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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.!!!

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.

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??

[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??

[Ctrl-Z]

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

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?

[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.

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.

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.

*sigh* What's next?

[guttergod]

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

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.

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.

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

[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.)

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?

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

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.

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)

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: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.

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.

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?