Slashdot Mirror
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."
Does this not open the door for racial discrimination? I would suppose that one wouldn't NEED documents to do this, but with a colour rating being put in place, it would be rather easy to put anyone with, say, iranian parents on a code orange warning.
Is this going to be similar to the screening policies that have old grannies being detained for possible terror threats? What gets me is what's going to happen when someone innocent is labeled as the uber-terrorist by this new system...there better be a nice little compensation package for those folks. Oh wait, we as the rest of the consumers will have to pay for both the system AND the compensation. Well, fancy that.
This is double plus good, citizen!
Wow - ask a question, get "reclassified" as more of a security risk. Sounds a bit McCarthyist . . .
Fast, cheap & reliable. Pick two.
I dont know about anybody else, but as much as I dont like people invading my privacy, I would rather not be on a plane with a criminal.
I think that things like violent crimes and terrorist actions should be looked at when deciding who can fly. It's not the airlines fault that a person broke the law and might consider doing so again.
Now the problem is that these 7 "privacy principles" are probably not going to actually limit any of these types of people from getting on an airplane.
I would think that the "violent criminal" bit could be unconstitutional. This is assuming that they're refering to ex-cons; I don't think that a wanted violent criminal would be given a red flag, rather they'd have the police called on them.
The denial of access to public accomidations was refuted in terms of both gender and race. I know that it's constitutional to disallow felons sufferage, but I don't think that you can do much more to them (save monitoring them).
I think even Rhenquist and Scalia would be against this legislation.
Hit them where it hurts: don't fly. If you really want to stand up, then sit down. tell your favorite airline that you aren't flying until they promise passenger privacy. If you feel REAL civic, write your congresscritter and tell them, too. Money talks, and if enough "consumers" do this, someone will start/reform an airline to respect the rights of Those Who Pay The Bills.
What's that knocking? ^H^H^H^H NO CARRIER
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
So what about those terrorists who are 'unknown' flying for the first time?
They get a green light, pass through and drive themselves and the plane into the ground.
Those who are dangerous to the highway system lose their ability to drive on the highway system. It's called taking away ones driver's license, and it can be invoked for nearly any repeated moving violation, and for some it even comes on the first offense. But the thing is, in order for that to happen, one has to be convicted in a court of having committed the offense, or at least plead guilty by not contesting a ticket.
I have no problem with those who intentionally cause a security scare being barred from ever flying again, but they should at least have been convicted of an air-security related crime first. The reason why the spooks want to use a system that profiles and acts preemptively is because they say that the first crime they committ will kill everybody on the plane if not more. However, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were already comitting a crime just by being in the United States of America. If we bothered to have security at the borders, we wouldn't need to be over-securing our airport to the point that some law-abiding Americans get locked out.
Just what does make a terrorist profile? They'll never get it to a 100% science, so what will happen is that there will always be some people who have done nothing wrong but spook the database who will get the red flag, and nearly any journalist who ever challenges the Department of Homeland Security will constantly invoke the yellow flag.
Security-by-annoying-everybody is not a working model. It might spend the allocated money and fool some people into feeling safer, but it really doesn't do anything.
Following your logic, I guess it's safe to take the bus in Israel since they've already done that one.
Life in Orange County
Everyone boards nude. Luggage goes on a second, remote operated, plane.
I've heard it somewhere. Maybe even on slashdot. Sorry if it was you who said that.
I live in Canada, the more the Americans pull stunts like this, the more people will migrate over to here (especially the educated ones). This will be great for the Canadian economy!
Well done folks! Keep pissing on your country and driving everybody off it.
I was at the airport a couple weeks ago. The system is in place, but they aren't doing screening. Anyway, everybody's getting a bright green color, then the person in front of me gets bright red and the system makes a buzzing noise. He stops and goes "what? what's that?" He was clearly upset. The person checking everybody in said not to worry about it and go ahead and board.
Of course, I knew what it was, and it made me nervous. Then, you wonder what coud happen with that guy on the plane.
They should implement it so you cannot see the screen. I guess a month from now they would pull him aside and get out the rubber gloves.
"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF
these "dangerous people" traveling in the air are the fucking politicians making these ass raping invasive laws that OTHER people have to live with.
Fuck, ban them from air travel.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The Israelis have been phenominally successful in keeping terrorists off of El Al. They do it by profiling the passengers. They ask a few direct questions and noting the patterns of responses. For a few it means additional scrutiny or denial of access, but for the majority, the system works -- and they don't confiscate your fingernail clippers. There have been no successful attacks on El Al airlines.
There was a fiction story almost exactly like this in Analog recently. The synopsis went something like this - first systems like this caught a lot of terrorists. The terrorists began to panic, but then they figured that eventually the system would turn on itself. Of course they turn out right - at first they catch terrorists, then they start yellow flagging people as suspected terrorists, and these people aren't allowed to go to concerts, board trains or any kind of public transportation, rent cars, etc. The filtering becomes broader and broader as those in charge of the program feel pressure to catch more people... and eventually the whole system destroys all freedom. Its sad to see the first steps already in place.
"I'm sorry Senator Kerry, supporters, and reporters not affiliated with Fox News, but we can't let you on this flight."
:-/
And to think that prior to Shrub/Ashcroft/Rummy/Cheney I would have thought that to be +5 Tinfoil Hat....
Airline security will be less secure because many security personnel will trust the software to do the job for them. Just like firewalls/anti-virus, it won't stop the people who really want to get in. It'll just encourage security to slack off of screening all people.
Terrorists will figure out all of the things that the system is checking for and find ways around it. Then, we'll be caught with our pants down when a bunch of 'green' passengers take a plane under control. After all, security was concentrating on the red/yellows. Those yellows/reds could easily be co-conspirators attracting attention away from the real threat.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
"The TSA says it agrees that privacy must be protected. A privacy officer, Nuala O'Connor Kelly, has been hired to make sure federal privacy law is upheld. The agency won't hold on to passengers' records, except for people who might be terrorists."
Wouldn't logic dictate that anyone *might* be a terrorist, hence the agency will hold on to anyone's records indefinitely?
Azurite is fine covellite is mine.
Is this going to be similar to the screening policies that have old grannies being detained for possible terror threats? What gets me is what's going to happen when someone innocent is labeled as the uber-terrorist by this new system...there better be a nice little compensation package for those folks. Oh wait, we as the rest of the consumers will have to pay for both the system AND the compensation. Well, fancy that.
You forget one thing, there will be no mistakes.
Innocent people will never be flagged as threats because the fact that they are flagged as threats proves their guilt.
There will be no explanation, no due process and no possibility of appeal because that would compromise national security.
Oh, did I mention that once you're on the list, you'll stay there forever? That's right, once a terrorist - allways a terrorist.
Don't think for a moment that this is just another way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they don't like by denying them transportation rights. No sir! This is the finest example of your taxes at work. You should trust your government, it only tries to protect the country against terrorists.
Now be a good citizen and vote for Kodos, or Kang, does not really matter.
So if someone is a wanted fugitive, yes, I can see using this to catch them. What if they have committed violent crimes and have paid for them, this prevents them from flying? Last I heard, the only thing you lost from being a convicted felon was your right to vote.
What is a "violent criminal?"
"Passengers' personal records"
"all air passengers"
"travelers' identities"
"a traveler's risk"
CAPPS II at a Glance does not use the word "you" even once
their followup page CAPPS II: Myths and Facts talks about you only twice.
(funny that its in the 'editorial' section of the site) Anyways, before waiving it off as semantics, consider how it would sound if every 3rd person reference to you was replaced with... you.
Under CAPPS II, airlines will ask you for a slightly expanded amount of reservation information, including your full name, date of birth, home address, and home telephone number. With your expanded information, the system will quickly verify your identity and conduct a risk assessment utilizing commercially available data and current intelligence information on you. The risk assessment will result in a recommended screening level, categorizing you as no risk, unknown or elevated risk, or high risk. Your commercially available data will not be viewed by government employees, and intelligence information on you will remain behind the government firewall. Your entire prescreening process is expected to take as little as five seconds to complete.
Not so benevolent anymore is it? The idea behind CAPPS isn't inherently flawed, its just that i doubt it'll be very secure. My guess is the CAPPS II database will end up getting passed around the internet faster than Paris Hilton.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
EXACTLY. And those rape victims should stop flirting and wearing those tight pants. And the homeless should just quit doing drugs and get jobs. And if gays just acted normal, they wouldn't experience discrimination.
Muslims certainly put the Basque seperatists on the back burner.Tim McVeigh possibly worked with a Muslim-John Doe Number 2. But those IRA Micks really upped the ante bombing those Australians in Bali,Spaniards on the trains,not to mention the World Trade Towers.
This means that someone who HASN'T been flagged as a threat won't undergo an extensive screening.
There was someone who wrote a paper on this, and was mentioned on slashdot awhile back. All the badguys have to do is send people through and see if they get flagged or not.
With random searches, there is a chance anyone will be searched, including newly recruited badguys.
And yes, this also erodes civil rights. There is no problem with the way things are. The only reason a hyjacker was able to take over a plane in the past, is because the pasengers thought they might live by co-operating. Now anyone trying to hyjack a plane will face 300 angry, scared people in a small enclosed space. All the FAA has to do is insure that no bombs go on a plane. Anyone trying to hyjack a plane these days is wasting their time.
I notice your halfwitted rebuttal did not refute this at all. How many Tim McVeighs are there? One? And we fried that sucker as soon as we caught him.
Face it, Islamic Terrorism is the number threat to freedom in this world and you appeasing hippies can't deny it.
If too many intrusive laws start building up in the states there's bound to be alot of people leaving the country, just like germany before WWII look at all the people that left to go to northamerica, those people knew somthing was wrong, boy where they ever right! AND not to be saying that if the US is against the muslims it will be like germany against the jews! Lets hope that doesn't happen!
> hey have explosive detectors, they wipe your
> clothes with a little paper disk, put it in a
> machine, and they know if you were even near
> explosives in the last day.
Or manure, or fertilizer, or any number of other nitrogen-containing materials.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Perhaps I missed it in the article, but from what I read it assumed that terrorists would learn which passengers were being screened, but it didn't take into account that the system might remember whether or not it had searched an individual passenger. You can use cumulative weighted probability.
For example, let's say a passenger had only a one percent chance of being searched. He makes a trip and isn't searched. The system remembers this, and the next time he has a 2% chance of being searched. This continues until he is searched, which slightly decreases the probability of a search in the future.
In other words, you can be picked up on the first trip if you are a high-risk individual, but if you try to have a few practice runs to make sure you aren't being flagged, each additional uneventful run increases your probability of a search. And even if you waited until after such a search in order to reduce the probability, you are likely to have an elevated score over your very first run.
Okay, my brain hurts now, so I'll stop.
Peaceable assembly requires the right to travel.
They also don't want any blame if something happens. With just random checks, a known bad guy could do something and those in charge would look dumb. Crack down on all known bad guys and some unknown one will do it. Less blame for those in charge. You and I knew they are screwing up, but I doubt many people will read and understand the ideas in that paper.
Those who are dangerous to the highway system lose their ability to drive on the highway system.
This is not the same thing at all. An equivalent senario would be people being banned from travelling in (not just driving) any vehicle on a highway if they were caught drunk driving. Banning someone from being a passenger on any aircraft is equivalent to banning someone from ever stepping into a car, bus or truck.
Of course as you note it is also different in that a court is involved at some point (i.e. there is some sort of due process) in driving bans but there are other differences as well. The people they are intending to ban from flying haven't done anything. It isn't like they have a previous conviction for hijacking an airliner so they are not allowed to fly on one again. It is that the government does like them in some way, because they are suspected of being a "terrorist", or for some other reason. Not only does stopping people from flying based purely on suspicion very bad, but it puts a huge amount of extra power into the hands of the government to persecute whatever people they don't like, as you note.
I have no problem with those who intentionally cause a security scare being barred from ever flying again, but they should at least have been convicted of an air-security related crime first.
This is a red herring though. Sure they might use this system to pick on such people but its main purpose will be to select people fitting a certain "high risk" profile. Who would "intentionally cause a security scare" anyway? Sure a terrorist group might phone in a fake bomb threat to cause disruption (its cheaper than a real bomb) but then you are not going to catch them are you. If this is going to be used to ban people from flying who are carry the wrong book or aren't grovellingly deferential enough to the security screeners then that is another big problem.
They should all volunteer to be classified as yellow. That way whenever a member of congress flies they'll if it's working or not. I'm sure Congress wouldn't mind doing this in the name of security.
The best thing is, if there is a terrorist attack, the government will say it is because the system isn't draconian enough and make it even more unfair, invasive and tougher.
If there isn't a terrorist attack, the government will say "hey it's working" and to make it work better we need to make it more draconian and even more unfair, invasive and tougher.
It's a win-win situation for the government either way.
The U.S., Israel and Nazi Germany. Riiiiight. Next?
Better yet, to win the war on terrorism compell a real peace in Isreal and the West Bank and get U.S. occupation troops out Islamic countries.
So exactly how the hell are we going to "compel a real peace" without "occupation troops" in a territory where the avowed goal of the pseudo-government of one ethno-religious group is to kill every last member of the other group? Unless by "compel a real peace" you mean "evacuate the entire Jewish population of the state of Israel," that is.
If the U.S. and Isreal stop humiliating the Palastinians in particular and arabs in general that will dramaticly reduce the ability of islamic extremists to recruit for and fund their movement.
Maybe if Arab governments stopped teaching in their schools that Jews were bloodthirsty sons of monkeys and pigs, then Arabs might not be so humiliated every time "the Zionist entity" kicks their asses in a defensive war. Or maybe if the totalitarian cliques running most Arab states would spend the millions of petrodollars we pay them on their populations instead of paying $25K per suicide bomber (not to mention building palaces at home and buying Swiss chalets for vacations), young Arabs might feel there was something more worthwhile to do with their lives than to kill themselves. Hell, maybe if Arab states would allow Palestinians and descendants who have been living in their territory since 1948 to naturalize and assimilate, both hosts and residents might be on their way to understanding that Israel ain't going anywhere.
Somehow Germany and Japan managed to get over their "humiliation", and we did a whole heck of a lot more damage to those two countries than we've ever done to any Arab state.