Registered Traveler ID Initiative

Broadcatch writes "At the coming CardTech/SecurTech in Washington D.C. the Transportation Security Administration will make their first public announcement of the Registered Traveler ID Initiative . Seems they haven't gotten the word that ID cards are a bad idea."

Comments

It wouldn't have made a difference!

[Kevin Burtch]

These politicians trying to push this through are
just playing on the fears of the people who really
have no idea what happened on 9/11!

They KNEW exactly who was getting on these planes!
Not one of the terrorists used a fake identity or alias!
All of them were suspected terrorists, and they all
used their own identity.

The government is just trying to shift the blame
away from themselves for failure to actually block
these terrorists from boarding the planes ALL AT
THE SAME TIME.

Same goes for the cameras with the face-recognition
software... they're POINTLESS, except they allow
the US government to track it's own citizens!

I can see it now.....

[Newer Guy]

At every airport gate, ship dock, bus platform and train station....a guy that kinda looks like the guy in the Sprint PCS commercials, but with a mustache and wearing a black leather coat walks up to everyone and says: "your pay-pers pleese!"

Two words.

[cduffy]

"internal passport".

Okay, maybe that's not what they're doing *quite* yet... but if I've ever seen a slippery slope, that's where this one's heading to.

Re:Two words.

[Anonymous Coward]

A slippery slope is indeed a logical fallacy, but dismissing an entire argument based on its presentation, instead of its merit, is idiocy.

Let me spell this out for you: Travel ID cards will restrict your ability to travel within the United States. This isn't a slippery slope because that what they are DESIGNED TO DO. They aren't made so that a state can count how many American tourists it gets each year; they aren't so that the government can determine the number of air travelers. They are expressly designed for the very thing we are afraid of.

It isn't a fall down a slope that is troublesome - it is because it is happening right now. You don't need to invoke "what if..." because the things that are going on at this very moment are reason enough to get inflamed.

The problem is how they fail

[redfiche]

As with any security system, there will be certain limitations of freedom. That is the price of safety.

The problem that needs to be addressed is how will the system fail? What safegaurds will be in place to protect you if your card is lost or stolen? What recourse will you have to remove false information about you from the databases? What are the ramifications of someone successfully couterfeiting one of these cards?

I don't think the idea of a national ID card/database is inherently bad, but there are a number of question that need to be addressed to make sure the system's cost in loss of freedom does not outweigh its benefit.

Privacy?

[foxxo]

I'm not trolling, but could someone please tell me what the "privacy concerns" surrounding this are? I checked out all three of the links included in the post about why ID's are so "bad," but the closest thing I got to an explanation was having catch-phrases like "internal passport" thrown at me. I really do want to know what's got everyone's panties in a bunch. Please reply.

Re:Privacy?

[RayBender]

I'm not trolling, but could someone please tell me what the "privacy concerns" surrounding this are?

Because knowledge is power, and power corrupts.

Seriously though, it's hard to give a short answer without using catch-phrases, but your question is reasonable, so here goes..

According to many people, the specific problem with the proposed new database and ID number is that it gives too much power to law enforcement and intelligence services. How? Well, the value of a database increases combinatorically with the amount of information (about a given individual) in it. At some point it really becomes possible to know almost everything about a person... And that is scary, because that means that most likely you can now intimidate or control them. What if they are gay? You can threaten to cost them their job (or life in some places of the country). What if they are looking at porn? You can threaten to ruin their marriage. What if they have an expensive health problem? You can cost them health insurance. Or you can just plain make stuff up about them - and once it is in the system there may be little they can do. Imagine not being able to buy a car or a house because you can't get credit - because the computer says you are not credit-worthy. Or if you want to work at an aerospace company but can't get a job because you "aren't cleared". There is often very little you can do to clean up your reputation (If you've ever been a victim of identify theft you know what I'm talking about). The point is that it doesn't take much - maybe you don't go to jail, but your life gets hard enough that you stop worrying about improving government and just hunker down trying to keep a job.

Another example; the library may have a list of your reading habits, your ISP knows what you look at on the Web, and the credit card company knows what you purchase... Now, what if the government had easy access to all of the above? The point being "easy" as in they can go fishing (or data mining) for "suspicious" behaviour - as opposed to having to obtain a warrant for a specific individual based on probable cause.

This gets very interesting when you start compiling "watch lists", where certain people are singled out for attention. The recent airline security lists are a perfect example - they are apparently being used to harass peace activists, left-leaning activists etc etc. It really doesn't take much to have a chilling effect on political freedom. You may be able to shout your political opinions on the street corner thanks to the first amendment, but if it means that you'll be strip searched every time you travel, you may prefer to keep a lower profile. And that's all those in power want - for the opposition to just fade away.

The most serious problem is that it circumvents any checks and balances to the abuse of power. Imagine if the FBI started compiling files on the political opposition, and used blackmail to silence them? This is illegal (not to mention bad for the country because it destroys democracy). The courts should step in, right? Well, what if the FBI started compiling information on judges, and used that to keep the courts in line? Maybe some good investigative journalists will blow the whole thing open - or maybe they can be blackmailed too...(or nowadays the parent company can be convinced to shed "unprofitable" investigative reporting). You may think this will never happen, but do you really want to put that kind of power in the hands of a small group of people, with no insight into what they use it for? In case you don't know your history, look up Hoover and the FBI. Or read about the STASI in East Germany, and how to control a society using a primitive version of this kind of database. There it was sometimes possible to break up political protests by merely taking pictures of the demonstrators - they all knew what the consequences would be if they were identified.

I think history shows us that government works best when its powers are strictly limited. This past year has seen a tremendous increase in government power; it remains to be seen what will happen, but past experience isn't comforting.

this is not an ID for everyone

[Slashdotess]

Reading the story you find out this is not a national ID system.
TSA has made important progress in selecting a uniform system of identification, a card-based biometric information system, that will support positive identification of individuals working in the transportation sector and encompassing the aviation, train, shipping, and trucking industries.
This system is not for you, the everyday individual. This is for making sure people like stewards on airlines don't have to go through security checks everyday to see if they're carrying a bomb. Using new authentication technology that's been discussed on /. already (ie: retinal scanning) they can pass these people by so they can do their jobs quickly, rather than waiting in a security line everyday just to go to work. We do that enough on city "expressways" already..

But it might make a difference in the future!

[Ghoser777]

The argument is necesarially that these measures would have prevented past terrorist attacks, but tht it might help prevent future ones. It doesn't get to the root problem of what happened on September 11th (there's a lot of people who really really really really really hates us), but that wouldn't be a reason to not do this.

Of course, the more security you put in place, the more secretive nefarious people will try to be. I wonder if it's more likely to catch a terrorist who knows there's extreme security so they're very delibrate in their actions and extremely careful, versus catching a terrorist who thinks there is minimal security so is less likely to be so secretive and careful.

F-bacher

Re:But it might make a difference in the future!

[anthony_dipierro]

I wonder if it's more likely to catch a terrorist who knows there's extreme security so they're very delibrate in their actions and extremely careful, versus catching a terrorist who thinks there is minimal security so is less likely to be so secretive and careful.

"We're sorry folks, this has been a honeypot flight. You're not actually at your expected destination. Please schedule a new flight at the front desk."

Re:But it might make a difference in the future!

[symbolic]

might help

Right. Where liberty and the propensity for government abuse are concerned (the U.S. has a very rich history of such abuse), might help doesn't cut it.

What the average American doesn't realize is that of all the alleged terrorist attacks that have been thwarted, none of these efforts relied on any of the proposed technology, the newly-created Office of Information Awareness (to be headed up by a convicted felon, no less), nor did it rely on the abrogation of liberty as American citizens. Although people like Ashcruft, Bush, and North might be foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to gain such a significant amount of control over the lives of American citizens, few people seem willing to ask a very important question: How much of this is necessary?

Aside from questions of necessity, any system is only as strong as its weakest link. Imagine the kinds of problems that can surface with access to critical parts of the system...say, a stack of blank birth certificates, the machines used to produce such documents, or a clerk, interested in making a few extra bucks by providing false - yet certifiable - documents to someone.

And one question I've never seen asked yet - what happens when the data being housed by the Office of Information Awareness is wrong? What oversight exists to make sure the data are accurate, and to ensure that any inaccurate data will be corrected? Those who who have had the misfortune of dealing with any of the major credit reporting agencies know the futility involved in this process. If people think we have problems now...just wait. "Security" could become our biggest nightmare.

Re:But it might make a difference in the future!

[bbc22405]

The argument is necesarially that these measures would have prevented past terrorist attacks, but tht it might help prevent future ones.

No, it's just more intrusive crap that they're piling on law-abiding citizens. It is unlikely to do anything but aid in the post-mortem analysis of what the terrorist ate for dinner the night before the attack, etc. You still might not even know who the terrorist really was, just that the same ID card was at that particular Pizza Hut.

ID cards can be forged. ID cards can be stolen. ID cards can be just blithely gotten and used appropriately by people who are more violent than you assumed they were.

The most obvious things to do, screen ALL bags, have bomb-sniffing dogs sniff all your stuff, and have gun-toting federal agents on ALL flights, has not yet been accomplished. I can understand the difficulty in obtaining more dogs quickly.

The inability to get more federal agents on flights is inexcusable. We could transfer to this job the numerous DEA agents who are currently engaged in our highly harmful and bogus War On Drugs, and put them on the planes. (Bam, fixed two problems at once!)

The whole "registerd traveler" idea is absurd

[rebbie]

What is to prevent a "registered traveler" from doing something nefarious? Nothing! None of the 9/11 band of bad guys hid their identities. They didn't have to or want to. They (at least the leaders) wanted to die and to let everyone know who did what. Besides, their MO -- planes as missiles -- will probably not work anymore on commercial jets.

While the TSA scrambles to secure airports terrorists will likely just find another way to accomplish their goals while the rest of us stand in a "security" line designed to make us feel safer.

Does anyone else remember the bogus Pan Am security screening fee from years back? They didn't actually do extra screening but the impression of doing more made the passengers feel better...

Re:The whole "registerd traveler" idea is absurd

[Scratch-O-Matic]

None of the 9/11 band of bad guys hid their identities.

That's because they knew they didn't have to choose between a security-related identification card or extra scrutiny at the gate.

People don't seem to understand, or they aren't willing to accept, that security and safety are games of hedging and probability. To use a tired old analogy, it's like locking your front door. Will that stop a determined criminal? No, but it will a) make your house a less attractive target, and b) force bad guys to look for other ways in. The big-picture goal behind any given measure is not to ensure absolute prevention, it's to force bad guys to work harder, and to influence the direction of their attempts to circumvent your defenses.

For Transportation Employees

[Lethyos]

The idea is to positively ID people working in the transporation business.

TSA has made important progress in selecting a uniform system of identification, a card-based biometric information system, that will support positive identification of individuals working in the transportation sector and encompassing the aviation, train, shipping, and trucking industries.

This is bad for several reasons. First, it won't solve anything. All it will do is further infringe upon the privacy of people working in this sector. The terrorists did not strike at us by impersonating workers, but just regular travellers.

It also won't do any good if/when it's used on people just going from place to place. Once again, the terrorists did not forge any identification. They didn't have to. Replacing one form of ID with another in this case is just stupid.

Nonsense like this is just bringing us closer to a locked down state where you must have your papers in order to go anywhere. And to think, at one point, this nation mocked the Russians for this kind of crap.

New Agency Name

[SloWave]

George's Electronic Security, Transportation, And Papers Organization

Ligitimate Fraud

[zulux]

Personally I don't see what the big deal is if this is combined with some consumer protection:

United airlines has a right to demand that I provide proof of who I am, if it's a condition of them doing business with me. Just like I have the right to demand that United's pilots wear a pigmy white tailed monkey on their heads if it a condition of me flying with them. If either one of us doesen't like the demands that the other is making, then fine. We just won't do business with each other.

Now if United started babbing about my travel details, then I'd be rightfully pissed.

IDs can be bad

[neurostar]

Even though there are no visible problems with the nation ID system in Russia, that doesn't mean there aren't problems. The things that people should be worried about (abuse of power, theft, fraud) are, for the most part, crimes that will be kept secret.

Abuse of power will be kept secret for the obvious reason that the government will not want people to know about it. The other types of crimes relating to the IDs (theft, fraud, identity theft) will also be kept more secretive because the government will not want to provide evidence that the system is enabling more crimes.

I think we should sit back and take a long while and think about ID cards. As another poster pointed out, the terrorists of 9/11 didn't do anything that could have been prevented by having national ID cards.

neurostar

Read The Article

[Hrunting]

They're not talking about a national ID card system.

The page (which is a poor one, since it's really just an agenda for presentations) covers two topics. One is an ID system for transportation workers, so that they have some way of verifying that the guy in the tarmac in a blue jumpsuit really is an employee who is allowed to be there. That is arguably a good thing. Many professions have this. I go to a hospital and my doctor is wearing an ID badge, and that makes me feel good, because if I trust the badge, I'm reasonably assured that this main isn't some psycho pretending to be a doctor. The TSA is looking at a way to unify the many different systems under one, so that rather than having 50 different types of identification depending on where you go, everyone will have the same types of ID. They're not implementing a new system. They're making an existing one more standardized.

The second is the Registered Traveler ID. This system is a voluntary system for frequent flyers to bypass the tedious and sometimes invasive security procedures at airports and train stations. Basically, you go through the background checks, etc. once, and then you can skip all the feel-down lines and breeze your way to the gate. Basically, they want to make it easier for people to travel. If you, as a citizen, don't want to be registered, don't get the card. You can go through the long lines with other unregistered travelers and your "privacy" (or the illusion of it) is safe.

Re:Read The Article

[DrewK]

So then, register in the system. Take some un-eventful trips then pack the samsonite with semtex? Past behavior and plastic cards are no insurance against future actions. Remember most of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID.
Besides while the US may not have a National ID, it does have a unique identifier for everyone, the SSN#, and each State does require an ID that must be presented to law enforcement on demand or to receive any services from that state. National ID in the US would be redundant.

Re:Read The Article

[lildogie]

> The second is the Registered Traveler ID.
> This system is a voluntary system for frequent
> flyers to bypass the tedious and sometimes
> invasive security procedures at airports and
> train stations.

Well, I'll again paraphrase Lessig's "Code and the Laws of Cyberspace."

There are basically four ways to regulate something:
1) Make a law
2) Change the infrastructure
3) Establish social norms
4) Apply market forces

A "voluntary" system for frequent flyers, to allow someone to bypass the search stations, creates a two-tier infrastructure:
A: People who get to go right to their plane,
B: People who have to stand in line to get searched.

Now, once having established the two-tier system, what do you think will happen with tier "B"? To "save money," there will be fewer search stations and personnel. You'll have to plan to wait hours in line, and get particularly invasive searches.

What will happen with tier "A"? You get to go right to your plane, without delay, without intrusion.

Let's imagine the Gov't really wants you to get the card. (Not a big stretch of imagination, IMHO.) They make choice "B" so burdensome that you'll be compelled to choose "A" instead. The Gov't will point out that your rights are not being violated, since you aren't being denied travel if you choose not to go the "A" route. You can always exercise your privacy rights in the 2 to 4-hour "B" lines.

That's how to use infrastructure instead of law to compel the population to get their passenger ID's. Make the rights-preserving alternative so onerous that no one really wants to use it.

Read Lessig's book, it's an eye-opener (as he intended it to be).

Boy this sounds fun ..

[SuperDuG]

Let's just take it a step further, take everyone that doesn't look "american" tatoo them and put them in a holding camp. We can go ahead and "purify" the whole country.

Hey pompus "security and safety conscious" jerks, unless you are a Native American, then someone up your family tree came over on a boat/plane too. It is true, some people from other countries do actually like to visit america, and they're not here to hurt us, though I'm sure there is a little poking fun at our "traditional ways".

get some culture...

Re:Boy this sounds fun ..

[mesocyclone]

And there is even evidence that there were several waves of migration, with later "native americans" wiping out the previous "native americans".

No Papers?

[MyHair]

I read the links but found no concrete information on what this is about, but "Registered Traveler ID Initiative" sounds very disconcerting.

I just watched "The Hunt for Red October" again last week. There's a scene where the would-be Soviet defector sub Captain (Sean Connery) and First Officer (Sam Niel) are discussing what they'll do in America. The first officer would like to live in Montana but says something like "I might buy a recreational vehicle and travel from state to state...they let you do that? No papers?" Captain: "No papers."

Re:other ID's

[Idarubicin]

I'm sure they said the same stuff back in the day when drivers licences came out, but now everyone has it, if not a drivers licence at least an ID so they can still get their beer.

Yes, and we've established that driver's licenses are a very 'leaky' piece of identification from an age verification perspective. Everyone on Slashdot who has ever owned a fake driver's license--or borrowed a license (real or otherwise) from an older sibling--raise your hand. Yes, I thought so.

Having a single magical card that identifies you to transportation agencies is not a panacea; it just creates a false sense of security. Even if it is tied to biometric data, there will be leaks in the system. Finally, if errors (innocent or not) creep into the system, a card with an aura of infallibility will make error correction difficult if not impossible. ("I'm sorry Mr. Gustaffsson--your last name is too long for the name field. From now on, you will be Mr. Gustaff. Have a nice day.")

And identifying people even with 100% accuracy is insufficient to solve the problem that we're targeting. Bear in mind that all of the 9/11 hijackers used their own legitimate identification to board the aircraft. Thorough screening of baggage and alert gate personnel are far more important if the goal is to protect airplanes. This ID system merely means that we will be able to accurately identify the remains at the crash site.

So... airplane pilots can't be terrorists?

[Ghoser777]

Because, you know, we haven't ever had a FBI agent who sold US intelligence to other countries. I mean, we know they're good Americans so they would never sell out America.

Oh, wait a minute.

F-bacher

Should I be expected to make my affairs public?

[neurostar]

if you aren't doing anything extremely wrong you've got nothing to hide.

Such as finances, credit, family problems, etc? I have not committed crimes, and I don't ever want to have an ID system that can provide a ton of information about me. I do have something to hide - my personal life, because my life is my business, not Uncle Sam's.

If I can carry a piece of plastic with me that will help stop thousands of terrorism related deaths a year I'm all for that.

I have yet to hear an argument of how national IDs would stop terrorists. Another poster pointed out that the 9/11 hijackers did nothing that could have been prevented with the existence of a national ID. I fail to see how such and ID could help anything.

neurostar

How Many ID Cards?

[alexander.morgan]

The question for Americans isn't if an ID card is a good idea, the question is how many ID cards everybody should have and what the "good" guys do with all the data they collect. Let's see: driver license, social security card, credit card, library card, student ID, etc...

Then the whole thing is neatly organized in commercial and government databases. All that supplemented by the nefarious census database. What else could the government possibly want to know about you, except perhaps your color preference?

ID cards are a fact of modern life; all of us already have half a dozen of them--unless you live you life as a hermit, or your one of the bad guys.

The real issue is controlling what the government and commercial entities do with all the data they collect. And in the U.S. it's pretty much anything goes. They even let convicted criminals like Poindexter play with all those databases; a guy who has already demonstrated a complete disregard for U.S. laws restricting what the government can do. Then again, he's proven himself trustworthy to his superiors, which is obviously more important.

I don't think the government wants ID cards any more than the people, because with an ID card, there'd be laws that restrict access to the information. Right now, all that information is available in a free for all--free as in access, not beer ;).

Re:ironic, No Moronic is the operative word

[neurostar]

Quoting bible scripture as an argument went out the around the Enlightenment...

If you would care to read the post, you would see that he was not arguing, but pointing out and inconsistency and contradiction.

neurostar

Implants / invisible barcodes

[Sean Clifford]

ID cards can be lost or stolen. Iris scanners take too bloody long (>10-15 seconds staring into one) and watching to see whether someone's going to grab an ID or a gun is tiresome.

Why not implant a chip in the forehead of everyone? A little stick and *bam* you're done. Serial number of chip keyed to your DNA/fingerprints/ass prints. Or you can simply use a barcode tatooed on the back of a hand in invisible ink that shows up under UV. A simple *bleep* with a barcode scanner and you've identified Citizen X or Criminal Y.
</sarcasm>

Re:ID can be good

[Malc]

Have you tried this attitude in the UK? There are many people there who believe it is their God-given right to walk the streets in anonymity. Previous attempts by the goverment to introduce any kind of national ID have been rejected. When I as living in the US, many American friends of mine cautioned me about not carrying ID, stating I ran the risk of being treated like a vagrant or something by the police. This made the US feel a bit like a police state to me. So don't tell me that this attitude towards acceptance of ID is more prevalent in Europe.

Nothing to hide?

[uglyMood]

Your ignorance of recent American history is astonishing. Ask the victims of COINTELPRO whether they had anything to hide or not. What are you going to do if what you've done wrong is merely disagree with the government's abridgement of your civil rights as guaranteed under the Constitution? It's happened before, right here in the US of A. Did you know the Bush administration is floating the idea of an internal spy agency? Read your history, people. We are in bad trouble.

The next US terrorist attack will not use aircraft

[Animats]

The homeland security people are fighting the last war, not the next one. Classic military mistake. The next big attack will be elsewhere. With all this new emphasis on transportation security, an intelligent opposition will attack somewhere else.

The need is not to make transportation safe against terrorism. The need is to find all the places where a terrorist act could kill thousands of people and work to harden up such targets. Utility infrastructure, nuclear plants, chemical facilities, and related operations need tighter security. That will save more lives than IDing travellers.

Its called "presumption of innocence"

[Ars-Fartsica]

The cornerstone of our loegal code and our constitution is that you do not have to demonstrate to the government that you are innocent of crimes. I'm not saying that the presumption of innocence precludes government IDs, but it does mean that law abiding citizens should not have to carry a piece of paper to prove they are law abiding.

That is NOT an excuse to be frisked.

[nurb432]

If you are doing nothing wrong, and have nothing to hide, then *no one*, ESPECIALLY the government, should be asking.

*Only* if there is cause for suspicion should anyone ever be questioned, period. Even then, that's often just a flimsy excuse.

That is the basis of a free society. Once *innocent* people are subjected to this on a regular basis.. then society is no longer free.

And once the populace accepts this sort of 'presumed guilty' treatment, then its all over.

Re:I know it's an unpopular opinion...

[squiggleslash]

Well, here's the counterpoint to the "innoshent hash noshing to hidesh" argument. For those who aren't registed, the article:

• Reports the existance of a list of about 1,000 travellers who are to be singled out for "special treatment" by airline security
• That so far the evidence is that people who are being singled out are simply those in high profile positions in non-mainstream politics. Examples include prominent members of groups like Amnesty International.
• Abuses have included "suspects" having to drop their pants in full view of the other passengers, and one individual, an advisor to Ralph Nader's election compaign, being interogated for several hours - long enough to be forced to miss his flight - for calling President Bush "as dumb as a rock" while waiting in line.

When our governments can be trusted to fight terrorism rather than dissent, the innocent may have less reason to hide. But not before.

Re:I know it's an unpopular opinion...

[Anarchofascist]

"But really... if you aren't doing anything extremely wrong you've got nothing to hide. I know the idea is that the more power you give the government the more it will abuse that power, but honestly, nobody cares about going 5 miles over the speed limit, your saturday night poker game, or equivilant crimes and nobody ever will."

Please reply to this message with your full name, qualifications, home and office address, home and office phone number and social security number and I'll mod you up as "Insightful".

National ID cards chill organised opposition government policy. That's what they're for. Who says the US hasn't learned anything from Vietnam?

US gov's 'ultimate database' run by a felon

[Master Bait]

US gov's 'ultimate database' run by a felon
The Register
By Thomas C Greene in Washington

We all know that truth is stranger than fiction, and here we have an apparently real item straight from the realm of Tom Clancy. Imagine a huge, absolutely huge, central database containing both the official and commercial data of every single citizen, run by the US military ostensibly for anti-terror and Homeland Security purposes, and all of it under the direction of a convicted felon.

Well the database is in development and coming soon, according to the New York Times; and the felon who will run it is disgraced Reagan administration liar, dirty-trickster and cover-uper Admiral John M. Poindexter, who Dubya has taken out of mothballs to keep us all safe from dreadful evildoers.

Poindexter got caught up in a little Federal crime spree called Iran-Contra a decade ago, stood trial and was convicted, but managed to escape responsibility on an odd technicality.

As told succinctly by FAS.org, Poindexter was "Indicted March 16, 1988, on seven felony charges. After standing trial on five charges, Poindexter was found guilty April 7, 1990, on all counts: conspiracy (obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents); two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements.

District Judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Poindexter June 11, 1990, to six months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. A three-judge appeals panel on November 15, 1991, reversed the convictions on the ground that Poindexter's immunized testimony may have influenced the trial testimony of witnesses. The Supreme Court on December 7, 1992, declined to review the case. In 1993, the indictment was dismissed on the motion of Independent Counsel."

Now he's in charge of the newly-invented Information Awareness Office, a part of that mixed bag of good and bad, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and he's got his eye on basically every scrap of data about every single citizen. The system Poindy is preparing to unleash on us "will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant," the NYT article says.

And he's in no way embarrassed by his role ensuring that the US military and federal law enforcement and intelligence spooks can quite conveniently spy on the populace. He's said openly that the US government "needs to 'break down the stovepipes' that separate commercial and government databases," the article says.

Poindexter joins a slew of Reagan-era retreads and Iran-Contra alumni now operating brazenly in Dubya's bureaucracy. No doubt he feels quite comfortable among such familiar company, though I doubt I could say the same for the rest of us. ®

Re:I know it's an unpopular opinion...

[Steve B]

Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, you slavish lapdog.

Since the Ben Franklin quote has been done to death, it's past time to introduce a new one:

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
--Samuel Adams

Excellent Idea - NOT

[FreeUser]

Reading the story you find out this is not a national ID system.

Not yet. But we already know, indeed have it on public record, that they want a national ID system, that that is their ultimate goal, and while they may not admit to this being a first step, it certainly appears very much like a first step in that direction.

"Those of you with our voluntary ID will have convinience, while those of you without our voluntary ID will be stand in line, be thoroughly scanned, perhaps even patted down or more invasively searched. Welcome to the New World Order, citizen!" How many will choose the latter, because the former is even more distressing than being tracked everywhere, particularly if you travel frequently?

This system is not for you, the everyday individual. This is for making sure people like stewards on airlines don't have to go through security checks everyday to see if they're carrying a bomb. Using new authentication technology that's been discussed on /. already (ie: retinal scanning) they can pass these people by so they can do their jobs quickly, rather than waiting in a security line everyday just to go to work.

Great idea ... NOT. I have a friend who flies 737s for United, and while he occasionally gets annoyed (and has some absurd anectdotes from) going through security, he is quick to point out that allowing one group to bypass the security checks creates a catastrophic point of failure, where all a terrorist has to do is get a job doing grunt work for an airline, and they can walze right past security.

Even now it is a problem, with everyone going through security, but at least the existing system, while imperfect, makes the logistic of smuggling weapons and expolisves on board very non-trivial.

This approach isn't going to improve security, indeeed it will do the opposite, by creating an exploitable exception to security.

What it will facilitate is the government tracking (some) of its citizens. Frankly, I'd rather suffer a 9/11 event once each year and take my chances (my car would still be 17 times more likely to kill me), than to turn over that kind of power to my government.

Indeed, terrorism doesn't particularly frighten me (and I work across the street from the Sears Tower, a big target if there ever was one). It is like lightning ... if it hits me, I die, but the odds are very good it won't hit me, and I'm not going to waste time and energy being afraid of it.

Now, our government on the other hand, is ubiquitious. The odds of its behavior impacting me are 100% ... and I fear it much, much more than I fear some illiterate fanatics from camel-fucking country (apologies in advance to the moderate majorities of those places for my tongue in cheeck jab at American prejudices).

Re:IDs for everyone.

[mikewas]

Just to comment on a couple of your questions:

You don't have to learn to drive just to get an ID. Most states have an ID card available. In many states it is a driver's license with a limitation listed stating that it is not to be used for driving.

Social Security cards do not work as identification. They are required to get a job but you must also supply proof of right to work (e.g. proof of citizenship, valid visa), and you also must supply your employer with proof of your identity. So in addition to the social security card you need one or two other documents.

Can a Florida cop check an Alaskan's drivers license? Yes. Almost all cops have access to a database that verifies the validity of the information. Many better equipped forces have cars equipped with terminals that'll return the address, photo, and other pertinent data. Others radio the info in to the dispacher who retrieves the data.

You say you are pretty sure your government does not track your habits. Much of the resistance against a national ID card in the US is that most folks want to be more than pretty sure, they want to be damn sure.

More importantly....

[ainsoph]

A landmark legislation is being railroaded through after the past elections where the repubs took control over the gov.

You Are a Suspect
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

ASHINGTON -- If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you -- passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance -- and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.

A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.

This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.

Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.

He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.

When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.

This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.

Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.

The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia Est Potentia" -- "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. "We're just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy," this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

Re:I know it's an unpopular opinion...

[Catbeller]

If I've done nothing "extemely" wrong, I've nothing to hide?

I'm sorry, but you're supposing a rule that does not now exist, or will exist. And who judges what is "extremely" wrong?

EVERYONE has done something wrong. If the laws of the nation were magically enforceable, and every "criminal" was brought in to serve sentence, there wouldn't be anyone outside of the prisons!

What this means, this ability to identify "criminals", is that whatever or whoever is in power will be able to reach out and harass or destroy selected people at will. I used to keep up on what Scientolgy used to do to people who criticized it; planted evidence, uncovered "crimes", anything works. Hell, to "get" someone, even if they are lily-white clean of taint, go after the people they care about. It's easy, and fun! Somebody you care about probably did something "wrong" once. If someone who has access to their superdata wants you miserable, they just bring the hammer down on your friend, and let you know that they are doing so because of you. You'll crack.

Not paranoia: I've watched it happen. But usually it's hired detectives and looney cultists that gather or plant the dirt (sometimes literally -- a cannibis plant in your backyard will send you to prison, or at least eat up all your cash reserves in defense costs). Now, all it will take is a call to a "Poindexter" for someone to get the data necessary to get rid of enemies. God, what a boon this is going to be for dirty business, politics and cult loons!

Poindexter did something "extremely" wrong: sell arms to our enemies to finance a private war. He got six months, total. And that was thrown out. Now he is the chief holder of all the information that is ever collected about anyone. He is now a data god.

A man with morality that slippery is now capable of datamining something "wrong" on anyone he damned well wants to. Or he can be ordered to do so.

Bit by bit, obsessives are gathering up tools to give them all the power they ever will want.

On Salon.com a couple of days ago (can't find the link now) it turns out that there is at least one, if not two, "no-fly" lists being compiled by all of the Homeland Security agencies. If you are on the list, you will be questioned and searched everytime you want to fly. Drop your pants.

Mostly the people on the secret list are Green party or left-of-center groups. Amnesty International, things like that. But an Eagle Forum conservative got on the list, and now its contraversial. Just talking down Bush in an airport may get you yanked out of line, and you get your file marked. No lie.

And, oh yes, you can't find out why you are on the lists. National Security. And you have no way of appealing the listing. You can't find out even who put you on the list! You are fucked!

Now they want to have all the data on everyone. Apparently, they tend to look for people who disagree with the government, especially philosophically, when they compile their badboy lists.

What's "extremely" wrong? What these political fanatics are doing to our world in the climate of fear they are generating.

There will be no way out of this forest once we go in it.

There is no sane logical argument that says that any of this police state power will stop one damned bomb from going off anywhere.

And even if it did, I'd rather a hundred WTC's explode rather than live in the world you all are creating.

Live free or die. Freedom sometimes means that people die. And there is no safety in letting Daddy lock you in the basement. Sometimes Daddy is psycho.

Yeah

[Chris Johnson]

It'd make this easier:

discussion, contains text of SF chronicle article on airline no-fly lists used to harass and delay peace activists

article explaining how if you look nonwhite or have the wrong sort of beard you get fingerprinted at the Canadian border

Stay safe! Stay home! Be good and don't say anything!

Next they'll be fingerprinting us at toll booths and you'll have to have a visa to travel from state to state. Hey, it worked for the USSR- for a while.

As a matter of fact I was searched too, the last time I flew anywhere (rare, for me). I suppose next time I'll be strip-searched, or beat up a bit. However, I do have one big advantage- I'm white. And I don't wear a beard, or particularly long hair.

Interesting times we live in. So this is what it's like to live in cold war USSR. Remember, there won't be a problem if you stay home and don't ask any questions!

Re:The next US terrorist attack will not use aircr

[Chris Johnson]

No, you're wrong- they ARE fighting the next war. But it is not against the terrorists, at all. The terrorists are indispensable and if they don't exist they will be invented, because they are a tool for instilling a climate of fear for the purposes of tightening state control over the populace.

Which may never have happened, if our foreign policy did not produce some real terrorists- but look at the responses to this, and who benefits! It doesn't even matter if there are any terrorists left anymore, or if all of Al Quaeda lies buried in Afghan rubble. Probably dozens of us slashdotter media geeks could fake new Osama videos just as good as if they were real. It's no longer about terrorists at all- ask the UK, or Palestine, about living with continued violence. At this point it is about a radical shift in the structure of United States government, and whether it meets resistance or not, THAT is the war we currently have. The terrorists are mere assistants in this process. They have been co-opted.