Congress to Test Air Screening Program

unassimilatible writes "The Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday it will order airlines to turn over passengers' personal records in the next couple of months to test a computerized passenger screening program that could keep dangerous people off airlines, reports Yahoo/AP. The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II, would rank all air passengers according to the likelihood of their being terrorists. Suspected terrorists and violent criminals would be designated as red and forbidden to fly. Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening. The vast majority would be designated green and allowed through routine screening. But some say the project would violate privacy rights, while others are concerned it would cost the private sector too much money. The Air Transport Association, the trade group for major airlines, has come up with seven 'privacy principles' that it says the government should follow in implementing CAPPS II."

Comments

First Informative Post

[homer_ca]

The dontspyon.us site is chock full of info about CAPPS II, TIA, etc.

EFF

[AnonymousCowheart]

The EFF also has a good write up on it. A second opinion on things is always good.
Also see Why EFF is concerned about CAPPS II
In short, what's at stake?
" Your fundamental right to privacy and your fundamental right to travel without being forced to give up your constitutionally protected freedoms"

This actually DECREASES security.

[evanbd]

This paper describes how such a system actually makes it more likely that a terrorist cell can carry out a successful attack, when compared with random screening. The basic idea is that it is not hard to determine whether or not you are on the watch list, and then the terrorists can use hijackers who aren't on the watch list. Anyway, I know slashdotters aren't known for reading links, but the paper is actually quite accessible and worth reading at least some of.

Re:This actually DECREASES security.

[LostCluster]

It's extremely easy to figure out whether you're on the security list or not... just go flying on a couple round trip flights. If you don't get stopped for the "extra screening", then you're clearly not on the question-every-time or never-fly-ever list.

What if they send the equipment with the least likely hijacker to be screened, everybody else can be checked and found to have nothing on them... contraband can be passed in the terminal among conspiritors.

Re:This actually DECREASES security.

[evanbd]

That's the basic point of the paper. They add some math, a more detailed explanation, and go into the fact that this was basically used in the WTC attacks. It's remarkably simple once explained, but very few people actually think of it when considering whether CAPPS II is a good thing.

Right To Travel

[Omega1045]

"As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thomson, Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

Re:Raise questions

[Curunir_wolf]

I read this the same way you did, the first time. Reading the article, though, (even though it is a direct quote) makes it a little more plain that they should have said "Passengers with a profile that raises questions..."

OTOH, while they are pretty specific about what the system will NOT do (read the "myths about CAPPS II" from the link), it is pretty vague on specifics about things they will be looking for. They metion "suspected terrorists" and that those with "outstanding state or federal warrants for violent crimes", but there is obviously more to the rating that those 2 factors. They just never say what they are.

Why is it that so many of these government security programs seem afronted by the concept of "transparency". They say things like "race and national origin will absolutely not be considered", but they don't give you any idea of what WILL be.

Re:Will this survive the Supreme Court?

[Curunir_wolf]

Yes, I supposed I should have pointed out that the assumption was wrong. According to the article and the information on CAPPS II (as far as it can be believed), they only check for outstanding warrants, and then only for violent crimes.

According to the "Myths about CAPPS II" page (emphasis mine):

No, CAPPS II will NOT run a criminal background check on every passenger. ... CAPPS II also performs a risk assessment, including a check against lists of terrorists and known or suspected threats, to detect individuals who may pose a terrorist-related threat or who have outstanding Federal or state warrants for crimes of violence.

Random works better

[ILL Clinton]

There was paper from some MIT grad students a few months back asserting why random screening is ultimately safer.

The authors described a system by which actual terrorists could easily use a screening system as a tool. By sending known terrorists and terrorists with no record on flights, terrorist cells could determine who will pass the screening, and actually be less likely to be searched in the future. Increasing their chances of enacting terrorism on a plane.

Open source sig, feel free to modify and distribute.

Re:Discrimination

[thatguywhoiam]

If you want make air travel safe from terrorists, fill the plane with sleeping gas.(stole that idea from Donald Trump)

I used to think this was a good idea until I asked an anaesthesiologist. Turns out there is no one-size-fits-all gas dosage. You'd wind up killing some, while others would remain conscious.

Re:Discrimination

[Moofie]

Because it's perfectly reasonable to suspect Arabic looking people, but not black people. Uh, no.

Racial profiling is unconstitutional. The Constitution constrains actions the government may take. It does not enumerate the rights granted to people. Therefore, the government may take no action that is forbidden by the Constitution, regardless of the citizenship of the suspect.

Quid erat demonstratum.

Not

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my firm belief that terrorism is less of a threat than tyranny.

Since terrorism (in the 9-11 sense) is a response to U.S. tyranny elsewhere, ending the tyranny would end the terrorism. Thus "fighting terrorism" is pointless salve for the symptom -- not a cure for the problem.

I suggest this blog article by Steven Den Beste (and all the rest at USS Clueless, this guy is amazing). It doesn't start off by addressing your root cause response but it gets there.

Also, you don't respond to Moofie's statement that you quote, instead using it as a springboard for your own agenda. You guys might actually be in agreement politically.