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.
The dontspyon.us site is chock full of info about CAPPS II, TIA, etc.
What?!?
I didn't get any vaseline.
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.
"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."
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
"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.
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
"The Political Safety Administration said Wednesday it will order parties to turn over politicians' personal records in the next couple of months to test a computerized political screening program that could keep dangerous people out of the government, reports Yahoo/AP. The Computer-Assisted Politician Prescreening System, or CAPPS II, would rank all candidates according to the likelihood of their being corrupt. Suspected corporate cheats and self-centered assholes would be designated as pig-fuckers and forbidden to vote or run for election. Candidates who have questionable stock or campaign contributions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening. The vast majority would be designated 'friends of Diebold' and allowed through routine screening. But some say the project would violate the corrupt and idiotic way of politics, while others are concerned it would just be another corrupt entity. The Supreme Court, has come up with seven billion dollars that it says will go to the best bid, and as always, companies who would like to bid to build and run the system may have any political or corporate affiliations they want.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
"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!
when the phone # for the "Do Not Call" list is accidentally switched with the "Do Not Fly" list.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!