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."

Comments

Lets hope the Pentuim bug is really gone

[Zipster]

"mathematically ranks travelers' potential as security threats"

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

Damn!

[Marijuana al-Shehi]

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

Let me throw a curve ball

[cscx]

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

Re:And?

[shepd]

>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.

Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction

[tyrani]

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?

Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction

[Glytch]

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

Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction

[JimBobJoe]

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.

If anonymous people are just as trustworthy

[anthony_dipierro]

why do Anonymous Cowards start their score at 0?

I managed to get part of the source code...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!);
}

Re:I managed to get part of the source code...

[DarkHelmet]

// 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.

Re:I managed to get part of the source code...

[gnovos]

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.

Re:I managed to get part of the source code...

[gnovos]

...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)

I wonder what...

[JonWan]

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"

the usual stuff

[g4dget]

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.

Sigh.

[Skoshi]

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.

Re:Sigh.

[elmegil]

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.

Re:Sigh.

[Wateshay]

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.

Re:Sigh.

[Malcontent]

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.

Re:Sigh.

[be-fan]

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.

New Target For SPAM...

[mbogosian]

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!"

Function creep isn't the half of it.

[van der Rohe]

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.

This is just an upgrade

[Space Coyote]

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.

I can see it now

[autopr0n]

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."

1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

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.

Re:1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

[mbogosian]

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.

You have a lot to lose though

[thelexx]

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

Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore.

[e_n_d_o]

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.

Re:Profiling...

[krenshala]

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 ..."

Re:Why would anyone want to stop this?

[autopr0n]

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...

heh

[autopr0n]

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.

Making the lives of foreign students hard

[saihung]

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.

hypocrisy run amok

[mcrbids]

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?

Re:hypocrisy run amok

[DavittJPotter]

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."

This system is no better than CAPPS I

[smiff]

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.

Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest...

[TKinias]

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>

Fun at LAX

[wytcld]

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.

Re:Fun at LAX

[ShaunC]

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

A new market like credit scoring!

[bloo9298]

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."

Shit dog, it works

[BSDevil]

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...)

Re:Shit dog, it works

[autopr0n]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why would anyone want to stop this?

[kfg]

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

Why?

[autopr0n]

I dunno, maybe because human beings are worth more then peices of fucking SPAM?!

Just a theory.

Re:And?

[FredGray]

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...

The rights and influence of citizens and aliens

[alienmole]

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.

The F00F Bug

[CBNobi]

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.

Guns?

[autopr0n]

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.

Lucky for me

[interstellar_donkey]

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.

Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again....

[FFFish]

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...)