Slashdot Mirror
EU Agrees to Give Passenger Data to U.S.
de la mettrie writes "The EU Commission has agreed in principle to make airlines provide U.S. Homeland Security with detailed passenger data for flights to the USA. Things Uncle Sam would like to know about passengers include their itinerary, their credit card number and whether or not they asked for a meal without pork. The data are supposed to help prevent terror attacks and are to be 'handled appropriately'." The U.S. is collecting the data for a massive passenger database, intended to increase passenger profiling.
whether or not they asked for a meal without pork
So, being an vegetarian makes me a TERRORIST! Damn.
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
There's a concept of personal privacy called a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are in public, but you do if you are in your own home. I would say that putting your meal preference in Expedia precludes any reasonable expectation of privacy.
Sure, this can be seen as an invasion of privacy. While this is terrible and unfortunate, the fact of the matter is there currently exists some very terrible, murderous people in this world that are willing to do things that have never really been done before, in order to accomplish their task of murder.
I dislike the facts of this modern reality just as much as the next person. Unfortunately, there isn't much that the US Government can do to protect its citizens (which is a big component of government) and preserve the way life has been.
There simply is no other way to rectify this issue. Even if the US pulled out of the Middle East and swore off the oil habit and simply ceased dealing with that part of the world. The minds behind these murderous fundamentalists would not change. They would still plan their assaults and still carry out what they are able to carry out.
Living in this day and age is simple one of those most frustrating of times to live in.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
There is Japanese tale of 47 Samurai (http://www.jon-schmid.com/japan1/Sengakuji.htm) who dishonored themselves to avenge the death of their master. By drinking and whoring and partying they made the assassin (the neighboring warlord) believe they were no threat, and so they were able to walk right in and kill the guy. They, having avenged their master's death, had to kill themselves afterwards to undo the dishonor.. making them heroes... in a sense.
Could not a really devout terrorist do the same too? Ordering pork (its not like they need to actually eat it), appearing anything BUT a terrorist,so as to infiltrate these security methods and commit some act?
meh
...does not necessarily imply "journalism".
As a number of folks have mentioned, the article notes nothing about requesting pork. To enlighten our slashdot editors such that they might device not to embellish future stories, let me explain why.
Yes, muslims do not eat pork. And yes, anyone who is sufficiently religious to consider it a good idea to die in a suicide bombing for one's faith is very likely to be sufficiently religious not to eat pork.
That said, nobody cares about pork. There's two reasons. The first is false positives. While it takes a pretty screwed up fanatic to be a suicide bomber, there are many people who actually do follow the peaceful teachings of Islam who aren't screwed up but don't eat pork. [0] Couple that with the fact that Jews also eat no pork, and there's a haystack of people who don't eat pork. A religious extremist mad suicide bomber type would be one hell of a hard needle to find.
The other reason is that religious extremist mad suicide bombers are misguided, not stupid. If somebody knows that porkless meals are a red flag, he's not going to order a porkless meal. When the stewardess shows up, he's simply going to say, "no, thank you. I'm not really hungry today" or he'll hand it to the fifteen year old kid in the next row. If you're planning on going to meet Allah tomorrow, well, he's not going to mind if you're a little hungry when you get there. Besides, I'd bet a guy like Allah's got a heavenly catering service.
Since it doesn't take a hell of a lot of thought to realize that pork's irrelevant, it really makes one's position look weak when one has to make stuff up to bolster it. While journalists have been slanted since journalism began, please do realize that your point is driven home much better when you simply present the facts, and don't feel a need to make them up.
[0] Yes, I know. "Aren't screwed up but don't eat pork." Yes. Even bacon. It sounds insane, doesn't it? But I assure....
mmmmmm.... bacon....
There have been a number of cases since 9-11 where would-be hijackings etc. have been stopped by the PASSENGERS. The equation is changed.
This is so true it isn't even funny. I have said to friends that the people who should really be pissed at the terrorists should be the other political groups that hijacked. Why 9/11 worked is because everyone expected a standard hijacking, were you'd be redirected and delayed for negotiations but had a high probability of survival. Now? Well, fuck, the assumption is that you're dead if you don't act. The whole "stay calm and everyone will be OK" line just won't work anymore.
Comments are due by Monday (Feb. 24) on the Department of Transportation's proposal for a "system of records" tracking massive amounts of information about every air traveler. The proposal is extremely broad and vague, and they are requesting exempt from the requirements of the Privacy Act -- so you would not be allowed to see information is stored about you, or challenge correct incorrect information. Comments must be mailed (not faxed or e-mailed), so get them out quickly to ensure they arrive by Monday.
PrivacyActivism (http://www.privacyactivism.org) has a page (http://www.privacyactivism.org/Items/63) with more information and a sample comment letter.