American Airlines Is Third Company To Share Data

crem_d_genes writes "American Airlines has become the third U.S. airline to admit sharing passenger records with the government. They were proceeded in admissions by Northwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways. At the heart of the matter is the implementation of the of U.S. Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) use of the provisions known as CAPPS II. Some privacy advocates have expressed strong dissent with this plan. Some concerns have even been brought up in Congress, though for different reasons. The Department of Homeland Security has a site entitled CAPPS II: Myths and Facts."

Comments

Good

[after]

If it'a a matter of security for me and the people that I travel with, then they can share my data. I am sertainly not opposed to this, I dont want some shmuck who got through to blow up my airplane.

Re:Good

[Liselle]

That's the attitude they are probably counting on. Not that it's a bad thing: the majority of folks have nothing to hide. Privacy is nice for some things, but there is a point where it crosses over into paranoia. The sibling AC is correct, your unpopular view is either going to be modded down, or the mods are going to have an Over-rated fight this morning.

Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems. I hang my hat with the MBTA (Massachusetts subway system), and believe me when I say this: it would be trivial for someone to blow up a train. The collateral damage from an explosion going off at Park Street during rush hour would be devastating. But that's not really on-topic, I guess. :P

Re:Good

[evanbd]

That would be a justifiable position to take, if CAPPS II actually increased security. The problem, however, is that not only does it not work, it actively decreases security.

The way it works is called the carnival booth attack, and it is described in much detail in this paper.

The basic idea is very simple. A person gets a score from the system, which is based on how likely they are to be a terrorist. Then, CAPPS II has most of the searches directed at people with high scores. So, a terrorist group needs only do a number of test runs, and see who does and doesn't get searched. The people who don't get searched obviously have low scores, and so they use them for the attacks. And in case you were wondering, yes, the terrorists are already using this scheme -- it was used in the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers did test runs, on the same exact flights to make sure everything worked as planned.

So, if there was an actual tradeoff to be made, then a rational debate could be had about the appropriate tradeoffs to make. But when they try to take away my privacy and as a result decrease the security, that I have a serious problem with.

Re:Good

[I confirm I'm not a]

Fair enough - don't you think the parties concerned should be honest about it though? From what I've read so far AA and USTSA denied that there was any sharing of data - why?

If my GP (doctor) asks me if it's OK to share my medical history with a surgeon I'm unlikely to object. If she fails to ask my permission I will object strongly. If she lies, and claims that she didn't share my data - well, that's worthy of more than just an objection.

...Oh, and by the way, some schmuck will find a way to blow up planes with or without data sharing, internment, shoot-to-kill policies, bloody-great walls, compulsory ID cards, razing villages, etc.

NB. I'm not suggesting that all of the above are current tactics against terrorism: they have all been tried at some point in recent history.

Re:Good

[vegetablespork]

Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems.

Don't worry--I'm sure Ashcroft and company are hard at work on a national database to be checked against a swipe of your National ID (a.k.a. "standardized driver's license or state ID") when you board any public transporation. At that point, known terrorist (or deadbeat dads, or those with unpaid parking tickets, or people with questionable political affiliations) can be arrested and searched.

In about ten years, we'll have an internal passport system for air, land, and sea transport that would have made Soviet Russia proud.

Re:Good

[twbecker]

I understand the attack you describe, but I fail to understand how it decreases security. There will most certainly be some terrorists who are too stupid or disorganized to do "test runs", and even for those who do, doesn't this screening give them another hoop to jump through? Now we can debate whether or not having the airline industry share passenger data is a worthwhile tradeoff for giving terrorists a "hoop", but that's another post.

Re:Good

[general_re]

The problem, however, is that not only does it not work, it actively decreases security.

Another argument put forward against passenger screening in particular is that terrorists will adapt to the screening methods in order to slip through the system. See Samidh Chakrabarti & Aaron Strauss, Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-assisted Passenger Screening System, at http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/sp ring02- papers/caps.htm. Again, this concern should be taken into account when developing applications but does not argue against research and development, or deployment, with adequate accounting for the problem. First, there are obviously ways to defeat any system. Nevertheless, they are worthwhile because they raise the cost of engaging in the terrorist act by requiring avoidance strategies. Not only do such avoidance strategies increase 'costs' to the terrorist but they also provide additional points of potential error on the part of the terrorist that may lead to discovery. Obviously, if we were to take this critique too seriously on its face it would support the conclusion that locks should not be used because locksmiths (or burglars with locksmithing knowledge) can defeat them. Second, to the extent that we are talking about researching adaptive machine learning based algorithms, an important research objective would be to try to anticipate these avoidance methods in application, algorithm and system design, including by building in both variability and random outcomes (for example, by combining random searches with CAPPS II).

- K. A. Taipale, "Data Mining and Domestic Security: Connecting the Dots to Make Sense of Data," 5 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 2 (December 15, 2003)

Re:Good

[twbecker]

Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems. I hang my hat with the MBTA (Massachusetts subway system), and believe me when I say this: it would be trivial for someone to blow up a train. The collateral damage from an explosion going off at Park Street during rush hour would be devastating. But that's not really on-topic, I guess. :P

I agree that subways are an easy target. The main difference, as I see it, is that an airplane can be hijacked and itself used as a weapon. I suppose a subway could be hijacked, but considering they can only be driven on the track, doing so would be of limited utility. You'd have to have a bomb, which hopefully could be detected by conventional means. I guess what I'm saying is that you'd have to have more than just malicious intent to do damage to the subway system.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly think passengers are -ever- going to allow a plane to be used like that again? Unless the terrorists bring enough people/weaponry on the plane to kill everyone, then the passengers will certainly overtake them knowing now that if they do not other lives will be in danger. That's why the whole airline issue is so overdone...it only happened the first time because we were used to planes being taken hostage and demands being made, but this is no longer the case.

Re:Good

[Becquerel]

Oh, and by the way, some schmuck will find a way to blow up planes with or without...

Exactly. In all these arguments it seems a forgon conclusion that a terrorist will try to blow people up. If the education and social interaction of the society where improved then the number of potential terrorists would be reduced. Hopefully to a level where the chances of a few of them meeting up were slim. The prevelance of extremist followers of all religions (Osama-Islam, Bush-Christianity, Sharon-Jewdehism) increases the threat of terrorism and violence greatly. I would not at all be surprised if i read tommorow that an extremist 'Christian' group blew up a mosque in the US. When was the last time you heard of an aethiest terrorist?

Eschelon will be flagging me straight to the top, don't think i could have fitted more keywords in if i'd tried, wonder what CHAPPS score i'll get after this post is added to the database ;o)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, Soviet Russia never took the fingerprints of foreign visitors. But I bet they would have, had they thought of it...
Well done, US, for out-Sovieting the Soviet Union. I won't be going to the US for some time, but of course, all my American friends are very welcome to escape to the Free World and have a beer on me, whenever....

Re:Good

[Atzanteol]

Funny that you use president Bush as an example of an "extremist christian" and not the Pope...

Re:Good

[rjelks]

Man, I just got through reading your link. That's some scary stuff. I understand the need for security, but this is the problem when a military, trained to deal with hostiles, turns to policing their own countrymen. There should be some kind of way for her to challange/sue for her ticket price back. It's this kind of stuff that really makes me sad for the direction our country could go.

Re:Good

[HungWeiLo]

Sounds good on paper, sure. But on your next trip to Hawaii, they hold you at the airport for...get this - reading Slashdot! Slashdot does contain quite a number of posts which would be considered by Ashcroft & Co. to be "anti-American."

This guy at the University of Idaho got arrested because some Islamic extremists posted pro-Hamas and whatnot comments on his website. So he got arrested based on comments posted by users of his website (and plus his being from Saudi Arabia doesn't help either). Granted, he most likely had some other stuff going on (wiring money to terrorist orgs, etc.), but the thing that got this guy on the fed's blacklist was his website.

So if you're willing to put up with a 2, 3-hr delay as the feds figure out if you are "associated" with the "militant" comments posted on Slashdot, be my guest.

Re:Good

[Exidor]

It's this kind of stuff that really makes me sad for the direction our country could go.

Unfortunately we're already there...

Re:Good

[The Queen]

Holy Crap.

That's not just scary, that't infuriating, disgusting, and mind-boggling. I will pass that link around, thank you for posting it.

Canada keeps looking better and better...

Re:Good

[TTL0]

but of course, all my American friends are very welcome to escape to the Free World and have a beer on me, whenever....

great ! where shall we meet ? Madrid ?

Re:Good

[I confirm I'm not a]

One thing that annoys me is this apparent belief that "Omigod! There's this new threat, terrorism!

Terrorism isn't a new threat in the USA, and it certainly ain't a new threat in the rest of the World. Leaving aside the flippant, UK-centric, remark that the USA was founded out of terrorism ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", etc) the USA has had the Weathermen, the UNAbomber, various militias, etc. Even "Christian" terrorists have been murdering doctors and blowing up clinics.

(I was going to say how terrorism as a threat is overrated, but I can't think of a way to say it without cheapening the ordeal of everyone who's ever suffered in a terrorist attrocity. Suffice it to say that there is suffering caused by many, many other things that we choose to ignore)

Damn! Just caught your comment about Echelon. No more trans-atlantic flights for this bad boy!

Re:Good

[goatan]

...Oh, and by the way, some schmuck will find a way to blow up planes with or without data sharing, internment, shoot-to-kill policies, bloody-great walls, compulsory ID cards, razing villages, etc.

there is only one way to effectively win a war the following is how it was done in Oman

22 SAS were sent to assist and an elaborate 5 front hearts and minds campaign, conceived by Watts, was rapidly instigated. The essence of the strategy was to eliminate Omani dissatisfaction; Quabus began a large works programme that would propel Oman into the twentieth Century. The problem now was how to get this message across to the rebels and to get them to understand the truth that there was no longer any need to fight. The commander felt that the original rebels did have right on their side because they simply wanted a better way of life. Part of Watt's plan was psychological; he made certain that the Sultan's far-reaching policies became common knowledge, along with the offer of amnesty to any surrendering rebels. From these defectors it was hoped that levies would be raised to fight the defectors, Watt's strategy was spot on and within month's defectors started to cross the lines. These men (furcats) trained and later became the backbone of fighting in Oman; by mid 1971 support from the local tribes was gradually being won.

This is the UK equivalent of Vietnam in that the fight was against communist insurgents, the difference in the tactics employed by US and UK and the results could not be more glaring. Time and time again it has been shown that firepower is not what wins wars (fights yes) but brain power which earns you the support of the population.

Terrorist Etc can only be defeated if you remove there support, not by killing the son/daughter mother/father of a potential terrorist recruit

Re:Good

[stereoroid]

London's heading that way: they now have the Oyster Card system that uses a wireless smart card. (Not RFID alone, the card actually holds more detail.) The online & offline forms for getting one of those ask for all kinds of unique personal information, which gets checked, so they can tie your address and identity to the card. After that, every time you use the card at a tube station, that info is logged and can be made available to the police "if required by law" (buried in the terms & conditions). In short, they can get full details of where you've been for the asking. Oh, and they also make the information available to third parties for "marketing and research purposes". I'm just waiting for someone to say "if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear"..!

Re:Good

[Artifakt]

In the past, terrorists have tended to target planes partly because many of them were trained along communist lines. Terrorists tended to get a lot of Marxist class theory mixed with their bombmaking 101, and believe that preferred targets were the ones "used by the ruling classes". Subways were too proletarian for their tastes. It would be interesting to know if the current generation of terrorists is working from similar assumptions. I wouldn't be surprised if Al-Quida thinks they are selectively targeting Jews by using planes and hitting financial offices, but they can't be getting much of their doctrine from the old Marxists, as those would have been very vehement about NOT hitting the pentagon or the White House.

Re:Good

[Atzanteol]

Perhaps Paris?

BTW, can you *imagine* what would happen if the U.S. decided to implement this policy? All mighty hell would break loose! But if France does it, nobody notices...

Re:Good

[I confirm I'm not a]

Coincidentally I was fortunate to spend most of the '80s living in Oman (north, round Muscat, though I did occasionally get to visit Dhofar and stare at a distant border with the then Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen).

I couldn't agree with you more. Creating martyrs never works; improving infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads) usually works. Within 10 years Communist insurgency in Oman was limited to geurillas crossing the border from Yemen: the local Dhofaris had no sympathies for the insurgents.

Fascinating link, by the way.

Re:Good

[Cruciform]

I agree, they've done the airplane thing. The next target is likely to be a mall, subway, or sporting event. Major sporting events, for example, would have security coverage. But what about an NCAA game? A large audience in a small space. Plays could be a target as well, as we saw in Russia. Especially if they target the "well-to-do" or culturally representative events.

Terrorists leaders aren't stupid, just fanatical. They'll use their men and their weapons where they're most effective. And right now that isn't the airlines.

Re:Good

[Safety Cap]

If it'a a matter of security for me and the people that I travel with, then they can share my data. I am sertainly not opposed to this, I dont want some shmuck who got through to blow up my airplane.

I'm saddend that you are willing to allow our government to discount the sacrifices that I and my fellow service members made to secure your freedom. I'm saddned that you think that security comes from removal of your sacred freedoms by government fiat.

The fact that you and many like you choose not to practice eternal vigilance, lazily stating "I have nothing to hide, so I'm not opposed to loss of my rights" as if that excuses the transformation of our Democratic Republic into a tyranny sickens me. You and our other fellow Americans who sit on their dead ass while the government murders our country are the real threats to our society.

Two last parting thoughts:

1. Capps actually weakens security; look at other countries who deal with terrorism on a continuous basis---what is their primary form of defense?
2. You are going to die some day, so you can either live your life in fear or accept the fact and do something productive. Crying that some bad man is going to blow you up in a plane is fantasy (and odds are effectively zero), whereas your odds of dying in an auto-wreck are higher than winning powerball. What is your priority?

Re:Good

[Piquan]

Obviously, if we were to take this critique too seriously on its face it would support the conclusion that locks should not be used because locksmiths (or burglars with locksmithing knowledge) can defeat them.

I've got to disagree. True, the fact that measure X can be defeated does not make it un-worthwhile. But CAPPS determines the distribution of searches. This does make it possibly worse than the alternatives (e.g., random searching).

Suppose that out of 100 people, the airport has resources to search 10. With a random search, then each person has a 10% chance of getting searched. No getting around that.

Now, let's say that CAPPS will determine that 5% of the passengers must be (100% chance) searched, and the rest of the searches are random. That means that the other 95% of the passengers now each have a 5% chance of getting searched.

With a probable system, you can determine who in your cell has that 5%, and who has the 100% chance. Who would you send?

In organized terrorism, assuming fixed resources (i.e. you don't get to hire more people just because you're profiling), profiling actually gives the attackers a way to lower their operatives' chances of being searched.

Re:Good

[blair1q]

I had assumed it was SOP in the first place.

The airlines don't own the sky, the FAA does, so why wouldn't the FAA already know who's flying where and when?

And the only applicable Ben Franklin quote is, as always,

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Re:Good

[PretzelBat]

Canada looks better, eh?

Well, if you saw the size of the elk up here, you'd be thinking twice about that, now, wouldn't ya?

Re:Good

[bruthasj]

Just like you use a myriad of tools to defeat spam (RBL, Bayesian, etc.), the government needs different tools to defeat terrorists. One system will never be the silver bullet, but it can at the very least put a dent in the plans of those who wish to kill, mame, and otherwise terrorize.

Privacy is a great thing, but all things can be abused and exploited. We whine and complain about how draconian the government is about trying to catch these guys, but don't forget about the two who didn't get away. We won't be needing a future "911" commission because of it.

Re:Good

[Pig Hogger]

I agree that subways are an easy target. The main difference, as I see it, is that an airplane can be hijacked and itself used as a weapon. I suppose a subway could be hijacked, but considering they can only be driven on the track, doing so would be of limited utility. You'd have to have a bomb, which hopefully could be detected by conventional means. I guess what I'm saying is that you'd have to have more than just malicious intent to do damage to the subway system.

Subways aren't glamorous. They carry the small fry, and, after all, the terrorists are fighting for the small fry and, being more numerous than the fat-arses bigshots, you don't really want to alienate them. On the other hand, bigshots fly, so whenever one hijacks a plane, he scores double by annoying (and, if possible, killing) a bunch of fat-arses bigshots.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The french government decided that state institutions should not be used to promote religion. What's wrong with that ? For all those religious nuts who can't live for a few hours without their headscarf or any other religious symbol... they can go to a semi-private school (which are fincanced in part by the state).

Have you ever been to Paris ? You'll see a LOT more headscarf than in any city in the US. So stop being an ass. At least France doesn't put someone on a yellow list simply because of where he was born. The US is FAR worse than France.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo!

Now that I've frightened you... I guess you'll want /. to forbid AC posts!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If I thought it would really prevent terrorism I would tolerate it (although not welcome it) too, however it won't. The huge flaw in the system is that it allows terrorist groups to test tye system by sending people through until they have a pool of people who don't get stopped and who don't set off the facial recognition all arms. Result - a near guarantee of getting any of those people onto planes whenever you want. The only system that works is a pure random system.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, why not - at least neither you nor I will be fingerprinted. And if you won't go there because you are frightened of the terrorists - then who's winning the war?

Re:Good

[TTL0]

terrorists want to instill fear buy killing lots of people anywhere anytime. kind of like shock and awe.

i don't think they care who they kill.

Re:Good

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I dont want some shmuck who got through to blow up my airplane.

How is this going to change that? Mohammed Atta was on an FBI watchlist when he boarded a plane on 9/11 under his own name. Seems that what we really need is for our intelligence agencies to share their data with the airlines.

Re:Good

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I'm just waiting for someone to say "if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear"..!

... except for a hernia from all that junk mail headed your way.

Re:Good

[TTL0]

i disagree.

1) it could come out that they get busted on the test run and reveal the whole plot.

2)the longer it takes for them to find a successfull canidate the better chances are that they get stopped and the longer it takes to put together an attack.

3) so lets say the get a guy who is the anti-sterotype of a terrorist - he may do other things that trigger the system.

in the end there is nothing you can do to stop a terrorist or any other criminal for that matter. but you can make it harder for them.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent's link is a pack of lies

Too bad that little story was entirely made up. There are 260 million Americans, what makes you think the Government cares where YOU go or why (barring anything illegal)?

It's total ego-strokage to think you're important enough for anyone to care about you. The world does not revolve around kiddy socialists.

Re:Good

[Idarubicin]

What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems.

Subways are already monitored for radiation, and probably some other nasties as well. Sure you don't have to go through an x-ray screening, and obviously rail transit is vulnerable to attack (see: Spain), but they're not totally ignoring the issue, either.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You call it a pack of lies? At worst, it's a "he said, she said," but presenting a statement from Fatherland Security that says she's lying is hardly a refutation of her assertion that the real reason she was denied boarding was her political affiliation.

Re:Good

[mr100percent]

It's not promoting religion, it's allowing the freedom to practice one's religion. No yarmukles? No large crosses? What next, no beards? No circumcised people in gym locker rooms?

French SIkhs and French Jews died fighting for France, they want their children to be allowed to cover their hair in class. Don't confuse it with proselytizing.

Re:Good

[24-bit Voxel]

In my life I don't recall the Pope ever promoting war. What does extremist mean exactly in this context? I never heard the Pope say that God is with us so lets kill people, I hear GWB say it all the time. I'm not trying to flame I am just a little confused on how GWB and the Pope can be compared on any level.

Re:Good

[mr100percent]

Good luck with passengers trying to break down the reinforced cockpit doors, and with a gun probably in the cockpit as well.

No, I don't think it will happen again either.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Which terrorists? They went after a US economic center and a military center, and were aiming for a political center. They weren't trying to target a stadium or anything.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

He was blacklisted because of stuff on his website, by your own admission, and you say he probably also "wired money to terrorist orgs?" No, pick one side or another. I don't believe he supported terrorist orgs, unless you show me some proof. The fact that he lived in SA is insufficient enough for me.

Re:Good

[ncc74656]

When was the last time you heard of an aethiest terrorist?

There are plenty of those out there in Europe and South America. They usually call themselves "Marxist revolutionaries" of one sort or another. I wouldn't even be surprised if they outnumber al-Qaeda and the other Islamist headcases.

Re:Good

[tumbaumba]

In about ten years, we'll have an internal passport system for air, land, and sea transport that would have made Soviet Russia proud.

To see what happens when you must have your documents with you all the time and present them to the authorities on demand you should read Russian news. Just few days ago I read about case in Moskow subway where police officers would ask nice looking girls to present them documents then they would ask her to go with them to the office to do some checks on her. Note that police officer at that point already holding in his hands here passport and you really don't want to go anywhere in Moskow without passport. In the office they would rape them and threaten to kill them if they tell anyone. Russia is abundant of such stories. Do we want something like this to be happening here left and right?

Re:Good

[general_re]

Now, let's say that CAPPS will determine that 5% of the passengers must be (100% chance) searched, and the rest of the searches are random. That means that the other 95% of the passengers now each have a 5% chance of getting searched.

With a probable system, you can determine who in your cell has that 5%, and who has the 100% chance. Who would you send?

That's not an argument for eliminating the system, merely an argument for making it smarter - the parent post I responded to is simply wrong in claiming that there's no trade-off. In such a case, the easiest solution is to more narrowly target the system by reducing the number of people it flags - why assume that it will be responsible for half of all searches? Suppose that CAPPS only flags 1 out of every 1000 passengers for heightened scrutiny, where we want an overall rate of 1 in 10 passengers being searched. In that case, passengers will still have a 9.9% chance of being randomly selected for heightened scrutiny, which is hardly a significant reduction from the 10% chance they would have if CAPPS were non-existent, and if CAPPS is smart about who it flags - remember, we're talking about adaptive systems that improve over time - it may very well make an excellent supplement to the broader sieve of random searches. Suppose 100 of every 1000 people CAPPS flags really are terrorists - does it then make sense to deploy it, or not?

And in any case, the point in the paper I cited remains unchallenged - implementing CAPPS raises the bar for terrorists no matter what, by forcing them to expend resources that they otherwise would not have had to expend, in the form of trial runs to "test" the system. The very act of raising the bar will, by itself, deter some number of potential terrorists, even if it doesn't deter all of them - the more expensive it is to try, the fewer people out there who will be able to afford to try.

Re:Good

[Piquan]

I think you misunderstand the attack. You send, say, ten people on flights, without arms. Repeat a couple of times if you want. See who's getting screened and who's not. Pick the one who's getting screened the least, since CAPPS apparently feels that he is safe.

So:

1) it could come out that they get busted on the test run and reveal the whole plot.

I don't think they'd be carrying explosives during CAPPS probes. Besides, the one guy who did get revealed is not the one they'd pick to perform the operation, since he got screened during the probes. With proper compartmentalization, the TSA now has one guy who was expendable, not the whole plot. And that's assuming you were doing something naughty during the probes in the first place; keep clean during the probes, and you don't get busted.

2)the longer it takes for them to find a successfull canidate the better chances are that they get stopped and the longer it takes to put together an attack.

These probes can be done in parallel. Also, attacks can take quite some time to prepare; you don't put somebody through flight school overnight. The few days to make probes isn't going to make a big difference. Depending on the rest of your schedule, you may be able to execute the probes before you do the "big chatter" stuff that's likely to get the Feds curious.

3) so lets say the get a guy who is the anti-sterotype of a terrorist - he may do other things that trigger the system.

Huh? If you deliberately pick an anti-stereotype, that assumes that you know what CAPPS uses, so you know what things trigger the system. That's a white-box bit of work, and requires no probes. But CAPPS is black-box, and the attack is against it as a black box: you just look and see who doesn't trigger the system.

in the end there is nothing you can do to stop a terrorist or any other criminal for that matter. but you can make it harder for them.

The point of the paper is that CAPPS may be making things slightly harder (because you have to probe), but also less likely to get caught and stopped (because you can execute an attack with a lower-than-random chance of getting busted).

Personally, I'd rather attacks against me and mine be easy and unlikely to succeed, than difficult and likely to succeed.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If my GP (doctor) asks me if it's OK to share my medical history with a surgeon I'm unlikely to object. If she fails to ask my permission I will object strongly. If she lies, and claims that she didn't share my data - well, that's worthy of more than just an objection.

Yeah, it's worthy of me performing a little surgery of my own, say a patella-ectomy via baseball bat

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course that is why you are posing as AC.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your point (terrorism has been around forever), but we must be careful to define terrorism consistently. e.g. While I certainly do not condone it in any way, murdering abortionists is borderline terrorism because the cessation of a doctor performing abortions is the exact goal (and is directly achieved by killing them). Any societal or governmental intimidation can be viewed as ancillary.

I don't think the threat of terrorism is necessarily overrated, I simply think that the word "terrorism" is often used broadly and imprecisely. e.g. "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" denotes confusion over the common distinctions between those terms.

Re:Good

[Money for Nothin']

How can you be certain that everything snopes.com writes is true? Do you take it on good faith that snopes.com isn't misleading you?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

And why would you take it on good faith that some woman who would obviously have an agenda to push wouldn't mislead anyone?

Yeah, there may not be any real way to know without being there but I'll place my bet with the gov't/airline. Why?

A.) As I said she obviously would have an interest in perpetrating this lie. The Green Party want Bush out of office (among other wacky ideas) and events like this certainly wouldn't hurt their cause. Check out their website for some of their crazy ideas - here. It's mostly anti-corporate BS and "no blood for oil!" childish garbage.

B.) If any of her story were true, why can't anyone corroborate it? Why hasn't she sued? None of the news networks have covered it? It just doesn't make any sense. I'd also like to see a source for the 1200 people missing statistic.

I just wonder why anyone would believe her before they believe their own common sense. Some of you need to get back in touch with cold, hard, boring reality. Sorry but the government does not know what you do with your (ample) free time nor does it care (again, barring anything illegal). There are not government agents plotting against you. I suggest seeing a psychiatrist (for serious).

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The statement was issued by the airline officials actually, not "Fatherland Security" as you so childishly put it.

She provides no proof that any of the event actually happened other than her own testimony. Why do you believe her?

Re:Good

[pedrofski]

for starters stop threatening the rest of the world

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually fly about twice a month and like so many others have been the lucky winner of Airport rape by TSA's. CHAPPS II can be a greate piece of software if we submit a feature request so that it consolidates all my miles from the various airlines. That way after I am done getting felt up I can get a drink and sit comfortably!

EU better watch out

[SkunkPussy]

Myth: CAPPS II will track where and when I travel and will store that information.

Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed.

So all the passenger data that the EU is leeching to US is being permanently stored - i.e. US is building a database of all EU citizens who have ever travelled to US. scary.

I can't believe the EU sold us out.

Re:EU better watch out

[heironymouscoward]

Technically no laws are broken: data on EU citizens is protected only within the EU and the US Privacy Act only covers data on US citizens.

A European visitor to the US is now (along with nationals from many 'visa exemption' countries) being fingerprinted, photographed, and logged in numerous databases.

As the largest and most powerful nation on Earth, the US can do this. What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate. I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.

We live in dangerous times: the State is seeking levels of control over our lives that would allow it to eliminate many hard-won liberties, such as the right to travel freely.

Re:EU better watch out

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I travelled from London Heathrow to JFK in October 1999 and stayed they for a week.

I am absolutely terrified that this information could fall into the wrong hands and be used against me.

Re:EU better watch out

[mattjb0010]

Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed.

So all the passenger data that the EU is leeching to US is being permanently stored - i.e. US is building a database of all EU citizens who have ever travelled to US. scary.

Firstly, non-US doesn't imply EU. Secondly, CAPS II applies to domestic US flights, the scheme operating for international visitors is different, I believe it's current incarnation is called VISIT. Recently it's been extended to include biometric data. Also, the biometric and other data isn't given from the country of origin, it's collected by the airline (or presented in the passport). When I last flew from the EU to the US the airline stated its own policy that they destroyed the data (I didn't see what use it is to them, they already have my address anyway!).

Re:EU better watch out

[jeffkjo1]

I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.

You've got the right idea, as did Brazil, when it started doing this. Amazingly, when they did, US Lawmakers started an uproar about how unfair it was.
Sigh.....

Re:EU better watch out

[albanac]

the State is seeking levels of control over our lives that would allow it to eliminate many hard-won liberties, such as the right to travel freely.

No such thing that I ever heard of. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says this:

Article 13.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

These measures do not prevent anyone from doing that. They merely allow the government to take note when he does. I don't mean to say I like it, but your implication that people aren't allowed to watch you move around is not, in my reading, supported by the document.

~cHris

Re:EU better watch out

[will_die]

The EU already does this with non-EU visitors.
As a visitor to an EU country you are required to give your passport to hotels. The hotels then send all that is send to interpol where it is stored for unknown amounts of time.
In the US you are only tracked when you enter and certain forms of internal transportation; in the EU you get all of thoses in addition to every time you want to sleep indoors.

Re:EU better watch out

[Savage-Rabbit]

As the largest and most powerful nation on Earth, the US can do this. What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate. I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.


I agree, it really sucks how the US Govt. seems to think it can to to others with imputity what is a crime when it is done to their own people by other nations. But not all European countries are that docile. In my own country the Govermnent decided to install a security suite partly because of post 911 security demands by the USA and partly because of Shengen. This includes face reckognition system. The thing had been running for just under a month when the US embassy paid a visit to our foreign ministry to complain about the fact that US czitisens were being photographed as well as the the mere mortals. They demanded that American tourists alone among all visistors to our country be exempted from this. They got a very delicately formulated 'get lost' as an answer. It seems to me that if the USA wants to submit foreign visitors to draconian controls the practice should be applied to their own nationals with the greatest of enthusiasm.

Re:EU better watch out

[lovebyte]

This is totally wrong. I travel in Europe frequently and I am (almost) never asked my nationality/passport in hotels. There are a few exceptions though, but it is not the rule.

Re:EU better watch out

[I_M_Noman]

This is totally wrong. I travel in Europe frequently and I am (almost) never asked my nationality/passport in hotels. There are a few exceptions though, but it is not the rule.

I was just in Italy on my honeymoon last month. In every hotel my wife and I had to surrender our (US) passports upon registration. In a couple of places we didn't get them back until the next day. And this isn't the first time that's happened, either -- it was standard practice the last time I was in Italy 14 years ago.

Re:EU better watch out

[goatan]

technically no laws are broken: data on EU citizens is protected only within the EU and the US Privacy Act only covers data on US citizens.

Not exactly there is something called a safe harbour the information about EU citizens being in the system was something that was negotiated later.

What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate.

Considering the EU managed to force America's hand over data protection and the safe harbour (not to mention steel tariffs) it is a surprise they backed down over this as they know they can win these issues especially as CAPPS lowers security.

that it does not reciprocate. I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.

Don't worry they will once enough people complain about it and someone looks into the security aspect.

Re:EU better watch out

[lovebyte]

I assume that this is country dependent. I mostly travel to Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain, and I don't recall having to leave my passport in hotels.

Re:EU better watch out

[basingwerk]

> As the largest and most powerful
> nation on Earth, the US can do this.

Hm... who told you that the US is the largest and most powerful nation on Earth? The only 'largest thing' the US has is it's national debt - that, indeed, is the largest on Earth. Russia, Canada and Brazil are larger in size, India and China have larger populations, and the EU has a bigger economy.

Re:EU better watch out

[meringuoid]

They have an awful lot of bombs. If all else fails they can terrorise pretty much anyone into submission.

Did I say terrorise? I meant liberate. How silly of me.

Re:EU better watch out

[Wardish]

Yes, when I read about Brazil's policy of treating foriegn nationals exactly as they Brazilians are treated in their country I was astounded at the wisdom.

Anything with a legislature generally doesn't do anything that reasonable or appropriate.

Re:EU better watch out

[letxa2000]

I hate to state the obvious, but measures should be based on potential usefulness and potential threat, not on retaliation.

Do I think it's cool that foreigners have to go through this added security? No! My wife is Mexican and on her last trip to the U.S. she had to be fingerprinted and photographed (to their credit she said the INS person was very friendly and the fingerprinting/photograph process was extremely quick). But the reality is that after 9/11 the U.S. has some serious justification for wanting to know who is entering the country. A bunch of anonymous faces is no longer acceptable. Why? Because the terrorists came from overseas, including from Europe (Germany). How many terrorists in Europe have come from the U.S.?

Further, getting the personal information ahead of time allows the government to research those that enter before they arrive. I suppose an alternative would be for arrivals to stand in line in immigration for 6-8 hours while their information is reviewed on arrival after Finally, the U.S. isn't asking for anything that is out of line with what other countries often ask for. I don't know about Europe, but for me to live in Mexico (I'm an American) I had to fill out an application with a bunch of personal information, including my fingerprints. To bring my car into the country I had to provide a credit card. I do not consider this inappropriate: I am a guest in their country and they have a right to ask for this information. If I don't want to provide it, I have the right to not live here.

I don't support collecting information on domestic travelers (which is what this thread is really about), but I do support the government having all the information possible on who is coming into the country. This is justified based on where past threats have come from. Countries such as Brazil which decide to institute retaliatory security procedures against Americans despite the fact that no security threat has been demonstrated to be of American origin are just practicing sour grapes and, quite frankly, will not be getting any of my tourism dollars. I understand their frustration but if they can't see the difference between a real threat to security in the U.S. and sour-grapes retaliation against Americans, I'll spend my money at home.

Re:EU better watch out

[Savage-Rabbit]

...they can't see the difference between a real threat to security in the U.S. and sour-grapes retaliation against Americans, I'll spend my money at home.


I think tourists around the world are concluding the same about travelling to the USA which only hurts the US economy and puts your countrymen out of work. America has raised the bar in these matters and Americans will be treated as they treat others. The European countries will eventually follow suit in these matters if only to defend them selves against the bomb tossing sons of Americas Middle east foreign policy such as America's faliure to see that Israels treatment of Palestinians is just as wrong as Palestinian terrorism. Americans are going to have to live with that just like everyone else. If you think that in the future, you as an American will somehow exempt from beign treated like a criminal everytime you cross a border you have another thing coming.

Re:EU better watch out

[basingwerk]

Try that on the French and you might find that New York is replaced by a crater.

Re:EU better watch out

[Anonymous Coward]

France?

Re:EU better watch out

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the EU a nation?

Re:EU better watch out

[red floyd]

and the EU has a bigger economy

Just out of curiosity, when did the EU become a single nation?

Re:EU better watch out

[Anonymous Coward]

These measures do not prevent anyone from doing that. They merely allow the government to take note when he does.

Under CAPPS II you can be denied the ability to fly (without ever knowing exactly why). One train bombing such as Spain and CAPPS II will be extended to trains. One homicide bombing on a bus, as seems to occur daily in Israel, and it will apply to Greyhound and Trailways. The government already controls just about everything related to automobile travel. So how free are you to move about in a country the size of the US?

Re:EU better watch out

[basingwerk]

History will judge the exact moment when the EU became a single nation was when it forced America to back down on steel tariffs.

Re:EU better watch out

[basingwerk]

yes, France, that Western European country famous for it's wine, cheese, and it's nuclear weapons programme.

Re:EU better watch out

[Anonymous Coward]

You could argue about that. As a nation, Europe was largely unified under the Romans, and later under the Germans! Now it is unified under the European Union, which has it's own currency and is more important economically than the United States of America.

Re:EU better watch out

[Knetzar]

I suppose it's how you define a single nation. With thier economies being tied together I think they are pretty close to being a single nation.

Re:EU better watch out

[SkunkPussy]

> Technically no laws are broken: data on EU citizens is protected only within the EU and the US Privacy Act only covers data on US citizens.

You are correct, data on EU citizens is protected only within the EU, but equally data on EU citizens is not allowed to be transferred outside the EU to places with less strict privacy laws.
This is why MS got in trouble with passport, and this is why US had to negotiate a special deal to get the passenger info.

Re:EU better watch out

[letxa2000]

Me: ...they can't see the difference between a real threat to security in the U.S. and sour-grapes retaliation against Americans, I'll spend my money at home.

You: I think tourists around the world are concluding the same about travelling to the USA which only hurts the US economy and puts your countrymen out of work.

So other countries are retaliating by implementing the same measures against the U.S. which hurts their economy and puts their countrymen out of work? At least the U.S. is doing it based on a demonstrated past threat. Countries that do it as a result of sour grapes and based on no credible security risk coming from the U.S. are hurting themselves for no good reason.

If you think that in the future, you as an American will somehow exempt from beign treated like a criminal everytime you cross a border you have another thing coming.

I have no problem with security and if security requires that I be treated as a criminal, fine. But, as of yet, I've seen no evidence of security risks to Europe from Americans. That is to say, if they're going to implement the same draconian security across the board, fine. If they're going to single out Americans for special security treatment despite a total lack of past security threats from the U.S. then that's just stupid, sour grapes, a waste of security resources, and hurting their own economy for no substantial increase in their security (since security threats don't historically come from the U.S.).

But, again, go for it. I'll just stay home. I have plenty to enjoy in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. No need to sit on a plane for 10 hours to look at old buildings in Europe. :)

Ahhh... the joys of travelling

[anandcp]

Actually,, legally... technically... TSA has not broken the Law. Yet.
But then it was was only natural that the Big Brother will pry out our travel details from the cold hands of Airlines.
My only worry is my partner working as an agent in TSA and finding out that i travelled to New Mexico without telling her for a fling with my.... THAT would make me sue TSA.!!!

Re:Ahhh... the joys of travelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that someone doing something dishonest doesn't want someone else doing something dishonest which would expose them. That's like suing a home owner because they broke into their home and was hurt in the process. Yet that same person breaking in would not want the home owner to break into the thiefs home. I don't care if the US breaks up 100 marriages to save 3000 lives, unfortunately you don't feel the same.

Don't Come Here

[Jameth]

From the Department of Homeland Security:

Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed. The prescreening process will be conducted anew each time you fly.

Sometime I hate my country. So, those of you who aren't from here: yet another reason to not come. Does the government not understand the manner in which science progresses? This is just going to destroy the US research community, which was once the greatest in the world. Goodbye, conferences.

Re:Don't Come Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I decided I was not welcome in the US a while ago. But Canada's OK isn't it?

I was going to a conference in Toronto (Fields institute) this summer until I got an email from the organisers telling me that I would need to travel by US airline (a US foundation was funding the travel). I decided not to go. Ho hum.

Re:Don't Come Here

[salesgeek]

This is just going to destroy the US research community, which was once the greatest in the world. Goodbye, conferences.

If you are having a "research" conference and the mere fact that you will be logged as having traveled to the conference is a problem, then you have to wonder about what is being researched.

If the purpose of your conference is legit, then this should be not a problem at all.

Re:Don't Come Here

[Anonymous Coward]

We're installing CCTV in your house, don't worry, only those with something to hide will object.

Re:Don't Come Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one will vote for any British political party that has in it policies compulsory body cavity searches for all American citizens entering the United Kingdom. After all Britain is a terrorist target and the US seems to have a real terrorist problem. I need to feel safe that some 'American tourist' isn't gonna blow up The Tower of London with an arsebomb.

Re:Don't Come Here

[rsborg]

If you are having a "research" conference and the mere fact that you will be logged as having traveled to the conference is a problem, then you have to wonder about what is being researched.
If the purpose of your conference is legit, then this should be not a problem at all.

Hey pal, I don't know about you... but I don't like being treated like I am a criminal. I may not do research, but I can tell you that many researchers have strong beliefs (you have to have real devotion to keep searching they haystack for a needle)... and often those beliefs run counter to police state mentality. Given a choice, they'll choose not to be harrassed.

.hello.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you don't like it.. fly on a different airline.

Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all??

[bomblaster]

Myth: CAPPS II will track where and when I travel and will store that information.
Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed. The prescreening process will be conducted anew each time you fly.

I don't think this will be possible at all. Consider the fact that the information that they collect about a person will have to be backed up to other media to provide recovery options in case of system failures in the CAPPPS II system. Then it will be virtually impossible to permanently remove data.

This is the same situation that Google recognized when it said that their GMail service cannot be guarantee that emails will be permanently deleted.

Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all??

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you delete the data from the primary system, and eventually all the backup tapes that had the data get rotated back into use and overwritten (unless you think they maintain permanant archives of every backup they ever did).

Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all??

[Jameth]

It is possible.

They could have backups only going one month, or something like that. Then, they just shred/burn all the backups which are over a month old. They did say that the records would be kept for a short period. One month is fairly short.

Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all??

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...

ARC (Airlines Reporting Corporation) requirements dictate that PNRs be kept on-file for 3 years.

Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all??

[Ctrl-Z]

It's called records management. Trust me, there are people who live for this sort of thing.

Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all??

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely possible, a quick trip to a drugstore, a short call to Dr. Jack Kevorkian and a few free hours. Err..... well deleted as far as you are concerned.

Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all??

[rark]

Not to mention, this is the same government that partially defends the USA PATRIOT act by claiming that previously it was illegal for computer service providers to report security incidents to law enforcement officials (here, under "Section 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications"), something which I *know* cannot be correct.

That sort of thing tends to make me distrust everything they are telling us.

Information sharing

[catherder_finleyd]

You should know that Amrerican probably shares data routinely with marketers and other private concerns. How else can companies know who to best target travelers with hotel offers, cruises, even luggage and credit cards.

It seems that in this environment we should ask the question: How much more can it really hurt to have the government also obtain this information? How much can we gain from this access, especially in the war on the terrorists?

Re:Invert the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a 6 billion name entry for each flight might prove a bit cumbersome.

YRO? Seriously?

[twbecker]

Am I supposed to be outraged by this or something? I'm sorry but we NEED to know whether people who are trying to get on an airplane are on some watchlist or what have you. So I'm afraid that the basic need to be secure trumps some schmuck's paranoia that the gov't knows he's travelling from point a to point b.

Re:YRO? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if your country followed a foreign policy that didn't constantly piss other people off, then you wouldn't have to convert your country to a police/surveillance state in order to protect it from the consequences of its very own actions.

think about it, then be outaged, because if you're not, then you haven't understood.

Re:YRO? Seriously?

[fuzzybunny]

RTFA, didya?

The issue isn't as much the sharing of data with the gub'mint (although that _is_ a valid discussion, it's one for elsewhere); it's the fact that a contractor gave it to other companies at the government's bidding without AA's knowledge or consent.

And regarding your "conclusion", this poor schmuck's paranoia is not trumped by "the government" wanting to know that I'm travelling from point a to point b. What have CAPPS & friends (fingerprinting/photography at airports, massive visa lines at embassies, whatever) done besides terribly annoy a lot of possibly desirable immigrants and tourists, who'll now go vote with their wallets and go elsewhere? "Let 'em", you may say. "Fine, they will" I reply.

Re:YRO? Seriously?

[gclef]

As many others have pointed out, there are two major problems with this:
1) The watchlists are horribly broken, and include many people who are not actually suspicious (there's even been a lawsuit filed by several people for interference with their free movement over this). If the watchlists actually *worked*, you might have a point. But, they don't.
2) This system actually gives attackers an advantage by allowing them to test what we're looking for. It therefore allows them to be more confident that if they don't fall under our criteria, they will have more leeway as to what they can smuggle on board a plane.

Truly random searches are the only way to go, honestly. While that will piss people off, and leads to ridiculous searches of grannies & the like, it's also the only way to be sure that attackers can't game the system.

Of course, airline security is only rarely about actually securing the flight, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Re:YRO? Seriously?

[Atzanteol]

What have CAPPS & friends (fingerprinting/photography at airports, massive visa lines at embassies, whatever) done besides terribly annoy a lot of possibly desirable immigrants and tourists

Have we had any more terrorist attacks using airplanes? This may not be a good argument that things are *working*, but then you've supplied no evidence that these measures are *not* working.

The difficult thing is, whether these things work or not is very difficult to measure. If Bush had implemented such constraints before Sept. 11, and it averted the tradgedy without anybody knowing, then everyone here would be bitching about how the government is infringing on their rights for no good reasons!

Re:YRO? Seriously?

[fuzzybunny]

No, you're absolutely right, I can't argue my point based on statistics as we have not had any such attacks since. But then again, we didn't have any such attacks in the same timeframe before either, so at this point it's just twisting statistics to support whatever point you're trying to make.

Regarding the bitching, I agree with you. However, I think that there are ways to seriously go about security, such as increased intelligence about financial flows between various groups, human intelligence, whatever, and there are measures which serve no appreciable end against terrorism, such as taking peoples' fingerprints or profiling passengers.

The old argument applies that it won't do you much good to collect the fingerprints of a terrorist who's never committed a crime before. Ayman Al-Zawahiri (spelling?) published a guide for aspiring jihadis, the gist of which was basically "keep your nose clean and the bastards won't see you coming."

The best argument you could make to support your point is that the intimidation factor would suffice to drive a really determined bomber to attack another target, such as a train or a ship or a highway tunnel.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not against security measures per se; it's just that a large percentage of them seem to fall either into the category of "stuff the government should know which probably won't stop bad things but which it can _really_ use against you if it ever decides to" (fingerprinting, profiling) or that of "feel-good measures to let people see that we're doing something, anything!" (removing your shoes at airports.)

I am far more worried about government misuse of information about my whereabouts (oh no trust us, we'll never abuse the information!) than I am about terrorist whom such information collection wouldn't catch anyway.

Re:YRO? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you fly from Canada to Maine (like 9/11) and you say your name is "Billy AllAmerica Muhamed" and they finger print you, then you can't come in again and say your name is "Johnny Apple-Jihad". Also, someone who wants to kill 1000s of people complaining about being fingerprinted shows more about them then about us. I say anyone that looks arab should not be allowed on a plane, bus, or in a car let alone in the country. I say we even keep Puerto ricans out, because it's hard to tell some times.

Re:YRO? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf are you talking about? We say "hey, don't wipe the jews off the face of the earth, please" and they say "that is the last straw america, you all die now". We also let woman have rights, that would cause us to die. We also don't kill people for not believing in Allah, that would get us killed and so on. I say we bomb more countries, starting with France and working our way east. The line should've been "you are either with us or get turned to dust".

Who else does this?

[guttergod]

I don't see this particular thing as a very serious breach of personal integrity, the question is where else do they share data like this? I may be a bit paranoid, but the expression "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone is not out to get me" seems quite appropriate here...

Why the surprise?

[Kombat]

Why is this even news? People, the days of anonymous traveling are coming to an end. It's just a fact. The government is determined to know who is going where, especially when using risky modes of transit, such as trains or airplanes.

I predict that within 20 years, USAmerican citizens will be ID'd even as they cross state borders. Adjust my prediction to 10 years, if there is another September-11-like attack in the near future.

Re:Why the surprise?

[HeghmoH]

It's not at all surprising, it's just bad. And there's no reason to be fatalistic about it. Yes, the government is trying to restrict anonymous travel in the name of safety, but it's not succeeding and we should fight it!

especially when using risky modes of transit, such as trains or airplanes.

Come on, traveling by train or airplane is an order of magnitude safer than driving a car. If safety were a concern, rather than just trying to "Do something, anything at all, to stop terrorists!" then there would be a crackdown on cars; any jackass over 16 with a pulse who can sign his name can get a driver's license, and there's absolutely nothing in place to stop somebody who got totally smashed at a bar from trying to drive sixty miles home.

Re:Why the surprise?

[Jameth]

I suspect you are wrong.

Currently, every state in the union is in a budget-crunch situation. The Federal government is likewise breaking its budget severely. State-by-state checkpoint simply aren't economically feasible, and won't be inside of twenty years. Even when it is feasible but expensive, no politician will be able to slip that kind of expense past the taxpayers.

Also, it would either need to be implemented by every state or by the federal government, and the states will really fight it if the feds try to do that.

So, I don't think that will be coming very soon.

Re:Why the surprise?

[Marcus Green]

In what way is train or plane travel risky? Surely if you want to track risky travel you keep tabs on those traveling by automobile?

Re:Why the surprise?

[pben]

I miss the cold war, at least then we defined what was good by doing the opposite of with the Soviet Union did. They had internal passports but any American could go anywhere in America. Since then we have put police in schools, expanded searches, and done lots of things that my teachers in the 60's (yea I am that old) said that only the Soviets would do.

Somehow we won the war and are loosing our freedom. Instead of rejecting our enemies we are becoming our enemies.

Re:Why the surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the very same government that taught me to hate the soviets for doing the same thing. Do they really think I will not fight this any way I can? they are the ones that taught me this is evil and should be fought. Methinks our government is in for a hard time from its very own people. Why are we worrying about some freaks from the middle east, America has too many of its own freaks. America should be more worried about domestic terrorism than foriegn terrorism. I remember listening to the cell phone calls that people were making from the planes on 9/11, no one either wants to remember or will admit to themselves, and the records have been changed. But all of the callers mentioned that some of the highjackers were white.

Game Over

[CaptainZapp]

A European visitor to the US is now (along with nationals from many 'visa exemption' countries) being fingerprinted, photographed, and logged in numerous databases.

Yup, but this stops at the end of September. Except Canadians every terr^H^H^H^Hforeigner will be fingerprinted upon entry to the US.

If I'd be the US tourist industry I'd be in the process of shitting my pants from fear.

From a personal perspective: I've travelled the US about 15 times and spent a significant amount of my tourist Euro there.

This change of procedure however has the stench of assuming that I'm a criminal and doesn't give me the warm fuzzy feeling that I'm welcome.

I might be a tad over sensitive here (given the rotten track record of privacy protections in the US I'm not sure though), but I don't believe that I'm the only ex-US visitor with that view..

Re:Game Over

[bogado]

When talking about entering a foreinger country I never have this "warm feeling of welcome". I always keep thinking about the dozens of historys I have heard about people being traped and humiliated before entering a country, and this is not only in the united states.

My mother was locked in a small room in the Paris airport, revisted several times, and she didn't speak a word of french or english for that matter. She didn't know what the hell was happening, my father that was there already in a work related trip did not know what was happening.

I have heard of people having to return home without so much as a reason from buth the US and the UK.

But remember that I am not talking about the reception after you actualy enter the country, I was very well received in both Paris and Madrid.

Re:Game Over

[dipipanone]

From a personal perspective: I've travelled the US about 15 times and spent a significant amount of my tourist Euro there.

In the words of the famous AOL subscriber, "Me too."

I've been to the USA at least twice a year for the last ten years. I was actually in NYC the Oct. after the WTC crash, because I wanted to support the NY hotel and tourist economy at that time. It was really peculiar and very moving to be in Greenwich Village at 10.00pm on a Thursday evening and see the streets deserted aside from a few homeless people and a handful of kids.

Last time I flew was November last year. Air tickets were cheap (around 200 return) so I paid cash. I also made the mistake of flying Air France because I couldn't get a BA flight.

On arrival, the immigration guy gave me the third degree. What was the purpose of my visit? What did I do for a living? Had I ever been arrested? (Answer: no.) What had I been arrested for?

It seems that my answers didn't satisfy him, because he escalated my case, sending me to the 'big room' in which mine was the only white face to be seen.

They kept me hanging around for about three hours, whereupon a senior official came along and asked me a more polite series of questions. (What was the purpose of my visit? Where was I staying? When would I be leaving, etc.) This lasted about two minutes and then they let me in.

Needless to say, I won't be going again. I love the USA and I have some very close friends who are Americans, but in future they can spend their dollars here in Europe, because I'll be fucked if I'm going back there without a significant regime change.

Re:Game Over

[mrcparker]

I am an American citizen and I have gotten stopped almost every time I have flown (which is quite a bit).

I am 6'3", Caucasian, blond hair, no criminal record. Maybe I look too normal - don't know.

They are always polite, but it is frustrating constantly being checked two, three times. I always get to the airport very early but I have have a lot of close calls. Needless to say, I only fly when I have to now.

Re:Game Over

[CaptainZapp]

Last time I flew was November last year. Air tickets were cheap (around 200 return) so I paid cash. I also made the mistake of flying Air France because I couldn't get a BA flight.

Isn't this called a "double whammy"?

Specifically if the immigration officer is an avid Fox news viewer, or a worshipper of pea brained blonde annorexic chicks who like to spew hate.

Re:Game Over

[dipipanone]

They are always polite, but it is frustrating constantly being checked two, three times.

I don't mind being stopped and questioned. That's fine. What bothered me was the attitude of the original immigration guy, and then what I saw in the room where I was forced to wait for three hours, accompanied almost exclusively by people with brown skin, presumably from Islamic countries.

There was one other white guy among us (and I'd guess there were forty or fifty people waiting in this room) and he was someone I originally presumed was an Italian American because of his looks and his strong Brooklyn accent.

He'd been to Italy for a holiday and they were asking him if he'd ever been arrested. Apparently, he'd been arrested for something minor around thirty years before, and they were sending him back to Italy -- even though he'd lived in the USA since he was a kid.

The whole experience gave me some idea how those Jews must have felt when they were being shipped out of Europe, trying to get to the New World and the freedom they'd heard about, only to be confronted by bureaucrats who were happy to send them back to the gas chambers.

And I know that sounds like I'm overstating things, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that the experience was sufficiently unpleasant to stop me going back.

Re:Game Over

[dipipanone]

Isn't this called a "double whammy"?

Yeah. And American friends have suggested that if I pay by credit card and fly British Airways, I almost certainly wouldn't have had this trouble, but I don't care. I don't see that how I pay and who I choose to fly with are anyone's business but my own -- and they certainly aren't issues I feel I need to account for.

Specifically if the immigration officer is an avid Fox news viewer, or a worshipper of pea brained blonde annorexic chicks who like to spew hate.

Perhaps it's different in other parts of the country -- I recall flying into Philidelphia and Orlando in the past and not finding this -- but my impressions of the immigration officers at JFK is that they are all like this.

*sigh* What's next?

[guttergod]

Are they gonna monitor every time I purchase nukes from russia with my VISA??

Re:*sigh* What's next?

[Artifakt]

Cause they don't accept American Express, right?

Perspective

[Effugas]

You think SPAM filtering is hard?

In 2003, there were 641 Million passengers on U.S. flights.

Zero of them actually attempted to destroy their flight. One of them would have been sufficient (the Shoe Bomber, for instance). The people tasked with finding this individual must thus be accurate to a level of one out of six hundred and forty one million.

By comparison, the odds of winning Powerball are approximately one out of one hundred and twenty million.

But people do win the lottery, quite regularly in fact. Lots of people have to lose, of course -- that's what funds the thing -- but it's not a particularly rare occurance.

That's sort of the idea here. Given enough "losing tickets", we'll beat the odds. And even if we don't -- at least we tried (which, ultimately, is what all the controversy is about right now -- not whether we succeeded in stopping the attacks, which we obviously didn't but whether "we tried".)

Hate to quote Scott McNealy, but like the man who sells the servers that store all our personal information says, "You have no privacy, get over it." Everyone gave up the flight info, because everyone was damn near thrown out of business. That's the bottom line.

Re:Perspective

[Nuclear Elephant]

Brightmail claims to have filtered 2 trillion emails, that's way more than 641 million passengers. Everyone knows brightmail's numbers are accurate.

Criminal background checks

[tpm999]

On the website cited in the article it states that they aren't going to run a criminal background check on everyone. If that is the case, how are they going to know if you have an outstanding federal or state warrant. The only way I know to do that is through the NCIC (National Crime Information Computer) system and that will also show your criminal history. Does anyone really believe what the government says?

Re:Criminal Background Checks

[FriedTurkey]

So if I'm an airline, I can use CAPPS II data for marketing purposes, pay the fine for breaking CAPPS protocol, and still make a net profit.

You don't mess with the feds. The feds aren't going to give airlines a little fine. They are going to make sure the airlines pay with more than a fine. Look at Martha Stewart.

They already have enough information to do marketing on you. I am member of 4 frequent flier programs and I get 5 credit card offer a week with the airline names on it. The only way not to be marketed to is to take a bus.

only a start

[Monoliath]

The department of homeland security is an agency that was created, to provide an excuse for the American government to strengthen its' 'big brother' arm. Yes, it is important, no, it's the duty of a government to ensure that its' citizens are safe and protected, but this is an example of how that line is being over-stepped. What next, what other kind of records or information is the department of homeland security going to deem necessary to collect and analyze to prevent 'terrorism'? The wool is being pulled over our eyes, and the system is being setup right under our noses as we go about our daily lives and call it 'protection'. How much safer do any of you feel after September 11th? Or do you in fact, feel much more afraid for your lives every time you step onto a plane, walk onto a subway etc? It starts with small things, and snow balls, this is only a sign of what is to come, now it?s airline records, tomorrow it will be medical records from private practice doctors to see if anyone?s been treated for anthrax related complications systematically?and god knows what else.

Re:only a start

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is called the "slippery slope" argument. It seems to get pulled out when people can't oppose the idea on its merits. Take an idea, extrapolate all the possible bad outcomes and then oppose the original idea.

Hmm, let's see, should we use needles in medicine? Needles can be used to give lifesaving inoculations. But wait, needles spread AIDs and other diseases. If we permit needles to be used we'll have an epidemic of disease across continents! Needles are not the right solution and should be opposed.

After September 11th there seemed to be a lot of Americans asking what they can do for their country. What sacrifice can we make to help? Remember WWII when there was rationing? It would seem that your average person is not willing to give up very much in this post 9/11 era.

I travel a LOT. For a period I went to London every week. I already felt like a stranger there as the Non EU passport line is always much longer. But hey if that is their system than so be it. My expectation of privacy is not very high when I am in a public place (like an airplane). Everyone on the plane knows where I am going. I have to write in a little card where I am staying. I don't feel like my privacy is being invaded that much extra by the mere fact that the information is stored on a computer.

Re:only a start

[Artifakt]

Slippery Slope arguements also get developed from historical facts, and may have more validity there. Hitler really did oppose most private gun ownership, really bought big computers (for his time) and put lots of data on people in them, and really did create a lot of internal passports and paperwork to facilitate tracking his own citizens. Those were three steps down a real slippery slope and not just an extrapolated one.
Things that have been steps down a very ugly slope in the past should get special scrutiny when they turn up again. Sometimes it's not just a question of there being lots of data in a census computer, it's a matter of people who promised to use that data only in selected ways having been caught lieing about it. You're quite right in saying putting some already existing information in a computer isn't a significant step down amy slope slippery or non (which seems to be one of your points), but one of the issues here is that some of the statements the government is making seem to contradict others.
If we assume everything that might be a step has strong potential to lead to a horrible totalitarian nightmare, we'll wind up worrying whenever some politician makes a train run on time, or designs a cheap, gas efficent compact family car with a domed roof design, but if we assume no step has much potential, we may let a dozen warning signs go by unnoticed.

Note: If you're moderating this, please read Godwin's law before thinking it applies to all posts that contain the word Hitler.

Re:only a start

[Anonymous Coward]

this is too funny for words ...

Hitler really did oppose most private gun ownership,

as documented here

really bought big computers (for his time)

... the famous margarine-powered NAZIVAC ...

and really did create a lot of internal passports

didn't have to, as he merely inherited that system.

Far more important is the fact that he was a non-smoking, teatotalling anti-vivisectionist.

Maybe if we put a chain-smoking red-meat eating drunk into the Oval Office, our civil liberties might be safe again ??

Note: If you're moderating this, please read Godwin's law before thinking it applies to all posts that contain the word Hitler.

Note: American universities are home to some of the world's foremost historians. Now why doesn't this quality percolate into the classroom?

Re:only a start

[Artifakt]

"... the famous margarine-powered NAZIVAC ..."

Holreth's card tabulating systems, originally purchased as "a tool for for census calculations". The little punch hole the Nazis set aside for jew turned out to be very handy - or did you think computing started with ENIAC?

"and really did create a lot of internal passports

didn't have to, as he merely inherited that system."

The increase during the Nazi era in the amount of paperwork required to travel, both within the Reich and abroad, and to engage in economic activities while doing so, is extremely well documented, and is the consensus of most historians today. I'd suggest you ask the Simon Weisenthal Foundation if they have any examples of control paperwork specifically devised during the Naza era and not previously. (Hint: they have over 500 such documents on permanent display in Washington DC. in the holocaust museum, and yes, professional historians already have gone through the collection, categorizing which documents were merly modified forms of older papers with a swastika or eagle overlay and which were completely new paperwork.).

Incidentally, Urban Legend's "debunking' of the claim that various National Socialists supported more gun control has itself been criticized by several organizations. So, I was right about 2 out of 3, willing to split with you on the first point if the NRA's website is considered no more reliable than Urban legends, and you're worried about what hasn't "percolated" down to me? Sometimes the accent on AC really needs to be placed on the 5th and 6th syllables.

not much..

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were a terrorist an attack such as the 9/11 one would be off the agenda.. it'd seem virtually impossible to pull off.. instead, as witnessed in Madrid, train attacks and/or ferries/boats attacks seem much more softer targets with no less impact.

Whatever methods are employed, when you're up against raving madmen, there's not much you can do.

Actually they are breaking the law

[Anonymous Coward]

...but technically it's the EU that's brteaking the law not the US. Information is illegal to distribute of share outside of the EU member country unless the recipient has similar privacy protections. The US doesn't but the EU is forwarding flight information so they don't rock the boat with the US.

There are a number of lawsuits going on in the EU to try and force the EU commission to adhere to the letter of the law.

I Disagree, and I fly.

[OS24Ever]

I'm managed to fly 49 flights on American so far this year and I'm really ticked they shared my travel information without my consent.

Had they asked, I'd have given it to them. I'm sick of fucking (in)security with arbitrary random acts of rudeness and stupidity.

I'm tired of standing in lines. I'm on an airplane a week it seems like and you'd think the'yd be able to go 'oh yeah, he flys with us all the time so lets not randomly search his ass because he's got a ticket that goes to one city but leaves from another' or things like that.

Hell if they checked my flight patterns for the last 5 years they'd see a pretty businessman like pattern of 70+ flights on their airline alone a year, and then another 20 or so from other airlines to cities they don't cover.

Re:I Disagree, and I fly.

[the_mad_poster]

I'm on an airplane a week it seems like and you'd think the'yd be able to go 'oh yeah, he flys with us all the time so lets not randomly search his ass because he's got a ticket that goes to one city but leaves from another' or things like that.

Uh.. that's kind of the premise and that's why it's a totally useless system. It directs searches toward people who are "more likely" to be terrorists. If you take 10 flights a month and never even so much as set off a metal detector, odds are you're not a terrorst, right? So you don't get "randomly" searched that often.

So, explain to me then: what exactly is to stop a terrorist with a game plan from doing the same thing? It's a lot like karma-whoring. They just fly the flights without raising suspicions enough times, and then when the big day comes, they get on the plane without any raised eyebrows and *boom*. Bye bye birdy. It's a very simply attack on the security model, and all it requires is money and a little patience. Both of these are things the ter'rists have.

Yea, sure makes me feel safe. I'm glad they implement these things, then collect the data in a sneaky, underhanded way, and to top it off, they're only guaranteed to keep total idiots off the plane.

Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

> They were proceeded in admissions by...
Preceded, dammit.

More Perspective

[HeghmoH]

In 2002, there were 42,815 traffic fatalities in the US. There was presumably a similar number of traffic fatalities in 2003, although I couldn't find the exact number. That's one death every twelve minutes. A September 11 every month. Why do we care so much about airplanes? What makes them so damned important that we can't stomach a single crash, while tens of thousands of people die on the roads every year?

Re:More Perspective

[MisanthropicProgram]

Or Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc .....

Our health as a nation should be the biggest concern. More people are going to die from health issues is one year then in probably twenty years of terrorism.

Re:More Perspective

[Jameth]

If you truly think no one cares about traffic accidents, you should check the changes in drivers liscense restrictions. At least where I live, penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising, the age limits on drivers liscenses have increased by a good margin, and the driving tests have gotten enormously harder. Also, safety standards in cars have been steadily increasing.

So, in short, you're an idiot.

Re:More Perspective

[phoenix.bam!]

Because CNN Doesn't cover a car accident for seven weeks straight. Anyone remember TWA flight 800? Of course you do, it was all over the news for longer than it should have been. Aircrashes attracted attention while car accidents attract negative attention (I bet you get annoyed when a car accident delays your commute.)

Re:More Perspective

[shadowcabbit]

I hardly think calling him an idiot is justified when you yourself have a gaping flaw in your argument. Witness:

At least where I live, penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising, the age limits on drivers liscenses have increased by a good margin, and the driving tests have gotten enormously harder. Also, safety standards in cars have been steadily increasing.

All these wonderful controls are just super-dee-duper, until you realize that you mention nothing about enforcing these mandates. Come to think of it, that's what the entire problem is-- enforcement. We can have all the laws we want, we can make sure nobody crosses a doorframe without being duly notarized, fingerprinted, and RFID-tagged, but unless we have high-integrity, resistant-to-corruption, rock-solid officials to enforce the laws (I'm looking at you, ladies with the metal-detector wands, and you, air marshals who read porno instead of keeping your eyes open for trouble), it's all for nothing.

When I was in high school (just a few years ago, believe it or not), the driver's ed teacher was arrested for drunk driving. Twice. In the same summer. It was pretty ridiculous, and eventually he lost his license... but the fact of the matter is, he should never have had it after the first DWI conviction. (I wonder how he's doing now-- I was sort of friends with his daughter, and after I went off to college I lost contact with them...)

Re:More Perspective

[HeghmoH]

If you truly think no one cares about traffic accidents

Please quote where I said that. Go ahead. It's not a very long post, it should be easy to find. I'll wait.

.

.

Anyway, let's forget about that spectacular display of uselessness and discuss your points. They're pretty much irrelevant, but we can make some comparisons anyway.

penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising

Doesn't matter. Drunk people don't worry about jail when they decide whether they should call a taxi, and the punishment happens after the potential for death has passed. (That's how it should be, of course; putting people in jail for potential crimes is abhorrent, but that's exactly the way airline security works.)

age limits on drivers liscenses have increased by a good margin

And meanwhile age limits on who gets to be pulled aside for full-body searches in airports have been steadily widening. Yes, this is a very small improvement. No, it doesn't compare with being forced to submit to a guy with a metal detector wand just to get on a friggin' airplane.

and the driving tests have gotten enormously harder

I can't comment on this, I have no idea whether it's true or not. When I took the driving test in Wisconsin 1996, it was difficult not to pass. Worse, they exclusively tested your knowledge of basic things like parallel parking and city driving, and didn't test people's abilities at all in areas where fatalities can actually happen, like speeds above 25 miles per hour.

Also, safety standards in cars have been steadily increasing

Well, whoop de do. I never said otherwise.

Yes, cars have gotten safer. Yes, people care. It's obvious; traffic fatalities have remained level for something like forty years, whereas the population has doubled in that time. But that's not the point, which you apparently missed in your rabid zealotry to disprove a post that appears to disagree with your precious opinions. Let's compare cars and airplanes:

Driving: basic regulations to keep those who are totally incompetent off the road. Punishment for endangering others. Improving standards for vehicle safety. 0.88 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles, and 43,000 fatalities per year.

Flying: draconian security checks. People pawing through your personal items. Metal detectors. Wands. Pat-downs. Watch lists. Explosives sniffers. X-ray machines. Things like nail clippers prohibited. ID required just to be a passenger. Roughly 0.02 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles, and a number of fatalities per year that's so low that you can't even give a reasonable average yearly figure because it gets lost in the noise.

Are we really spending the 100 or 1000 times more effort to prevent automobile fatalities that the number of deaths would warrant?

Re:More Perspective

[Atzanteol]

Soooo, we shouldn't care at all about airplane crashes simply because there are more automobile accidents? You're saying that only the #1 causes of death should be of concern? In that case why care about automobile accidents? More people die of heart dissease!

Re:More Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because when people drive cars into skyscrapers they generally don't fall down?

Re:More Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a traffic accident rarely ends in the deaths of possible several hundred people all at once

Re:More Perspective

[Kjella]

In 2002, there were 42,815 traffic fatalities in the US. (...)What makes them so damned important that we can't stomach a single crash, while tens of thousands of people die on the roads every year?

If there had been 42,815 people first degree murders in traffic each year, you'd see a reaction. Planes crash from time to time due to technical malfunction or human error, it's clearly undesirable but it happens. You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's like comparing the number of people that die from snake bites, to that of those dying from being thrown into a snake pit.

Kjella

Re:More Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

So you mean you don't mind being killed by a moron who was speeding and didn't stop at a red light, but you do mind being killed when someone wants to blow himself ?

I don't get it ! What's the difference ?

Re:More Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

that's right. You DON'T get it!

Re:More Perspective

[Jameth]

His argument was that we were trying to deal with airplane issues when we should be trying to deal with traffic issues (and implied other issues, I think another poster mentioned health).

The reason this is stupid is that we are trying to deal with those problems. We may be failing, but arguing that we should be trying is just stupid. Organizations like MADD are very influential. There is a constant effort to reduce driving problems, from all directions.

You claim the driver's liscense should be revoked after the first offense, as it is in Europe (I think). First, I do agree. However, you should consider the situation in the US a little more deeply. Most of the nation has horrible public transportation (for some valid reasons) and a car is almost a requirement to live in many areas. Obviously, the situation needs work. It is getting work. A lot of work. Just not quite so high-publicity of work.

So, in short, I stand by my calling his argument faulty, but idiot may have been too harsh.

Re:More Perspective

[Jameth]

>>If you truly think no one cares about traffic accidents

>Please quote where I said that. Go ahead. It's not a very long post, it should be easy to find. I'll wait.

It was implied that you felt people were not paying attention to the issue of drunk driving. Clearly, clearly implied. You talked about accidents and followed with, "Why do we care so much about airplanes?" Not all things need to be quoted.

I stand by my response on that.

The reason your post is idiotic is that you act as if the topics are even slightly related. You act like, because we pay attention to airport security we stop paying attention to other things. We are intelligent beings! We can do more than one thing at a time!

> Are we really spending the 100 or 1000 times more effort to prevent automobile fatalities that the number of deaths would warrant?

The real questions are, would that extra funding actually prevent it, and is that funding preventing anything at the moment? For the second, I'd say no. For the first, also no. Funding isn't the issue with traffic accidents, general mentality is. If the government could agree on a plan, it would be fairly cheap to start implementing it.

You are like the person who flames KDE lists because they should have fixed the Konqueror rendering instead of adding tabbed browsing, as if the developer of one would have been working on the other.

The airport security measures need to be taken in their own light, individually. If they are appropriate, they should be done. If they are not, they should not. They are completely inappropriate, but the amount of deaths due to traffic has nothing to do with this.

Re:More Perspective

[lorcha]

We take measures to improve the safety of our roads, and we take measures to improve the safety of air transit. We concentrate on both. In fact, we spend way more on roads than we do on airport security. Or did you think all the roads, bridges, traffic lights, stop signs, maintenance of all of the above, speed limits, drunk-driving laws, driving examinations, car-safety inspections, etc. were free?

I think you're just used to the road-safety measures so you don't notice them. But the government is trying to keep our roads safe, too.

That's one death every twelve minutes. A September 11 every month.

Don't you think it's a good idea to invest in airport security so we don't have a 9/11 every month?

Thank you...

[MisanthropicProgram]

for stating what needs to be said.

We Americans have an exaggerated sense of danger - I don't know if it's because of all the violence in our media or we're just scared.

Another thing the nobody has stated yet is the fact that these databases are NOT completely accurate. We're going to be getting a lot of false positives. We've all read about what happens to the folks who are falsely fingered and what they have to go through.
Considering the inaccuracy of corporate data - that's right, that's where the TSA's data is coming from - how does one get it fixed? The TSA will just say that's what they got from the corps. If you go to the TSA's source, you'll just get the typical run around from them - "Oh, It's not our responsibility if there are errors because we get it from so and so." Or they may just blow you off. Don't believe me? Wait. This happened to a friend of mine. He couldn't get a loan because they had very old data that even the credit bureaus deleted. The bank just said "It's our policy and there's nothing to be done!"

I'll only be happy if there's a legal recourse for those wrongfully fingered and can't get the information fixed. That's right, feed the trial lawyers! But what are we supposed to do? Sit back and take it?

Re:Thank you...

[Effugas]

No, they're not accurate, but until the cost of not correcting data exceeds the cost of correcting data, they're not going to scrub anything. Nobody wants to be the guy who erased the terrorists from the database.

Re:Thank you...

[Atzanteol]

We Americans have an exaggerated sense of danger - I don't know if it's because of all the violence in our media or we're just scared.

Or because of that whole 'terrorists flying airplanes into buildings' thing that killed thousands of innocent people. Nahhh, who'd be upset by that? It was just blown out of proportion by the media anyway.

Re:Thank you...

[Piquan]

I'll only be happy if there's a legal recourse for those wrongfully fingered and can't get the information fixed.

Is the TSA exempt from the auspices of the Privacy Act?

Well,

[warrax_666]

it's all explained in the paper, so I highly recommend that you read it.

Looking at stupid vs. 'smart' terrorists, it all really depends on how many stupid terrorists there are per smart terrorist. The smart ones shift the number of false negatives (passengers which are wrongfully not flagged) while the stupid terrorists increase the number of true positives. Obviously, to determine if this shifts the balance in favour of the terrorists (over purely random searches) or if it puts them at a disadvantage would require an analysis with some actual numbers.

Re:Well,

[Kjella]

Unlike the Middle East, where you basicly put on a suicide jacket, walk over the border and go BOOM, sending terrorists to Spain, USA or whereever to conduct coordinated attacks requires planning.

The terrorists may be mindnumbingly stupid (not that terrorists have to be stupid), but as long as they follow directions from someone smart, it'll hardly matter. Or even a fucking "How-to" manual...

Kjella

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just "walk over the border" in the Middle East, Israel is chock full of checkpoints. A Palestinian can't go very far at all now without waiting for hours at one stop.

Myths and Facts

[paranoic]

Can they really tell the difference?

regulation

[aixou]

Regulation in once anonymous fields is nothing new (the wild west isn't so wild anymore, is it?)

There will always be new places and frontiers that are unregulated and host to anonymity. In the fairly distant future, outer space will probably be just that place. For the time being, the internet is a place where people can be (for the most part) anonymous.

There seems to be a knee-jerk negative reaction to the government becoming involved in anything that could potentially be construed as privacy violation. I suppose its healthy to have naysayers every step of the way, but I don't see airline customer data to be that big of a deal as far as privacy goes.

Re:regulation

[cherokee158]

Amen.

I enjoy my privacy, too, but too much anonymity can be a bad thing. We all enjoy an abundance of anonymity on the net, and look how people behave: rampant copyrighht infringement, unregulated drug sales, rampant cheating (which has destroyed the value of online gaming for many), spam, truly offensive porn (not just harmless pinups, which I wholeheartedly endorse, but really deviant crap that caters to whole communities of bottom feeders), hate sites, etc...

I doubt you'd see all of that if the people involved were stripped of their cloak of anonymity.

It's sort of ironic, really. Most of the US government is perpetually hounded by the media every moment of the day, yet we all seem to be perpetually lamenting their secretive behaviour. The rest of us all enjoy almost complete obscurity, and complain when we are forced to surrender our address to the people WE elected to protect us.

I think the fear is that this information will somehow be abused, and it is a potential danger. But until they start making note of your race, religious preference or political affiliation, I wouldn't worry too much. About the worst thing they are likely to do with your address is send you coupons. All they want to do is run the names against a list of known troublemakers and keep an eye on them.

Ever watch the show "Airline"? 10 minutes of that, and you'll begin to wonder why they let as many people fly as they do. Airports attract a wide cross-secton of humanity, and rival bus stations for the circus-like quality of their crowds. Drunks, drifters, morally outraged consumers, people who are so fat they can barely fit in the plane, enough denizens of trailer parks to keep the Jerry Springer show on the air for an entire season, really...it is amazing to me how cavalier some people are when it comes to flying. Anyone with even the slightest idea of what a delicate balance of tremendous forces are involved in getting them to Disneyland in two hours would, I think, behave a little more respectfully than many people seem to do on airplanes. I definitely think they need to ban the sale of alcohol on them altogether. If they want to throw a few "high-risk" passengers off, fine by me. I recommend the obese woman complaining about having to buy two tickets. More runway for me...

That being said, I'm still glad their are some naysayers out there watching the proceedings with a skeptical eye. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

But if we fear our own government more than some guy on a 777 with an Uzi, then maybe we need to be starting our own database, eh?

Re:regulation

[Pig Hogger]

I enjoy my privacy, too, but too much anonymity can be a bad thing. We all enjoy an abundance of anonymity on the net, and look how people behave: rampant copyrighht infringement, unregulated drug sales, rampant cheating (which has destroyed the value of online gaming for many), spam, truly offensive porn (not just harmless pinups, which I wholeheartedly endorse, but really deviant crap that caters to whole communities of bottom feeders), hate sites, etc...

After spewing so much croporate totalitarian bullshit, you must be voting for Dubya, eh?

Re:regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you didn't want people to know your political affiliation(sp?)? If so, why do you ask who he is voting for? I was at the rally for Swartzeneger(sp?) before he was elected, I was in Sacramento at the time and went to see the weirdos. I was walking, alone, not hurting anyone, and playing with my camera to get it ready. An "activist" wanted to hand me her propaganda paper and I waved to her in a gesture of "no thanks". She then went crazy asking me who I worked for and saying that I was in league with the people she was against. All I was doing was taking pictures of anti-abortion crazies and the feminazis that were protesting. For that she wanted to know personal things about me. If we said "you are a kook, we need to know more about you" she would've have gone equally crazy as she did towards me, but saying no one needs her info. In conclusion, you can't blame the right for 9/11, the patriot act, and what else, yet then blame them for not stopping 9/11. You can't have it both ways, either we are taking everyone's info or no one. I say take everyone's, that is the definition of fair.

Goodbye US research community, conferences

[SgtChaireBourne]

Two generations ago study of the hard sciences in Western universities required fluency in German or Russian. English probably won't go away very soon, due to its dominance in the WWW/Internet, but research might move back overseas.

People study where the best departments and research centers are. The US attracted many of the world's top students during the 70's, 80's and 90's, because in some fields, research was most advanced. Part of the reason was because not only was Europe devastated in WWII but many of its researchers emmigrated to the U.S. before and during the war as well as during the early phases of the Cold War. It became self-perpetuating. When the leading centers were in pre-war Europe, Europe was sought ought. When the leading centers were in post-war U.S., the U.S. was sought ought.

Now the have been two generations of post-war reconstruction and there is increasing incentive for them to stay home or return back home. The pull of good centers is augmented by the push provided by the Dept. Homespun Security, Patriot Act I-III, etc.

So the U.S. is losing the safe haven benefit and the dynamic equilibrium is changing. This will eventually stabilize even with things like CAPPS II and a general increasingly anti-research climate (many businesses have already cut their R&D, even Xerox PARC is gone).

However, a real tipping effect can be achieved by adding quality of life and economic issues to the equation. Many businesses have been cutting health coverage. And while there are still some good areas many cities are lacking in basic services like public transportation (could you commute if you wished?) and decent schools (where hard math and science is mastered). Furthermore, businesses have been downsizing and look to be doing so making it a hard climate. The climate is getting harder as the interest rates are at the bottom and both the national decificit and trade deficits are growing. Add the weak dollar to the mix, which might be hiding deflation behind the trade deficit, and it might be better to earn instead of $.

Then you have patents and litigation to deal with, if some corporation objects to your results -- e.g. Felton.

Behaviors like that are just going to ensure that a few more researchers choose to go home and build their centers in Europe, Aus/NZ, India or China.

Re:Goodbye US research community, conferences

[Pig Hogger]

People study where the best departments and research centers are. The US attracted many of the world's top students during the 70's, 80's and 90's, because in some fields, research was most advanced. Part of the reason was because not only was Europe devastated in WWII but many of its researchers emmigrated to the U.S. before and during the war as well as during the early phases of the Cold War. It became self-perpetuating. When the leading centers were in pre-war Europe, Europe was sought ought. When the leading centers were in post-war U.S., the U.S. was sought ought.
Now the have been two generations of post-war reconstruction and there is increasing incentive for them to stay home or return back home. The pull of good centers is augmented by the push provided by the Dept. Homespun Security, Patriot Act I-III, etc.

There is also the fact that the americans, being religious and solely attracted to money, are not too keenly attracted to Science. Schools make far more lawyers than engineers and/or scientists. The US has to import a lot of foreign scientists in order to meet it's most basic research needs. Eventually, all those foreign scientists go back home, bringing with them their experience and US-acquired knowledge to State-funded european research laboratories.

Re:Goodbye US research community, conferences

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, leave! If there is someone in your house that smells really bad (like Europee-ons) and they threaten to leave, it's not a threat. Good bye, don't let the doorknob hit you on your ass on your way out. The parent seems to mention WW2 a lot, maybe the US should make Europe pay back their debt from that war which would then solve a lot of our problems. Unfortunately the US is too good for that and have not sought those repayments. I don't think we should've fought ww2, we should've waited until there was only one country as in all of Europe being owned by Germany, then kick Germany's ass. Then everyone would be an American, either America East or America West.

Security is a process

[meme_vector]

Security is a process. Find a hole in the process and the pieces you have bypassed are meaningless. At airports the assumption is that your ticket was matched to your ID at the metal detectors before entering the "Secure Zone" where the gates are located.

Even the name "Secure Zone" implies that by virtue of being there, everyone near the gates is authorized and not a threat.

So all a terrrorist would have to do is buy/steal a ticket (or boarding pass for that matter) for a name that passes CAPPSII and then get into the secure zone.

Every pen test we read about shows how easy avoiding the checkpoints are. Once at the gate, you show your boarding pass and walk onto the plane. O'Hare and many other airports no longer check the ID again at the gate.

Alternately, you just avoid the gate completely and have your team access the plane directly from the tarmac or via the ramp by penetrating one of the lower, non-public levels of the terminal.

So 9/11 isn't behind us. Another one is possible just a soon as the assets are in place and the timing is right (like just before the next presidential election)

Re:Security is a process

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, interesting. 'the timing is right, like just before the next presidential election'. Do you mean that the timing would be right for the terrorists, or the government? If those poll numbers keep tumbling, maybe Condoleeza Rice will find herself ignoring a few more internal memos...

Figures

[Bruha]

Reason I really hate the idea of your "Credit Rating" saying how secure you are is the fact that just becuase someone has bad credit does not mean they're a bad person.

So all the people that have been laid off due to bush's bad economic policies and a war we did not want are now bad people becuase they've had to default on loans or worse.

I recently tried to see about better insurance rates than my current state farm insurance. I was quoted rates 2-3 times what I'm currently paying. This was with Progressive, Nationwide, and Geico. After some digging around and a credit alert from equifax about the inquiries (Paying for that credit watch finally pays off) I call Geico and ask for a manager and after asking them why I get a quote 3x my state farm premiums they said I dont have enough credit for lower rates. I'm ask him what my credit has to do with my driving habits and he said people with bad credit are usually bad drivers. Personally I think this is bull and I ask him if those studies are publically available and he said no.

So my point here is that there may be studies about this and maybe there's a point to the higher rates. However I've been in one wreck when I was 16 and 10 years later I've never had a ticket, accident, or even looked at funny by a cop for bad driving. But now they'll use the same lame excuses about how I'm a security risk becuase of low credit despite having never caused a problem for anyone.

Just remember if you like me have less than perfect credit wear shoes you can slip on and off easily and be prepared to find your luggage ruffled through and items missing on the other end.

Last time I flew my baggage was opened 3 times on it's way from Fargo International to Dallas Tx. Once when I arrived at the airport they opened it and when I got home and reopened it I found 3 seperate inspection notes in there. God knows why it was inspected all those times but I really dont like that many people leafing through my luggage.

I sure hope they liked smelling the dirty laundry in there :)

Re:Figures

[Ctrl-Z]

Just because there were three inspection notices does not mean it was inspected three times. The last time I flew, I watched the woman put two notices in my bag as she was inspecting it.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see.... 16 + 10 = 26 years old

Are you male?

If so, actuarial science shows you are still a relative risk.

This has nothing to do with your politics or the economy. It has everything to do with the behavioral patterns of people your age and sex.

You may not like it. Too bad. I don't have the genetics to be a jockey or a basketball player. Does that mean I'm disciminated against in an improper manner by businesses built on those activities? No. Are you being unfairly discriminated against? No.

Re:Figures

[/dev/trash]

How about the people who are in so much debt that crashing their car into another car just to get a big old check from the insurance company?

In addition

[CaptainZapp]

Cars are widely used to deposit a payload in front of "critical" buildings.

And you don't have to go to Bagdhad, just remember Oklahoma.

Here is the results of the jetBlue data

[Anonymous Coward]

www.abditum.com/~rabbi/S3B3_Roark.pdf (i am html challenged!)

Note that they cross-referenced with passenger social security numbers & address & age and how long you have lived at your address(starts on page 17).

In un-related news, Immigration arrested 88 illegal aliens flying AA from LAX to Newark Sunday...
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/in dex.ssf?/ba se/news-6/108175021445610.xml

HH

a solution sure to please everyone

[WormholeFiend]

so terrorists like targets with lots of people to kill at the same time...

we'll just have to reorganize ourselves to be more dispersed, which, incidentally, could solve some other current problems as well.

for example:
telecommuting (ie working from home)

another good thing I would like to see happen is personal aircraft use, more specifically, one that the majority of people could fly safely, like a family-size zeppelin using inert gas and solar power-assist, or a cheap ground-effect vehicle (called ekranoplan I think) if you want to travel faster overseas.

If it saves lives - it's worth it.

[TTL0]

Consider this - two of the terrorists, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, flying under their real names, were on a State Department watch list. A third had the same address as Alhazmi; two others (including Muhammad Atta) shared a residence with Almihdhar. Five others had the same phone number as Atta. Another had the same frequent-flier number as Almihdhar.

So yea, I think it's time to shore up the security for the nations airlines.

BTW - I get screened every time I travel. Sad thing is last time I traveled they put a sticker on my suitcase that said "passenger must travel w/ bag" funny thing is they lost my luggage.

Re:If it saves lives - it's worth it.

[aksansai]

I wholly agree, provided there are accountability measures in place to ensure that the privacy of that information is not abused. Although we may not necessarily know what those safeguards are, I believe those measures are in place because too much is at risk. Although it may not be readily evident, the use of that information must be authorized by a convening authority, a federal judge. Misuse of the information will be catostrophic to the organization and/or business that had access to the information. In this country, misuse of your information would never land you in jail (too many references to cite where a botched job of acquiring evidence has led to an acquittal).

My only problem with companies sharing the information with the government is if their privacy policy dictated that it would not do so. This particular misuse would be potentially catostrophic to the airline who provided the information as consumer, you and I, would choose to fly with someone else. Since the rules of air travel have changed since 11 September, it would only be common sense to know that airlines will provide any strange booking activities to the TSA, a preemptive step to obtaining intelligence to prevent a further attack.

Although this government may seem shakey on some things, I believe when it comes to the security of our nation - people who are doing bad things should be found and caught. Remember, a person's rights ends where another begins. So as long as you are within your realm of freedoms and not infringing upon others - you should have nothing to worry about. Nobody said this war on terror would be executed with perfect precision.

Although many people either have forgotten or have made the choice to do so, crashing planes into buildings have proved that we are indeed vulnerable, not only to the loss of life but also prosperity (jobs, wealth, and general happiness). I for one am glad that something is being done so that we haven't seen yet another plane crash into some of our buildings.

Re:Perspective - and privacy...

[gillbates]

So I'm applying for a home loan, and the broker requests my name and SSN. That's all.

Within minutes, he's reading back to me recent payments, credit card balances, bank account info, etc... basically, my entire financial history. He knows that we were late on our electric bill in November, and comments on how nice it is that our car payments are so low.

Anyone who thinks that CAPPS II is a serious invasion of privacy is seriously naive. The average person no longer possesses any privacy to speak of. The sad fact of the matter is that you can be tracked no matter where you go:

• Your credit card purchases and ATM withdrawals track where you go and how much you spend.
• Even the small bills ($20) are tagged with RFID's, so cash no longer guarantees privacy. Plus, it's not likely that you'll find a good job which pays cash only.
• Your grocer records your every purchase, linked to your discount, bank, or credit card. The FBI can have this information simply for the asking...
• Your library viewing habits are now subject to Federal review, thanks to the PATRIOT act.
• Your medical practitioner is bound by law to turn over your medical records in cases where they suspect certain crimes have been committed. (Child abuse, for example. And yes, most practitioners consider any injury beyond a minor scrape or bruise "potential" child abuse.)
• Your ISP and phone company are required to possess the cabability to intercept your communications. The FBI can eavesdrop on these with no oversight or accountability whatsoever.

So, in light of the above, does CAPPS even matter? Even before 9/11, the FBI could get very detailed information about a person simply by asking people around the suspect. For example, in the Ruby Ridge fiasco, the FBI knew the suspect's daughter's menstrual cycle - the school nurse volunteered the information!

Hate to say it, but your privacy is already gone. A person cannot function in today's society without consenting to monitoring of their every move. Why does CAPPS matter when the FBI already knows what you eat, which movies you watch, which books you read, how much you owe, and with whom you associate? CAPPS is more or less a "feel-good" government program - it's designed to assuage passengers' fear of flying while providing jobs to people who would otherwise be out of work.

TSA Continues to Lie

[latuZimZactly]

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has repeatedly issued false statements about CAPPS II and stonewalls on release of Freedom of Information Act requests, Wired News is reporting.

An excerpt from the article -

"Department representatives have said many times in the past that their contractors never received data."

"In September 2003, Wired News asked TSA spokesman Nico Melendez whether those four contractors had used real passenger records to test and develop their systems. Melendez denied it, saying, 'We have only used dummy data to this point.'"

On Monday the TSA did release a non-statement, saying nothing.

BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting the article says that American Airlines Privacy Policy did not cover this back in 2002, thats because they DIDN'T HAVE ONE back in 2002, and PROBABLY STILL DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRIVACY POLICY OR FORMAL PRIVACY OFFICER DEDICATED TO JUST THAT, with atleast SOME experience in the field! OH - DO THEY HAVE ONE? WELL, AS PASSENGERS - LETS SEE IT PLEASE! Since this is what governs the control of our most valuable asset (OUR INFORMATION) then show it to us American Airlines. How about the one now, and then the one you had in 2002. I love how the big companies LIE their tails off, makes me sick. Imagine what else they lie about if they stoop to the level of telling lies just about their privacy policy??? Perhaps if they had their SH*T together, knew their tail from a hole in the ground with technology, and maintained their OWN systems and OWN records, then they would be able to control OUR information - or ANY information for that matter. Makes me SICK! GO MF!

ok, i'll play along...

[H8X55]

let me first say i like your comment.

Why would Marxists oppose hitting the White House? You can't get much higher up the ruling class than the man they elected to run the show...

Re:ok, i'll play along...

[Artifakt]

Most marxists were trained by the now defunct KGB. Hitting the president and the joint chiefs is something called a decapitation strategy. Military doctrine is "A nuclear power would only try to take them out because it plans to launch a first strike and hopes to make it impossible for the US chain of command to pass along the codes to retaliate."
Did you ever see Air Force One, that stupid movie where Harrison Ford plays the president of the US and terrorists hijack his plane? Towards the end, a break away former Soviet state, known to have nukes, lauches fighters to persue Air Force 1 and proves it was them behind the plot. In the real world, that would have been seen as the start of a nuclear exchange, and the acting President would have dropped about 2,000 Mtons on any and all suspected launch sites in that break away republic before Harrison Ford could have thrown that last guy off the tail ramp. You don't kill everyone on the other side because you're sure its about to go nuke, you go nuke first because it is likely nobody else with nukes would be stupid enough to try to wack the immediate chain of command for any lesser reason, so you launch because you can't afford to risk waiting to find out for sure.
USSR sponsored terrorists were always expected to do things which would hamper the US, WITHOUT starting WW3. They trained with that limitation, and either knew it or their handlers did.
Al-Quida was lucky people here pretty quickly figured out what was going on. By the time our armed forces had a target, they knew what was happening looked less and less like a decapitation strategy with increasing data, and even worst case intel said whoever was ultimately behind it couldn't have enough nukes to win a war. Al-Quida was also dumb, in that they took a real risk of us not figuring that out quickly, and turning some or all of their supporting states into a sea of glass, maybe along with a lot of other people. Thank God it didn't happen, but there was a real risk.

Atheist Terrorists

[Artifakt]

I agree that a 'Christian' terrorist group is quite possible (If Oklahoma City isn't proof there are already some out there), and that genuine education and social justice are both needed to steer the uncommitted towards non-violent methods, but your last question begs for a rebuttal.

"When was the last time you heard of an aethiest (sic) terrorist?"

The Bader-Mannhoff gang, the Shining Path Marxists in Peru... The list goes on and on. Until the fall of the Soviet Union, the world has been going through a cycle of mostly Atheistic terrorists that has lasted over 100 years. Remember World War 1? Who killed the archeduke Ferdinand and kicked it off? Terrorism is no more exclusive to religions than flight is to insects, unless you want to call both Marxism and Anarchism religions.

Oh, and Echelon hardly trips on generic words such as terrorism. If you want to bug the NSA, you'll get much better results with specific tech words, such as the names of explosives or particularly correct technical names for nuclear or biological warfare elements. Also saying POTUS instead of "the president" is a nice touch.

Criminal Background Checks

[einnor]

From the article:

Myth: CAPPS II will run a criminal background check on every passenger.

Fact: No, CAPPS II will NOT run a criminal background check on every passenger. ... Specifically, ...

* CAPPS II also performs a risk assessment, including a check ... to detect individuals who ... have outstanding Federal or state warrants for crimes of violence.

Um, how is a check against who has outstanding warrants not a criminal background check?

Also, so many of the responses hinge on people doing the right thing. So-and-so "will be contractually obliged" to delete the data, or to not use the data for other purposes. People and corporations are notorious for doing things that they're not supposed to do. So if I'm an airline, I can use CAPPS II data for marketing purposes, pay the fine for breaking CAPPS protocol, and still make a net profit.

I used to work for a major airline. One of the things my coworkers would do is look into the passenger lists to find when celebrities were flying, and go to the airport to see them. These people didn't even think about the fact that they were using the information systems improperly and that they were violating the privacy of the celebrities.

Your rights online...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you don't have any.

credit card data?

[Anonymous Coward]

CAPPS II uses, in part, credit card data to determine who should be classified as "yellow" or "red". OK, what exactly would they be looking for? Large purchases of fertilizer? Obviously they would end up flagging farmers, so that would be ridiculous. What purchases would make one more likely to be a "terrorist"?

Here's a disturbing possibility: donations to groups that sound "subversive". I've given money to groups like Iraq Body Count, which tracks civilian casualties in Iraq. And Voices in the Wilderness, which opposed the UN sanctions on Iraq and worked to prevent the war. And of course that most subversive organization, the ACLU, which is actively fighting the existing "no-fly list". I hope I'm wrong about this, but think about the implications if donations to groups like these are enough to prevent one from flying.

I suspect that an easy way to find out

[WindBourne]

is to see who got 9/11 "loans". I am guessing that they were tit-for-tat. United is one of the few to not a loan. Yeah, it was stated that their house was not in good enough shape. But others in far worse shape did get loans. I would not be surprised to find that these were linked indirectly.

"Oh, we see that you did not offer the use of your customer's data. But no problem".
Next go around, loan denied.

Here's the presentation -

[Anonymous Coward]

www.abditum.com/~rabbi/S3B3_Roark.pdf

You can see for yourself what they plan on doing with the data.

Why just planes?

[MoebiusStreet]

Why is everyone so concerned about airline security, anyway? I mean, the terrorists aren't out to destroy that industry specifically. They're goal is presumably to make us afraid that a danger lurks behind every corner. And if this is the case, then they'll almost certainly be looking elsewhere for the next attacks.

We're trying to put an inch-think steel door up while forgetting that we've got screen windows.

Re:Atheist Terrorists - Offtopic - POTUS

[I confirm I'm not a]

Just out of curiousity, why does POTUS trip echelon more than "the President"? I thought POTUS would only tend to be used by "insiders", terrorists would tend to use phrases like "that running dog of Western Imperialism"/"that son of the Great Satan", etc.

Disclaimer: my knowledge of US politics largely comes from TV

Carnival Attack

[skifreak87]

As has been proven by something called Carnival Booth any system for screening potential threats that does not have a sufficiently random element can be beaten. The system will supposedly screen some people everytime and will screen some people none of the time. This means if I'm a terrorist and me and 9 terrorist friends get on a plane, and one of us doesn't get screened, we send him on 5 more flights, if he never gets screened there's a good chance he never will (assuming nothing changes his risk status). He's then a good candidate to do bad things. Basically, the system provides a way for terrorists to find out who's a good candidate that wont be stopped while trying to get onto the plane.

That's my objection to the system. Furthermore, why is racial profiling considered evil? It's not saying, oh you're arabic, you must be a terrorist, it's saying you're arabic, x% of terrorists we've found are arabic, so if we screen more people who look like you, we might catch more terrorists. Obviously we shouldn't screen based solely on race but why is it bad to single out people who fall into a group that historically has been more likely to be a problem as opposed to senator's w/ metal in their hips or old grandmothers w/ hip replacements?

Flight 93 - The Only Security

[Melantha_Bacchae]

The only reason 9/11 happened is that the Bush Administration refused to share a vital fact with the American people: planes were to be hijacked and used in terrorist attacks. The passengers in the first three flights to crash thought they were in an ordinary hijacking, and acted accordingly. Which got them, some of the people in the WTC, and some of the people in the Pentagon killed.

Flight 93 was different because it was last and passengers found out what was really going on - too late to save their pilot crew. So they gave their lives and took the terrorists down to die with them - saving who knows how many people.

On the Shoe-bomber's flight, the passengers were well aware of the lessons of Flight 93, and stopped him. The plane landed safely (as all four planes might have on 9/11), and the bad guy got arrested.

As long as the lessons of Flight 93 are remembered, and passengers are courageous enough to follow their example, our airplanes are safe from that kind of terrorism. This is the American way of doing things, with the power and responsibility in the hands of a free and brave people.

Why now all this "security", and invasion of Fourth (and other) Amendment rights? Simple, it is to make us unfree and fearful. Fearful people are easy to control, and our government is on another power trip. Which is quite un-American if you ask me. The definition of the word "terrorism" according to the World Book's dictionary section is quite relevant here:

1. the act of terrorizing; use of terror, especially the systematic use of terror by a government or other authority against particular persons or groups.
2. a condition of fear and submission produced by frightening people.
3. a method of opposing a government internally through the use of terror.

Hm, it seems Al Qaeda isn't the only one being bad here. Though that does explain why the terrorists behind the Spanish terrorist attack announced their endorsement of Bush as their candidate for the US presidency. I'm sure the lessons of Flight 93 will be instructive in dealing with the other bad guy here. Especially come election time. All we need is a good candidate to pile on to.

I pray that the wise, courageous and compassionate spirit of America will be reborn, and that the brave and free government of the people, by the people, and for the people, will never, ever, perish from this earth.

Japanese Movie (December 1998): "The great devil will come from the sky!"
Japanese Video Subtitle (Summer 1999): "The King of Terror is coming!"
US Version on SciFi (May 2003): "The King of Terror!"
Moll, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks" / "Rebirth of Mothra 3"

Shut up, this is good!

[Stevyn]

Everyone complains how the government and the airlines are doing nothing about security. Now they are finally doing something good and people complain about privacy. When I step on a plane, I want to feel safe. Knowing that no one on this plane is on a terrorist list is safe. Sure people can get around that and innocent people can get screwed over by being on the list falsely, but better safe then sorry. I'm sorry, but in times like this you have to adjust. I don't consider this surrendering your rights and privacy. The fact is the people are telling the people in charge of our security to get off their asses and do something, and now they're doing something.

Re:Shut up, this is good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but put another way, it's not right to check whether the pilot is sober or not. It is not the right of the government to assure that the pilot wasn't in the lounge all night drinking. Then when there is a problem because of a drunk pilot, the same people making statements as above would say "how dare you let a pilot fly the plane drunk?". You can't make everyone happy, so I say ignore the insane-paranoid people and protect the people that just want to fly from point a to point b in safety.

Re:Shut up, this is good!

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is the people are telling the people in charge of our security to get off their asses and do something, and now they're doing something.

Taco, can we have a "+1, satirical" choice?

Myths and Facts

[t_allardyce]

Myth: If I have bad credit I will be flagged in CAPPS II.
Fact: CAPPS II will not review creditworthiness, as it has no correlation to whether an individual is a terrorist or other security risk.

That just says it all. Here i've got some more for their list:

Myth: I once burnt an american flag, im scared ill be flagged (heh)
Fact: CAPPS II will only flag people who are known to be a security risk, it will have no knowledge of new risks and works on the basis that a hijacker will come back to life and attempt a second target.

Myth: When I was in highschool I got a fake ID so I could get some booze, will I be screened?
Fact: CAPPS II will flag you if: you share birthday with a known terrorist/suspect (hint there are only 365 days in the year), if your name is of middle-eastern origin or is a clever anagram of 'Osama Bin Laden', or if you have taken flying lessions within the past month.

Myth: If I have sex in a swimming pool I cant get pregnant
Fact: CAPPS II will not flag teenagers taking part in President Bush's abstinance programme, or christians who have registered with their local authority.

Re:Perspective - and privacy...

[Idarubicin]

Even the small bills ($20) are tagged with RFID's, so cash no longer guarantees privacy.

Although most of what you say is true--it is definitely very easy to track most financial and other activities--currency does not bear any sort of RFID. There is still no unique identifier on paper money beyond the printed serial number.

Some people have confused the counterfeit-resistant metallic foil strip in the new bills with some sort of ID tag because it may incidentally trigger store security alarms in very large wads of bills. Slashdot has also previously observed that large stacks of new bills can be ignited in the microwave (presumably) because of this metallic strip, though I don't recommend trying something that stupid at home.

In principle it might be possible to identify individuals carrying large numbers of bills because of this metallic content, but it doesn't identify individual bills or allow them to be tracked from point A to point B.

Give it a proper title!

[homerj79]

• The Department of Homeland Security has a site entitled CAPPS II: Myths and Facts

Why don't they give it a proper name: CAPPS II: Brainwashing. That's all it is, it brainwashes everyone into agreeing into it.

The only way to get the "Myths and Facts" accurately is to have a third party with no interest into the success of the program post it.

These articles remind me of the Microsofts ad's running here. The ones which have a "third" party do a study into the price of running Windows vs Linux. These "third parties" were paid by MS and thus, have a vested interest in the study. Give me a study that uses a facts obtained by someone who's pocketbook is not lined with Microsoft's money.

Ahh, the lies...

[Anonymous Coward]

The GOVERNMENT won't store your information for extended lengths of time. Here's what they don't tell you:

Private companies ALREADY store your information, from MANY airlines, hotels, car rental agencies, etc. Because it's not a government agency, the same rules do not apply. Now, the government kicks back a nice little chunk of cash to the companies doing this (and yes, you are affected) and in exchange, gets full access to this data (which is not limited, is stored indefinitely, and has no federal control on what happens to it).

How do I know all of this?

Because I'm posting anonymously 100 feet from the computers that do it.

Answer simple: Don't Fly

[Googol]

Sometimes Freedom is not convenient.

Re:Perspective - and privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

"feel-good" government program

And that is the major problem as I see it. That is all our government has become.

Electric Companies Share Also

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know electric companies share their data with law enforcement agencies? My local electric utility allows law enforcement to access its customer database directly.

Not flying into the US.

[andr0meda]

Since I am a free man, nobody has the right the retain my personal information. Including these airliners. Since I cannot force the airliners, or the USA to not disperse and use my personal information, I will simply be forced to DENY them this information, and this effectively means that I don't fly into the USA with these airliners anymore.

Re:Not flying into the US.

[leadsling]

So you will not be flying to the US anymore. If the US is making sure who is on what flights, do you think that an airline that doesn't "pony up" with the info is going to be allowed to fly here? One thing that nobody seems to remember is that we are in a declared war. Now it is not against a country with borders in the traditional sense, but it is an enemy just the same. It would be great if everyone in the world just loved each other and nobody did wrong things to anybody. That is not reality. Reality is that there is a group that hates the United States and everything it stands for. A group that has shown its willingness to fight a battle that shows no regard for traditional non-combatants. When you fight a war, there are restrictions imposed on civil liberties. This is a universal and historical fact. From the suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln to the interrment of Japanese-Americans during WW2, goverments have to put the protection of the whole ahead of the rights of the individual during war. The problem is that the same people who yell loudest about the loss of some of their "rights" will be leading the pack of attack dogs when something does happen. The political party yelling the loudest about the breakdown of intelligence leading up to 9/11 is the same one who gutted the intelligence community during the previous administration. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

Re:Not flying into the US.

[andr0meda]

Well the real issue here is if, using these means, you are not killing what you try to protect so vigourously. I know that I will not fly into the USA anymore, because I do not intend to pay up a privacy-tax in order for a foreign government to be able to deal with their problems.

I won't even go into the war issue. I don't like the way you define freedom in the form that A Lincoln has put it, nor the generalisations you make about those who have a different view about this matter. The reasons to erode privacy and freedom may be many, but don't loose yourself in your discourse to much while trying to protect exactly those same kind of values.

Not just revenge

[not_a_product_id]

I think a lot of people like the idea of Americans coming to the EU being fingerprinted as some kind of 'tit for tat' thing (not too bad an idea IMHO) but it would have a more productive side in letting US citizens see what it's like for everyone else.

Nothing to hide, nothing to Fear, right? WRONG!

[jazzmanjac]

This post is way to late to get a good mod, but I just have to share my thoughts while I still can. Use 'em or lose 'em is my motto. Your rights, that is.

From CAPPS II: Myths and Facts:

The facts are scarier than the myths, in my opinion. (If nothing else the trend is scary.)

"CAPPS II modernizes an existing program that was created in 1997 as an additional measure to help prevent a terrorist attack on passenger aircraft."

Notice the term "modernize." (CAPPS was rolled out in 1997, and look at it now in 2004. What will it look like in 2010?)

"CAPPS II will not use data mining techniques to profile and track citizens. Except for the slightly expanded Passenger Name Record (PNR) data that air carriers and reservation systems will collect, CAPPS II will not collect additional personal information about the traveler."

Notice the term "expanded". What other information will be included when the PNR is "expanded" or "modernized" again in a few years?

"(2) 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."

Notice the term "suspected." Suspicion: "The act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence."

"Once the system has computed a traveler's risk score, it will send an encoded message to be printed on the boarding pass indicating the appropriate level of screening. Eventually, this information is planned to be transmitted directly to screeners at security checkpoints."

Be on the lookout for "Earchsay isthay erroristtay umscay agbay" on your boarding pass!

I can't wait until they modernize and expand the Patriot Act. Scary stuff. Also I'm looking forward to an expanded, modernized CAPPS III. (Coming soon to automobiles, buses, subways, and sidewalks near you!) Nothing to hide, nothing to Fear, right? Well, nothing to hide today, but maybe much to fear in the future.

Actually, very few airlines got those loans.

[Richard Steiner]

One or two at most. The conditions were too harsh for most to even consider.

Re:Actually, very few airlines got those loans.

[WindBourne]

Frontier Airlines
Southwest Airlines
ATA
America West
US Airways
Aloha Airlines
World Airways
are just a few of the ones that I know of.

I know that United is still trying to get it house in order, before going for it.

Same with American Airlines.

I no longer stay up on the airlines as I once use (I am from a flying family with one of the majors), but there are a few more as well.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/2 4/193830.shtml

Interesting. That's more than I thought. :-)

[Richard Steiner]

Thanks for the link, also. However, the article you indicate seems to state that USAir got most of the US$1.5 billion in load guarantees, America West got some, and the rest was scattered among three other airlines (one of them being World, I assume), and it roughly corresponds to my own impressions (i.e., not many).

You must have other information sources? I see nothing at all in that article indicating that WN has received anything, for example, not to mention a few other airlines you listed.

Re:Atheist Terrorists - Offtopic - POTUS

[Artifakt]

Why? I don't really know, so what follows is speculative. Words get added to or subtracted from Echelon's lists by people who have the authority, and they don't usually explain why, although sometimes we can guess. Supposedly, both POTUS and FLOTUS were added to a list about the time Janet Reno was, and cross indexed with whatever names the secret service uses for those two. It's a fair bet and common guess for Ehelon watchers that Reno's name has been kept on Echelon's list for some additional time after her retirement, as some of our domestic right wing kooks have decided their issues with her are personal, but why anyone was particularly concerned about someone linking BC's (and now GWB's) secret service nickname with the office is beyond me.
"Son of the Great Satan" is probably the kind of phrase that exists in too many variants to much concern the NSA, so it may not even be on there, but some particular variants might. "Running Dog" sounds Chinese, and is possibly not on the current lists because we're more worried about south west Asia than east Asia right now. Note the possibly and probably - either phrase may in fact be on there. If I knew for certain, would I be allowed to say?
Since this post has doubtless tripped a few filters, I'll just close by saying "Hi Jeff at Langley!".

Re:Atheist Terrorists - Offtopic - POTUS

[I confirm I'm not a]

Many thanks for that. Interestingly, it exposed a flaw in my thinking: I made the assumption that terrorism == foreign; precisely the kind of assumption I began by criticising... Live and (hopefully) learn!

Re:Unfair to the EU

[Feral Bueller]

Thanks for redefining the term "Anonymous Coward".

Now get back under the desk.