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.
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.
I think you misunderstood the intent:
"Passengers who[se profile] raise[s] questions [in the minds of airport security] would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening."
A bit different from "Passengers who ask questions...".
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
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
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.
Pragmatism is no guide to live by. Sure, the system in Israel might work, but so would shooting anybody that looks like a terrorist once in the chest and once in the head.
Just because it works does not necessarily make it right.
DATA comments; PROC SORT DATA = comments BY score; PROC DELETE comments >> 1; RUN; DATA entertainment SET commen
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!
I am not saying that Israel shoots everybody. I am making an argument against pragmatism. We cannot simply do something just because it works.
Otherwise, I we could conclude all sorts of zany things that wouldn't make much sense, even though they would work. Let's just close public schools so that kids can't shoot one another at school. Or let's destroy all the computers in the world so that won't get spam or viruses. These are all examples of things that are viable solutions to problems, but probably not the best ones.
Now that I've spent three posts trying to explain this!! I must not be very clear?!
DATA comments; PROC SORT DATA = comments BY score; PROC DELETE comments >> 1; RUN; DATA entertainment SET commen
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.