a week -- because it happens every week, year in and year out. So what if 5000 people died this week; it's not news, it doesn't sell any papers.

    But 3000 people dying in one week (check the overall death stats (page 2 of PDF) -- it didn't even make a little blip) means "everything is changed"? Get a grip. An idiot shooting some diplomat in Central Europe was the excuse for starting World War I, too -- but was it really worth all the death and destruction that followed?

  143. Re:Sigh religious innaccuracies by be-fan · · Score: 2

    Probably, no one will ever see this, but you said to enlighten you, so here it goes:
    >>>>>>>>>
    Actually, thanks. A little knowledge never hurts. Though, I don't really think these differences are significant enough if you look at the meaning of Christianity and Islam in a modern context, and its relevence to real people. I was trying to point out that the two religions are not as different as everyone seems to think (because people don't have enough experience it).

    The Mohammedians started this is 800 when they invaded the Christian west. Christianity almost didn't make it. They came through Turkey and up the Iberian penn. and made it to Tours (in France) before they drive out began (wanna know about that battle in France, think "Braveheart" and the mooning scene).
    >>>>>>>>>
    Yes, there was the Islamic empire, which did capture large areas of Christian lands. I'm not going to argue that, save to say that Christians have done their fair share of conquering.

    The Crusades were a direct result of this invasion.
    >>>>>>
    Now you can't say this and reveal the entire truth of the situation. Yes, this was a major factor, but social and political factors rule people's lives (especially the lives of rulers), and the Crusades were as much political as religious.

    Allah is NOT the "same god" as Christianity, at least not originally. Why are there little moon's on the top of Mosques? Good question. It is because at one time Allah was a moon god. There is much debate about this because modern Islamic believing scholars are having a hard time dealing with the evidence.
    >>>>>>>
    Makes sense, since Islam originated from a tribal culture. That said, the Judeochristian God almost certainly originated from (or was heavily influenced by) an older tribal diety as well. Either way, the point remains that it is generally accepted today that the Gods of both religions refer to the same God, which is what is important in the context of comparing the two religions in modern times.

    In Mohammedianism, you make it to Paradise by your good works. In Christianity, you make it to Paradise by the faith in the person who was the Son of God (Yes, even in Catholicism, despite which you might have learned in catcheism class -- read Augustine and Aquinas).
    >>>>>>>>
    I'll defer to your experience on this until I have a chance to read Augustine (Aquinas came much later and doesn't seem to be as relavent to a discussion of the origins of the religions?) Though, I'd argue that in modern times, there is a strong element of salvation by good works in both religions, even in most Protestant ones. Not in the direct teachings, perhaps, but among the believers.

    In Mohammedianism, you have a clear mandate in the later Sirah's to convert people by the sword. There is no coverting people by the sword in the Holy Scriptures of Christianity.
    >>>>>
    This is debatable. The Quran is rather conflicted on this issue. The fact remains that in both religions, conversion by the sword was commonplace.

    In Mohammedianism, you must become Islamic when you convert and so must your culture. In Christianity's Scriptures, the message is to adapt yourself to your culture, yet remain above it.

    A Mohammedian should not live under a non-Mohammedian ruler according to Mohammedian scriptures. Christianity's Scriptures say you must respect the authorities becaue they are appointed by God.

    Just a few differences, and there are more, brought to you by a guy who's job it is to teach comparative religion

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  144. Ground Crew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me crazy, but isn't the ground crew a bigger threat than the passengers?

    From what I've been told be people who have actually worked on a tarmac, security is a total joke. At O'Hare for example, there's a network of underground tunnels that one can disappear down and reappear on the other side of the airport. And as for securing access to the tarmac, you have to pass through one(!) keyed access door which other employees are glad to hold open for you.

    But we all knew that airport security wasn't about securing the airports!

  145. Air marshals are a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ok, look at this scenario; and tell me why air marshalls are a good idea:

    A guy with no history of militancy, clean records, US citizen, maybe ex-army applies and is accepted as an airmarshall. He does the training, passes all the exams, and starts flying the skies armed.

    Say that person had been Timothy McVeigh and he decided to hijack a plane and crash it into Olkahoma City, even today there would have been no stopping him, racial profiling or not

    All this is a smoke screen, a security blanket. It has no worth apart from some PR value, and ultimatly is a diversion.

  146. We already have no fly list..... by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

    ...I think a lot of people forget this.

    It's damn near impossible to get your name off of them too. Have the same name as someone wanted by the state? That person use an alias similar to your name? An zip code match? An address match? Those things can flag you already. Worse, if "NO FLY" comes up on your name after you have gotten to your origional destination and you want to get back home -- maybe even back into the US. How do you resolve it? Currently there isn't a means to do it. You may have that haunt you for years.

    "Community ties". Okay, how stupid is this program? They said it would check for magazine subscriptions. Okay, can I raise my ties level +1 with every magazine I subscribe to? Or only the right kind of magazines? I assume it will check for a phone in your name, maybe even utility bills. That's not hard to do even if you don't have an apartment/home. It sounds like it's tied into Lexis Nexis -- if it is, order Pizzas *(they buy information from Dominos and Pizza Hut), fill out every single prize and contest entry form you possibly can - take every marketing survey you possibly can with same information given. Knowing what you can get on Nexis should allow you to raise your score many points for not much cost. Nexis is tremendously inclusive in what it will find, but it's not not "smart" in any way. Example: ordering a pizza in your name from a friends house and getting your name entered in the Domino's box could show up as a "hit" that you live there. Doing the same from a hotel may also do it. Paying for a pizza by check or credit card can also generate a 'hit' at that address if they use services to verify the check like CheckPlus, or CheckMate. Credit Card information is routinely sold to Nexis by a majority of bank card companies. What if the next person to rent that room and order a pizza ...or the next person to live in any one of those apartments/houses/apartment buildings is a terrorist? Will you get flagged? This is the "quality" of information Nexis can give them. What if there are two Jack Taylors? How do you sort information about one Jack Taylor from another? Again, Lexis is inclusive, but not smart. Many collection companies use Nexis for "skip tracing" and I can tell you some real horror stories about harassing phone calls generated from them that no matter how many times you tell them "XXX doesn't live here" they just keep calling, sending threatening letters. Again "quality". Gods help the person named "Skip Tracy", or "Bill De'fault". ];-)

    http://www.lexisnexis.com/

    We already have plate readers at borders and certain toll roads. I'm aware of at least *one* toll booth that sells information to Nexis. Is where you drive going to be a factor? If you live in St Louis, but have family, a girlfriend (lucky geek!), an assignment in Chicago that requires you to use the toll roads there ...Are your 50-80 hits going to make you flag as an inconsistent with your living arrangements when you claim your residence as St Louis? Border crossings are using their own database with flags for certain people to stop and harass now. Are they going to use stuff in CAPPS II as well?

    If they use Nexis this is the kind of information that is going to be available, plus any government databases. Try challenging your information (or even getting it) from Nexis now. Good luck. Keep in mind, many policitcal and charity organizations sell your information as well. A good deal of this will find it's way into their database. Is that information going to be used? ...It's already being used by certain companies in background checks for employment. Applicants are unlikely to know why they were rejected from a job. Pharmacutical companies like Servier are notorious for screening applicants for political views (French based, but US offices).

    Being harassed by the police, detained by customs, having the FBI come to your door, being maked "No FLY" and denied your right of travel is a lot more serious than getting junk mail.Yet the information quality is no better.

    --
    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  147. What about Instinct by sjlutz · · Score: 1

    Ok, we know that a system like this is not going to be absolutely dependable and accurate. We may not like it, but what if it starts being used?

    Now we have minimum wage "security" guards in the airports reading a computer screen that ranks people as "Normal" and "Possible Terrorist".

    After awhile these people will be totally dependant on these systems that even the most obvious possible terrorists would get through because the computer has taken away the use of human instincts from the security guards.
    The terrorist (if they ever try to fly again) will find work arounds to "clean up" their people so they get a low "terrorist ranking." Now the only people being searched are innocents and unskilled terrorists.

    I mean seriously, how many of the terrorist would actually use their real passport to get onto a plane anyway? What happens if you do not show up in the database? "We're sorry, you don't exist, therefore you cannot fly today.. please try the local bus station."

  148. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  149. Top Reason for atheists to support Israel.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a democracy, stupid!

  150. Re:Top Reason for atheists to support Israel.... by alienmole · · Score: 2
    You're right, it is a stupid democracy. It elected Ariel Sharon.

    Hmm, come to think of it, the USA elected George Bush. I'm starting to see the connection...

  151. Re: Reply - Muslims, etc. by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Actually, it seems you've missed part of what I was trying to drive at. Of course, neither you or I can claim to have a firm grasp on all matters of international diplomacy. I don't think the U.S. government really has a better grasp on it than any of the rest of us, either.

    The current "war on terrorism" is really a big, nebulous joke - if you really want to know what I think about it. My point is, when your leader goes around making vague declarations such as "this is a war on terrorism", and "the enemy is anyone who harbors terrorists", he could just as well fight his own citizens as another country.

    Since the U.S. is not run by a Libertarian, but rather, a Republican - it doesn't surprise me that things played out this way. (The attempts to "clarify" our war goals by saying we're trying to find Bin Laden and other terrorist "leaders" is just an excuse. Throughout history, when nations have been at war, how often were the leaders killed? Even Hitler, in WWII, ended up killing himself. The allied forces didn't get to him first.) It's a pretty safe bet that if you've got the power to declare war, you won't be one of the people getting killed over it.

    Therefore, I have to conclude that what our nation really wants is "carte blanche" to beat down anyone who "crosses our path", and a way to install fear into other nations that insist on indoctrinating their people with a "United States is evil/Satan/you name it" rhetoric.

    That being said, we *are* at war now, and the terrorists that started it were trained and sent over from the Middle East. We all seem to agree that we're no good at determining exactly which Middle Eastern country someone is from, when they're over here. Fine, but then do we not have to try our best anyway? (Or do we simply say "It's not possible to do this without unfairly disrupting the lives of some innocent people." - and forget about the whole thing?)

    You said yourself, the key in any fight is to "keep an eye on your enemy". This nation has agreed to fight a fairly non-specific battle against Middle Easterners holding grudges against the Western way of life. That being the case, it sounds to me like that means stopping and/or investigating all Middle Easterners choosing to reside here who aren't American citizens.

    Why is a young Muslim man any more dangerous than an old woman from Nebraska? Surely you don't really need me to answer that one for you, do you? For starters, how many elderly women have *ever* hijaacked an airplane? How many have murdered people in the last 50 years, vs. young Muslim men? Has the C.I.A. had any reports of terrorist activity coming from old women in Nebraska? I suspect not.

  152. Don't futz with Canada: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (a) we torched the White House in 1812;

    (b) Vimy Ridge wasn't taken by anyone else that tried in WW I;

    (c) Canada fought WW I starting in 1914 and WW II in 1939, not 1917 and 1941 like the U.S.;

    (d) Canadians don't sew U.S. flags on their back packs when travelling, while the reverse is often done by Americans who don't want to attract the hatred of yahoos (see, we Canadians like the U.S., we just don't always agree with you);

    (e) Canadians have a violent, arrogant idiot in a virtual hammerhold on power (the Prime Minister), whereas the U.S. has... George W. Bush;

    (f) Canadians have had two separatist referendums and zero Civil Wars, whereas the U.S. still thinks there were actually two sides to theirs (and why was Robert E. Lee not tried for treason?);

    (g) Canadians generally get invited to where their troops get sent, at least since WW II.

    God bless America, my friend. Just remember who your friends are.

  153. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  154. OMG - thanks for the eye opening link by asscroft · · Score: 1

    I was wrong. Sky Marshals are even worse. Thanks for the enlightening link. When I was a kid, they tought us about the terrors of communism. They showed one movie that told about innocent russians who would get arrested on trains for talking about God aloud. Then they would teach us about how the soviets show propaganda movies to their people to make them hate the US. They showed us some of those films. I asked if we weren't doing the same thing, with the film we had seen earlier, and was told that the difference was that our movies were true. I've been noticing propaganda for a long time, that is no secret. But now we're also arresting people on planes for no good reason. Seems to me we're not much better than the people I was taught to hate for their evil ways. This is indeed a scary time.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  155. Oh, and a couple of other things :) by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    1. I did rant a bit in that first post there didn't I? I apologise for my bluntness.

    2. I would probably agree that churches cause crime... but that's probably to do with me thinking that religion does more to breed intolerance than almost anything else.

    3. I spelt plane as plain! Oh my... :) (Unless it was a plain plane, then that'd be alright)

    4. I still don't like guns... :)

  156. Algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly the algorithm will go like this:

    Is the passenger White?
    No Threat.
    Is the passenger Asian?
    No Threat.
    Is the passenger Brown?
    Threat!!
    Is the passenger Arab?
    Super Threat!!!
    Is the passenger Muslim?
    Super Duper Threat!!!
    Has this

  157. No by greenrd · · Score: 2
    I don't see the point of sending the same individual 6 times. The point is to use different people to check out what kind of people will be treated as harmless.

    1. Re:No by frp001 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you... But if you look carefully at section 3.1 where the authors describe the algorithm, just after the (4) " Now send this operative on a mission with intent to harm, complete with weapons or explosives" This should make sense :
      *the CAPS algorithm and parameters are unknown,
      * you do not know what information the system contains concerning a given individual.
      * A random selection is included in the system
      Because of these three factors, you cannot categorize what kind of people get flagged. I suppose this is why the authors claim terrorists would have to send the same individual.

      --
      May I use your sig please?
  158. Violent Crime: Lowest Level in 30 Years by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2
    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  159. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    The departing division general manager met a last time with his young
    successor and gave him three envelopes. "My predecessor did this for me,
    and I'll pass the tradition along to you," he said. "At the first sign
    of trouble, open the first envelope. Any further difficulties, open the
    second envelope. Then, if problems continue, open the third envelope.
    Good luck." The new manager returned to his office and tossed the envelopes
    into a drawer.
    Six months later, costs soared and earnings plummeted. Shaken, the
    young man opened the first envelope, which said, "Blame it all on me."
    The next day, he held a press conference and did just that. The
    crisis passed.
    Six months later, sales dropped precipitously. The beleagured
    manager opened the second envelope. It said, "Reorganize."
    He held another press conference, announcing that the division
    would be restructured. The crisis passed.
    A year later, everything went wrong at once and the manager was
    blamed for all of it. The harried executive closed his office door, sank
    into his chair, and opened the third envelope.
    "Prepare three envelopes..." it said.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...