Airlines Gave More Data Than Previously Disclosed

scottfk writes "Wired news has an article exposing the fact that still more customer data recorded by airlines were turned over to the TSA for their CAPPS II testing. From the article, 'Delta, Continental, America West, JetBlue and Frontier Airlines secretly turned over sensitive passenger data to Transportation Security Administration contractors in the spring and summer of 2002, according to the sworn statement of acting TSA chief David Stone. In addion, two of the four largest airline reservation centers, Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.'"

Comments

Remember Northwest?

[Mz6]

Very funny how this comes out a week to the day (atleast when it was posted) that a judge tossed out a privacy lawsuit against Northwest when they released their cutomer's personal info.

Well, perhaps it's not funny... But pretty damn scary.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[tail.man]

Yeah, it is scary.

For more unpleasant stuff see..
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.pr isonplanet.tv/

It is worse than 1984 NOW...

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not funny. But I guess the word you were looking for is 'ironic'.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Ateryx]

Well, perhaps it's not funny... But pretty damn scary.

I fully agree, however what is an 'okay' amount of information to give out?

I'm not trying to flame but I get tired of seeing 'I WILL KILL WHOEVER SO MUCH AS GIVES OUT THE FIRST LETTER OF MY LAST NAME TO ANY FORIEGN PARTY!!!!' without any solution. I'm as for keeping my information to myself as the next guy--I never fill out optional information in any context--but what right does JohnDoe Inc. have to my information? Is a slightly lower price based on the sale of information reguarding what I purchased together and a complete list of my purchase--w/o my name--worth $5 off an item or free shipping? All these little benifits add up when purchasing many things and I would say 95% of the people reading slashdot have no idea where their data ends up.

Addtionally, while never part of the tinfoil hat crowd, I can't ever help to shake the suspition that if the Gov't really wants info on me, it will go beyond the law to get it, to which I am helpless anyway.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say 95% of the people reading slashdot have no idea where their data ends up.

I can promise you that 100% don't know.

Most interesting identity theft case I hear from (I handled taking care of some of the fraudulent charges) was a guy who's employer had a key-logger that captured his keys as he bought stuff online. The key-log was not kept securely and eventually it ended up in the hands of a credit-card-theft-ring.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[tail.man]

Tin foil won't help.

http://www.raven1.net/patents.htm

Re:Remember Northwest?

[kfg]

Ironically enough I was just writing about the meaning of irony over in the "Microsoft owns your galvanic skin response" thread.

What's wrong with that sentence? There is no irony. "Oddly" enough, or "Funnily" enough would have been correct, or "Coincidentally."

OP was implying the possibility of causality between the court ruling and the announcement. If I drop a ball and it falls, that is not irony. His use of the word "Oddly" was ironic, he meant to imply it wasn't odd at all, but you cannot substitute the word "ironic" for a word spoken ironically.

It's "Yeah, right," not "Ironic, ironic."

An ironic event is one where something desirable happens, but in such a manner that something undesirable is the result. This announcement takes something undesirable and adds something undesirable to it.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice and The Porridge Pot are children's cautionary tales that are based on ironic situations. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Getting it turns out to suck, but that isn't what makes it irony. What makes it irony is that you wished for it.

An example of irony would be someone who had successfully promoted an airline privacy law who subsequently died on a flight because medical information about him that could have saved his life couldn't be released to the person capable of saving it.

Dying just because you happened to get on the flight that crashed that day isn't ironic, it just sucks.

Now I've got "that song" running through my head. Arrrrrrrrrrgh! Somebody shoot me.

KFG

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Politicus]

what is an 'okay' amount of information to give out?

We need personal information metadata! Parties obviously need to exchange information in order to do business but that exchange should have clear rules and any data exchanged should be tagged. The system would, for the most part, be self governing. Would you really want to do business with someone or somecorp that is handing you data tagged "not for redistribution"?

Most data transfers are unnecessary however and request for such data should raise a flag. Do you really need to give out your phone number in order to purchase some groceries? My favorite is asking for the cashier's phone number in return. That's usually the end of that even on return visits if the same cashier is working there.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[jazman_777]

It is worse than 1984 NOW...

No, it's not. You don't love Big Brother yet. Do you?

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like RAAAEEEEAAAAAAANNN on your wedding day!!!

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Anonymous Coward]

at least by your definition, your first sentence doesn't even qualify for proper use of "ironically enough" as even though you may consider writing about irony on another thread 'desirable' it in no way makes his misuse of the word a 'result' of your action. in an attempt to correct someone else's use of the word 'ironic' you overrestrict the definition of ironic to a subset of irony and by doing so remove your own use of the word (at least by your definition) from being correct. that, i believe, is quite ironic.

amusingly your initial use of the word is a correct use of ironic assuming that you might reasonably expect the poster to have read your post in the other thread, prior to writing his.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[tail.man]

You are right I don't.

Many do.

It is worse, just more comforable and less obvious..for now..

http://www.raven1.net/patents.htm

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Anonymous Coward]

at least by your definition, your first sentence doesn't even qualify for proper use of "ironically enough"

Yes. That's why his second sentence asked what was wrong with the first, and the third and fourth sentences explained it. It was deliberate. It was illustrating a point.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[kfg]

Oddly enough while I was writing that post, long before I hit "submit," I considered it likely (which is to say virtually certain) that someone such as yourself would come along and critcise my criticism and use/defintion of the word "ironic", even to the point of making the claim that it was ironic that I missused the word in correcting OP's use of the word.

I hit "submit" because I did not find that prospect undesirable.

at least by your definition, your first sentence doesn't even qualify for proper use of "ironically enough"

I admit I didn't expect this particular criticism, however, my second sentence making that very claim. It's illustration by negative example and the first sentence was recursively "caused" by the second.

you overrestrict the definition of ironic to a subset of irony

That would be because ironic is a subset of irony, and there are even subsets of ironic.I recognized the idea of subsets by supplying two possible defintions of ironic, neither of which are over restricted and both of which you will find in the O.E.D. They are not "mine."

Most people who believe certain definitions of ironic to be "over restricted" do so because they do not understand the definition of ironic. Definitions are, by nature, restrictive. Otherwise anything could mean anything, as per Humpty Dumpty, and even he simply supplied alternate, restrictive defintions.

amusingly your initial use of the word is a correct use of ironic assuming that you might reasonably expect the poster to have read your post in the other thread, prior to writing his.

One may, of course, assume anything one likes to "prove" something. The result is only as true as the assumptions. There is no particular reason to make your assumption, and the fact that I bothered to point out the previous post gives supporting evidence that I did not make such assumptions, considering such an assumption to be unreasonable. Also it is whether or not I made such an assumption that would be relevant, not whether you assume that assumption. There is still the issue of whether or not I would consider the end result as undesirable. I don't.

There's another reason why such an assumption might be unreasonable. Said post does not exist.

Ironically enough I expected you to criticise me on that point, which I would have found desirable, but you did not, which I find undesirable.

KFG

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Mikkeles]

'...also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and ...'

I didn't realise that the US government was that hard up for money! :^)

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Zareste]

while never part of the tinfoil hat crowd

I think the old 'tinfoil hat' ploy used to do a good job of scaring people away from disobeying or questioning the government. But I think we've gotten more intelligent and now, suddenly, it's not fooling anyone. The act has coughed blood and died. Most people have crawled out of the hole and just aren't falling for the 'obey me or you wear tinfoil' act anymore.

So, it looks like somebody's going to have to find a new scarecrow to keep the more cowardly under their control. Maybe cannibalism would work, or good old 'they eat babies' trick never failed in the past. It's like the tinfoil ploy, only with more umph to it. Let's try and see how well it works.

Re:Remember Northwest?

[Nutrimentia]

I had a discussion and ended up giving a lecture to the Japanese postal worker who required me to fill out my address and phone number and provide official ID in order to by a $13 money order. I asked why it was important to have my info (as well as the info of the recieving party) in order to send him a few $$ and was told that it was security, what with all the terrorists running around. When he asked for the reason why I was sending the money and I just said it was a gift (it was actually for an XBox game I bought from a friend), he was stymied and wanted me to give more specific information.

Why does it matter what my name, address, phone number or reasons are for wanting a money order? I realize that money lenders (post offices in Japan also have banking services and are the best (only?) place to get international Money Orders) want to keep track of money transfers and that unregulated transfers aren't cool in their eyes, but what is the difference between buying US cash dollars and sending them and buying a money order. I get a bit of security in the money order in that only the recipient can cash it, but does that security necessitate my personal information? I can hardly see how.

I bet..

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the Patriot Act would make something like this legal.

Re:I bet..

[tail.man]

If you like one you will love 2 and 2.5 and...

http://www.infowars.com/police_state.html

Is it legal to distribute people's credit card #s?

[Anonymous Coward]

credit card numbers

Is this even legal to distribute credit card numbers like that?

I hear that there's this websize h@x0rz.hk that'll happily buy such lists of information. Does this precident mean it's Ok to share with them?

Unnecessary

[supersandra]

The problem is there's a need to balance privacy rights with a hightened level of security.

Disclosing that much information is , in my opinion, excessive and crosses the line.

Of course, privacy seems all but dead these days, so maybe I'm just being too optomistic even about what could be. All I know is I don't think anyone needs my credit card info to figure out if I'm a security threat or not, not really.

Re:Unnecessary

[stanmann]

Depending on who else co-operated linking a fertilizer purchase with a diesil purchase by someone who doesn't own a farm or a tractor may or may not warrant further investigation, and if the arrest or evidence is later thrown out for constitutional privacy reasons so be it, even if the person was building a bomb, because the bomb didn't go off. Should we throw out the constitutional privacy protections?

Of course not.

Protect the rights of the individuals... ALL of them... esp the right to live.

Re:Unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

privacy = terrorist...

at least that is what your president and lawmakers believe...

dont beleive me? well then just ask them.

more damage has been done to america by these un-american rich assholes than 30 of the worst terrorists in the world could do.

Re:Unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me of the article that declares a right to privacy in the US constitution.

Re:Unnecessary

[stanmann]

Constitution Ammendments 1,2,4,5,6,9,10 Provide Constitutional privacy protections...

please note, that NO-where did I use the phrase right to privacy, I said constitutional privacy protections.

Re:Unnecessary

[Shadow Wrought]

I believe the 3rd as well has been cited as part of the privacy penumbra. That soldiers cannot be stationed in your home means that you have an expectation of the gov not camping out at at your pad.

Re:Unnecessary

[stanmann]

I noted on further examination that 14,15 and 21 also touch on privacy. I'm sure that an exhaustive reading would reveal more data points... Privacy is the only "right" provided by the constitution that is defined rather than enumerated.

And by that I mean of course that the constitution doesn't say " you have the right to privacy" it instead says you have the right to x,y,z,a,d,g,h,n,m and r which add up to privacy.

Re:Unnecessary

[TedCheshireAcad]

privacy = terrorist...

Errors:
Line 1: Type mismatch.
Line 1: Illegal lvalue.

Re:Unnecessary

[mog007]

The Amendments to the Constitution were made to protect the citizens from the GOVERNMENT, not each other. Remember, corporations are considered private single person entities. Even though these very same airlines got a shitload of money back in 2001 because of lack of passengers.

Re:Unnecessary

[14erCleaner]

Should we throw out the constitutional privacy protections?

Which "constitutional privacy protections" are you referring to? It's a myth that the constitution contains a right to privacy. At best we are secure against unreasonable search and seizures and use of our property for housing troops. Any rights beyond those (physical privacy) rights are usually inferred from documents outside the constitution, if at all.

Re:Unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand your line of reasoning. You seem to be saying that terrorists are not to be prevented, but rather only prosecuted once they have committed a terrorist act. In the example that you state, the person building the bomb gets off scott free. They go home, finish building the bomb, then go and blow up the very people who set them free. Nice form of democracy.

Re:Unnecessary

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The thing is, that we have a federal judge that says it's OK for airlines to violate privacy policies because s/he doesn't believe anyone reads them. Fortunately and unfortunately, a law unread is just as valid as a law that is read. Not a lot of people have a habit of reading the constitution of their country, but that doesn't make it less valid either.

Apparently it is also OK to lie about how much info is given out.

Also, with who knows how many people knowing my credit card number, what kind of reasonable faith that no one is going to use it and blacken my credit record?

Re:Unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least the feds don't have our credit numbers!

Re:Unnecessary

[red floyd]

The Ninth Amendment says that other rights are there, just not specifically enumerated.

Re:Unnecessary

[hackstraw]

Completely unnecessary. Considering they "needed" the data so that they could test whether their computer programs could detect terrorists out of the million and half people who fly daily.

Thats fucking bullshit! A) That is a stupid test unless they already knew that there were terrorists in that data, and still its a stupid test B) If a bozo can write a program that finds terrorists from "phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data", they can certainly cook up their own data with known results to test the program.

The more added features that come into our government as a result of the infamous date of 9/11 (pretty soon we will forget the year, and couldn't there be a better name for the event, I've never heard of a something only refered to by 2 numbers indicating a month and a day, anyway..).

Being that the government and the oil companies have gained much from these events, it might be wise to follow the money and power to see who actually planned and funded the stuff. What did these "attacks" benefit the al Queda?

Re:Unnecessary

[einhverfr]

Depending on who else co-operated linking a fertilizer purchase with a diesil purchase by someone who doesn't own a farm or a tractor may or may not warrant further investigation, and if the arrest or evidence is later thrown out for constitutional privacy reasons so be it, even if the person was building a bomb, because the bomb didn't go off. Should we throw out the constitutional privacy protections?

Perhaps the World Trade Center was our Reichstag. Never underestimate small leaders who are given the opportunity to scare the people.

Chilling, isn't it?

Re:Unnecessary

[sdjunky]

"and if the arrest or evidence is later thrown out for constitutional privacy reasons so be it"

I'm sorry.. you're assuming that they won't be kept in detention indefinitely.

You're assuming that the evidence will be made available to the defendant. Or that the means of obtaining that evidence will be available to their lawyer.

And, if for some reason there is a trial, you're assuming that the trial will be fair.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Re:Unnecessary

[einhverfr]

The Amendments to the Constitution were made to protect the citizens from the GOVERNMENT, not each other. Remember, corporations are considered private single person entities. Even though these very same airlines got a shitload of money back in 2001 because of lack of passengers.

your point? This information was given to the GOVERNMENT.

Re:Unnecessary

[gnu-generation-one]

""The problem is there's a need to balance privacy rights with a hightened level of security."

You assume the heightened level of security is justified

You probably assume the heightened level of security is temporary or somehow limited

You assume that security can be improved by reducing privacy

You assume that privacy can legally be reduced

You assume that reducing privacy in the search for security is so wholesome and benevolent that it can be assumed everyone will want it, without the need to consult them

You assume that the security arguments can be taken at face value, either by the airlines who'd love to stop people selling their airline tickets (hence identification needed), or by the government, who'd love to be able to track people (hence identification needed)

You assume that knowing who's on a plane will help when it blows up or is hijacked.

You assume that the next terrrorist attack will be against an airliner

You assume that terrorists will be easy to spot from their name and credit-card details. You assume that they haven't given the darstardly deed to whichever of their members is still allowed to fly on airliners.

(Okay, you don't assume any of these things because you're intelligent, but it's a sort of overview of what the people who do believe these things are thinking...)

Re:Unnecessary

[cpt kangarooski]

No, there are other rights that arise out of penumbras, but privacy is the biggest. Still, several arise out of the First Amendment as being necessary rights for the rights enumerated there to actually be able to function.

Re:Unnecessary

[gnu-generation-one]

"privacy = terrorist...
Errors:
Line 1: Type mismatch.
Line 1: Illegal lvalue."

Only on slashdot...

Okay, nevermind

PHP: Parse error: parse error in /web/guide/myusername/public_html/terrorist.php on line 1

Perl: Can't modify constant item in scalar assignment at test line 1, near "terrorist;"

Re:Unnecessary

[simonfairfax]

In the case Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court declared the the pregnant women had a constituionally guranteed 'right to privacy'.

Re:Unnecessary

[stanmann]

No, i'm saying that if someone building a bomb is discovered to be building a bomb using "unconstitutional methods" then by the rule of law they must get off. If they attempt to build another bomb, we are now watching them legally and they can be arrested tried and convicted.

We can't throw out the rule of law, BUT if it turns out that we used illegal methods in catching criminals, we can't punish them, but we do have reasonable cause to keep them under surveilance.

Police occassionally use illegal methods of finding criminals and then must ignore the evidence obtained illegally until evidence can be legally obtained.

Re:Unnecessary

[stanmann]

I'm assuming that reasonable men will eventually behave reasonably, and that unreasonable behaviour MAY be the reasonable response to extreme behavior.

BUT if the unreasonable behavior is illegal, then it must be brought into conformity with the law.

The history of the US is filled with mistakes being made and corrected and I fully expect that the mistakes made during this crisis will ultimately be rectified, and some of the things which appear to be mistakes, will turn out to have been the right thing...

Re:Unnecessary

[MoebiusStreet]

But tell me why it is that when the State breaks the rules, the only repurcussions are that they can't use the information they got -- no punishment at all.

The 4th Amendment clearly says that the government does not have authority to execute searches that are unreasonable, or without probable cause. Yet in common usage, they seem to allowed to sidestep this at will, so long as they say, "Well, we just won't use the information we got".

I think that the purpose of the Amendment is to keep the government off the average guy's back just as much as it is to prevent incarceration of innocents.

Re:Unnecessary

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Police occassionally use illegal methods of finding criminals and then must ignore the evidence obtained illegally until evidence can be legally obtained.

No, they must ignore the illegally-obtained evidence forever. What's more, the court will throw out any new evidence whose origin is the illegal evidence. In other words, imagine that the cops do an illegal search and finds drugs in an apartment. They use the drugs to convince a judge that the suspect is a middleman in a drug operation, and the judge gives them a wiretap so that they can see who the suspect calls. That wiretap leads to a massive crackdown that catches a dozen top drug traffickers. Yay. But when the defense attorneys find out that the original search was illegal, the whole game is blown: All the subsequent evidence -- and the convictions it enabled -- will be thrown out.

It's called "fruit of the poisonous tree" (see here for a good summary). It closes the loophole you seem to assume exists -- and thank goodness, since if consitutional protections could be blithely overlooked, then they wouldn't actually mean anything.

Oh, wait....

Re:Unnecessary

[gilroy]

Interesting factoid: The Third Amendment is the only one with essentially no case law. It hasn't been the basis of any Supreme Court decisions, I believe...

Re:Unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably someone building a fertilizer bomb is either stealing the components or paying cash. Only an idiot would leave a paper trail as easy to follow as you have suggested.

Re:Unnecessary

[Binky The Oracle]

Quote:

-----

The Amendments to the Constitution were made to protect the citizens from the GOVERNMENT, not each other. Remember, corporations are considered private single person entities. Even though these very same airlines got a shitload of money back in 2001 because of lack of passengers.

your point? This information was given to the GOVERNMENT.

-----

I wouldn't presume to put words into his mouth, but since coming up with convoluted justifications is a tradition here, let's pretend that this ended up in some kind of lawsuit. I can easily see lawyers for the government and airlines saying something to the effect of:

1. When you gave your personal information to the airline, you did so voluntarily and it is no different than when you give your information to a neighbor or other individual. Thus, the Constitutional protections don't apply.
2. When the government asked the airline to provide this information, it was merely engaging in a standard contractor relationship and purchasing/requesting data from a corporation/entity. The airline was not required to give the information (product) but did so voluntarily. Thus, Constitutional protections were not violated because the government did not seize information or take it without the permission of the owners of that data.

Now then... this might open up the airline to a lawsuit based on a violation of its own published privacy policy, but I'd be really surprised if there isn't weasel language in that indemnifying them to sale of your information...

Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone is even the least bit surprised at these types of governmental behaviors, and it's not just a Bush administration thing (although I'm very bothered by the accelerating erosion of civil rights recently).

I'm not sure when it happened, (I suspect around the early 1900s and culminating with FDR) but the American populace shifted from viewing the Constitution as a document granting very specific powers to the government and forbidding it to do anything else (with the Bill of Rights acting as further clarification to some very specific examples) to viewing the Constitution as a list of rights the people. If the people only have certain rights, then the government must have the rest of them. Or so the thinking goes...

That's not to say that some government programs don't do a lot of good, but think about all of the things that are blatantly unconstitutional: national speed limits and drinking ages*, the department of education, the ATF, that sweet $450,000 grant to study the mating habits of aboriginal fruit flys in Southern Idaho.

(*Note that I recognize that the government doesn't necessarily pass national laws for these things, but it does extort the states by taking tax revenues out of the states, then holding that money hostage in the form of education and highway funds until the states comply with the will of the Feds... it becomes a de facto federal law.)

Again, I'm not saying that some national programs and laws aren't useful or beneficial, simply that they're unconstitutional because they aren't specifically allowed for by the Constitution which clearly states that any powers not granted within the document are reserved to the states and/or people.

And I'm not against granting the Federal government additional powers, but if they're needed, they damn well better be provided for in a Constitutional amendment, otherwise they're invalid.

I'll use a hot-button topic to illustrate: gun control. If the majority of the American people truly want the federal government to legally control the sale of firearms (of whatever type), that's fine. The framers allowed for the Constitution to be amended in order to accommodate the times. But there needs to be a Constitutional amendment revoking the 2nd amendment and establishing the new powers, because otherwise, any gun control

Re:Unnecessary

[GSloop]

unreasonable behaviour MAY be the reasonable response to extreme behavior.

I STRONGLY disagree. It is never reasonable to be unreasonable - both in the pedantic sense and in a practical sense.

It would never make moral sense to kill someone elses kids simply because they killed yours, or anyone elses for that matter.

The moral highground we MUST stand for as a nation is that we keep our morals and high priciples even though the "enemy" may not.

Revoking privacy and liberty to stop the bad "evil-doers" just makes us evil and bad too.

Either we believe in liberty and freedom or we don't. If we do, then liberty and freedom should never be abridged. If we don't, lets quit posturing as though we do and say we embrace freedom and liberty *except* when it's inconvienient.

The same arguments apply to free speech. The speech that is MOST IMPORTANT to protect is the speech we find offensive. It's easy to protect speech you agree with, but much harder to allow the angry, hateful and plain wrong SOB to express himself too.

It's a short step from depriving those who are "terrorists" of a fair trial and due process to people just like you and me. If we don't rise up and loudly protest at their treatment, even though we may abhor their thinking and acts then when you and I lose our freedom and liberty, we'll have little to complain about.

As for rectifying mistakes. Sure, we can keep from making the same mistake in the future, we we rarely make whole those who were injured in the past.

Examples?
Japaneese internment.
Slavery
Jim crow laws
Mistreatment of the mentally incapacitated and ill
Virtual extermination and disenfranchisement of the native indians.

There are dozens and even hundreds of others. Have we paid reparations to black slaves, the victims of jim crow laws, the indians or even come close to repaying the true economic and psychological losses of the Japaneese internment?

No, DAMN NO! It's pretty easy to say - well we'll fix that later. But we don't pay the true costs of our actions impact on those mistreated by those mistakes.

Strive greatly not to make mistakes the first time. Few of us are willing to truely cover the costs of those mistakes later. Myself included.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:Unnecessary

[Warlok]

Problem here is:

Supreme Court ruled against First Amendment recently with the campaign finance reform act. It was also abandoned during the Civil War and has been severely curtailed by various government agencies.

Second Amendment's been under fire since the 1930's.

Fourth and Sixth Amendments are pre-empted by the Patriot Act, and the Fourth is ignored when boarding an airplane.

Parts of the Fifth Amendment means nothing in tax court, other parts are ignored in the War on Drugs, and still another part has been ruled against by the Supreme Court recently.

Ninth and Tenth Amendments were abandoned and ignored by the Lincoln administration and haven't been the same since.

In short, while I agree these amendments do provide privacy protections, they're so riddled with moth holes from disuse and abuse they're pretty much worthless, and that's a tragedy.

The Bill of Rights - Void Where Prohibited By Law.

Re:Unnecessary

[zihamesh]

Privacy is just plain unnatural. It only in the last centuray that its had any real meaning. Before mass transport, everyone knew everyone else in their area, and everyone knew everyone else's buisness.

Re:Unnecessary

[Dr. GeneMachine]

privacy = terrorist ... Perl: Can't modify constant item in scalar assignment at test line 1, near "terrorist;"
This is the most insightful commentary on the whole matter I have seen on /. up to now...

Re:Unnecessary

[Ath]

You will pardon the rest of us for accepting the US Supreme Court's definitions about which rights are found in the US Constitution and not your definitions.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that there IS a right of privacy to be found within the US Constitution and that this right covers a variety of areas. See Roe v. Wade and Griswald v. Connecticut for reference. You may not like the Court for reading this non-explicit right from some of the explicit rights, but they did it and that makes it the law of the land.

Your statement, however, carries absolutely no weight on the subject. When you bother to take a basic class on Constituional Law, or better still go to law school and get a degree in the subject, your blatantly incorrect statements will still carry no relevance.

Is it just me, or do a lot of slashdotters stay at Holiday Inns and therefore believe they have professional skills and knowledge that they actually do not have?

Re:Unnecessary

[Prior Restraint]

Privacy is just plain unnatural. It [sic] only in the last centuray [sic] that its [sic] had any real meaning. Before mass transport, everyone knew everyone else in their area, and everyone knew everyone else's buisness.

Popular Rule is just plain unnatural. It's only in the last couple of centuries that it's had any real meaning. Before the American Revolution, everyone lived under the rule of someone who came to power by military force or accident of birth, and everyone just accepted it.

Speaking as devil's advocate...

[fiannaFailMan]

..the TSA or its contractors may have violated the Privacy Act, which prohibits the government from compiling secret databases on Americans

I thought that under the 'Patriot' (sic) Act it was perfectly legal for information to be handed over to federal agencies without their knowledge. Is there some sort of conflict between the 'Patriot' (sic) Act and the Privacy Act?

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[Joe the Lesser]

The PATRIOT act would have to be legal for that argument to apply...

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity the USA PATRIOT act (Get the damn name right, people) is legal until proven otherwise. It was passed by congress, just like any other law, and until the SCOTUS overturns it...

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[schoolsucks]

If it was passed by Congress, then it is most likely legal.

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would somebody mod the parent "-1 Naive Dumbshit"? Thank you.

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[stanmann]

No, if it is later determined illegal, it has always been illegal. And just because SCOTUS makes a decision, doesn't mean that its the right one either.

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[ckaminski]

No, but overturning a SCOTUS decision is a major pain in the ass, requiring some 2/3rd's majority of state legistatures to pass an Constitutional amendment. Something that has happened only 17 times in the history of the U.S. (27 amendments, 1 bill of rights).

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

> No, if it is later determined illegal, it has always been illegal. And just because SCOTUS makes a decision, doesn't mean that its the right one either.

No, but if SCOTUS makes a decision, it is legal (even though perhaps not right), by definition. So until it gets changed, it is Federal precedent and will be used as such by all courts that rely on such rulings.

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[MoOsEb0y]

based on information from the thread above, it would seem that this basis of reasoning would make the Patriot Act Unconstitutional.

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[solarrhino]

I know that replying is pointless. Nevertheless...

To begin with, the FBI cannot request any documents or records without first getting judicial permission. That permission must come in the form of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- a federal court specializing in counterterrorism and international intelligence that was created by Congress during the Carter administration. No judge on that court is going to authorize government agents to spy on a citizen merely because of his reading or web-surfing habits. Why not? Because the law forbids it. Which law? Why, the Patriot Act.

Jeff Jacoby, "Overblown fears about the Patriot Act", May 24, 2004

If you really want to know the truth, it is out there...

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[mOdQuArK!]

It's worth pointing out that only a moron would submit a request to the FISC phrased in such a way to cause them to turn it down. I believe that I can count the number of times that they have turned down a surveillance request on both my hands - even after the huge mushrooming of the number of requests after 9/11.

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[ninejaguar]

Last I heard, 0 were turned down. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?

= 9J =

Re:Speaking as devil's advocate...

[SillySlashdotName]

Maybe I missed something earlier, but...

pedantic mode=ON

The correct name of the act is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001"

USA PATRIOT is an acronym and should be all caps.

Using [sic] means you are aware that this is not used correctly, but are perpetuating the original error as found.

pedantic mode=OFF

You used it correctly, but I am confused what original error you are quoting.

Not finding it, thought I would ask. :)

As far as the acronym goes, I think the letters should be all squinched together as well - USAPATRIOT ACT, but how would you pronounce that? 'you sap at riot'?

Health data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Requested center seat. Indications of possible insanity.

Re:Health data?

[tail.man]

We will all be screened under the "new freedom"..

War is peace, tyranny is freedom..

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/screen_populati on .htm

Re:Health data?

[supersandra]

Hmmm. Dubya is watching you?

Somehow it doesn't have the same effect.

Still, the Big Brother effect keeps becoming greater and greater, and yes... it is very unsettling at times, especially when you don't know what kinds of normal actions (maybe I like the middle seat!) will earn you a second, suspicious look.

Re:Health data?

[tail.man]

Look here..

http://www.psychrights.org/

Re:Health data?

[stanmann]

You know, someone once claimed that

Dubya Dubya Dubya was watching us

I guess it could be scary.

Re:Health data?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing it means things like, "requests wheelchair at gate", "vegeterian meal", "requires oxygen tank" or whatever that might be part of your flight reservation. I can't imagine what other info they would have in a reservations system.

Technically some of it is info about your health, but it's not like "has hepatitis" or something like that would be in their records.

Re:Health data?

[gnu-generation-one]

"Forget the credit cards -- where did they get the "health data" from?"

Do you buy medical insurance or pay your doctor with a credit card?

I'm wondering when someone's going to correlate the idea of those toilets which do tests on your urine "samples" with the limited number of toilets available at an airport or on a plane...

Go Greyhound

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I use the bus. Nobody wants any personal information on anyone they've met on a bus.

Re:Go Greyhound

[fiannaFailMan]

Nobody wants any personal information on anyone they've met on a bus.

Unless it's a pair of hot Swedish chicks (preferably twins) with blonde hair, seductive blue eyes and sexy smiles.

Re:Go Greyhound

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obvously never been to a bus station in North America. If you saw this at the bus station, I would suspect you were intoxicated, either beer goggling or tripping.

Re:Go Greyhound

[pilgrim23]

For years, back when I traveled a lot by plane.. and this was many years back... I ALWAYS used a fake name, and paid by cash. Why? Not because I had something to hide. I do not. But I DO believe that my business is just that: my business, and not yours, not the government's, not Acme Marketing's.. These days I travel by car, bus, walk, or ride a bike. I do not fly. I would see no difficulty in "hopping a frieght" if it came to it..
I have always wondered why good network geeks who go out of their way to hide their real IP, and take various other protective steps to insure their net is not violated, will hand over the most confidential data about themselves without a backward glance..
Every incremental step taken "for our own good", "To protect us", or whatever the reason du jours, is just another step away from what this land was once about. We have met the Evil Empire and him be US!

Re:Go Greyhound

[Cruciform]

Someone's got a crush on the Wayan's brothers :P

Re:Go Greyhound

[landoltjp]

This is why I use the bus. Nobody wants any personal information on anyone they've met on a bus.

You're correct; they don't want it ...yet

Re:Go Greyhound

[gstoddart]

Unless it's a pair of hot Swedish chicks (preferably twins) with blonde hair, seductive blue eyes and sexy smiles.

Ah, so you've never actually been on a bus before I see. ;-)

Re:Go Greyhound

[morcheeba]

I took greyhound for one-way trip to the car factory to pick up a new car. I sat within earshot of three people who had just been released from prison... they were talking about how much a hot Escalade went for on the street, and comparing prison ID photos. I did not pull out my laptop to get some work done.

Security was funny. Only one leg of about 4 had any, and it consisted of wanding the people. I was wearing my backpack with a laptop and tons of stuff in it, but when it set off the metal dtetector they didn't do anything (not even open it). They didn't really check anyone else's bag, either. That's because they know real bus terrorists aren't foolish enough to ride in the bus.

Re:Go Greyhound

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody wants any personal information on anyone they've met on a bus.

Unless it's this bus.

NOT work safe! :)

Re:Go Greyhound

[tail.man]

That is next..

After the malls..

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/062104s ch umerwants.htm

Re:Go Greyhound

[dave420]

You don't have a passport, do you? :-P

You don't think that someone travelling on a plane is the business of the airline? Wow. If you had people staying over at your house, would you be freaked if they only gave you false names?

Behaviour like that smacks of paranoia...

Travelers?

[ryanwright]

without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission

Don't you mean terrorists? You can't tell citiz..-err, terrorists, that you're going to investigate them.

Welcome to the United States, where any random citizen is an enemy of the state.

Re:Travelers?

[the_mad_poster]

Welcome to the United States, where any random citizen is an enemy of the state.

It's much more convenient that way. All that actual investigating and charging with real crimes and such is so much WORK. It's just so much easier to declare people enemy combatants and have jack booted thugs drag them off in the night.

Besides, little Sarah, Agent Bob's daughter, thought it was GREAT FUN hooking up electrodes to the enemy combatants' nutsack when she got to sit in on the interrogation of one of these "terrorists-who-we-can't-actually-pin-with-a-crime " on take your daughter to work day.

Sadly, the fact that little Sarah was privvy to this information without the proper security clearance made her an enemy comabtant, and Agent Johnson was ordered to.... deal with her.

Re:Travelers?

[tail.man]

Evrything is terrorism under patriot 1,2,2.5 etc..

http://www.infowars.com/police_state.html

Re:Travelers?

[sirReal.83.]

I don't know who originally said this, so I guess I'm totally stealing credit.

You can't control innocent people... but you can control criminals. What do you do with a large group of innocents that you want to control? You make them criminals. You pass so many ridiculous and confusing laws that it's impossible for one to lead any kind of reasonable life on the good side of the law.

Okay, that's old news. I guess the newish part they're tacking onto this time-tested tactic is to simultaneously scare the piss out of people using various methods such as erosion of privacy, and study them statistically with the information gained as a result of the former. Know your enemy, scare your enemy, own your enemy. Just like bullies on the playground.

Re:Travelers?

[the_mad_poster]

Here's a complete sentence you lumbering, trogolodytic, slope-skulled, grunting moron:

Not a single one of them would have been saved by the PATRIOT act even if it was 500 times more draconian than it is, because the CIA already had the legal power to neutralize the guilty parties in those cases before PATRIOT passed.

So, your theory here, I suppose, is that people who don't get caught because nobody can locate them when the authorities already have the legal power to arrest or kill them, would magically appear in broad daylight on the town square if we passed enough unnecessarily Draconian laws giving them... more legal powers that they didn't need to make an arrest or launch a raid? Good theory. Might I just say that I'm glad you're not the one in charge of guarding us?

Re:Travelers?

[red floyd]

Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged".

Re:Travelers?

[GileadGreene]

You can't control innocent people... but you can control criminals. What do you do with a large group of innocents that you want to control? You make them criminals. You pass so many ridiculous and confusing laws that it's impossible for one to lead any kind of reasonable life on the good side of the law.

I'm not sure if she originated it or not, but a speech roughly similar to the above appeared in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

Re:Travelers?

[mOdQuArK!]

What do you do with a large group of innocents that you want to control? You make them criminals. You pass so many ridiculous and confusing laws that it's impossible for one to lead any kind of reasonable life on the good side of the law.

I always thought that it should be a constitutional right to allow every able-minded person to vote, even if they had been convicted of serious crimes (unlike the usual attitude of preventing felons from voting).

My reasoning goes like this: if your society is healthy, and the laws are common sense rules which everyone tends to follow, then you'll have only a small number of criminals, and their votes won't usually have much effect on any important decisions.

On the other hand, if you get a bunch of megalomaniacal jerks in charge of writing & enforcing the laws, and they're criminalizing _everything_ (and then using selective enforcement to keep their "enemies" from getting uppity), then as the ranks of "criminals" swells, their votes will provide an ever-increasing negative feedback against the small group of people who want to control everyone else's lives.

As it is today, it seems to be pretty easy to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't agree with your political or social philosophy by making sure that they are made into criminals when they don't toe your line (assuming you're in charge, of course).

Re:Travelers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem the government can't even control criminals. If governments can't keep illegal drugs out of *prisons*, how can they hope to keep them out of "free" society, even if they turn it into a virtual prison.

Re:Travelers?

[bungo]

> because the CIA already had the legal power to neutralize the guilty parties in those cases before PATRIOT passed.

umm, one thing I'd like to point out...

The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US, anything domestic is for the FBI, etc.

Now, it may be that the US govt has said that it's fine and dandy for the CIA to kill, capture or 'neutralize' foreign nationals, but, the foreign nationals governments wouldn't agree.

Whenenever the CIA do almost anything, they are breaking the laws of the country in which they are working.

Let me give you an example which doesn't involve the US -
The French govt sent it's people in to blow up the GreenPeace Rainbow Warrior. The French decided that their people had the right to do it. The NZ govt didn't agree, and caught and arrested the French operatives.

So, I can't really see how the CIA can have any legal power to do anything outside of the US, and they don't have any legal power to do anything inside the US either.

Really, the US needs more draconian laws, which they have the legal right to enforce in other countries, that would really help things get under control. All which is needed is alot more weapons and a bigger army.

.

Re:Travelers?

[the_mad_poster]

The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US, anything domestic is for the FBI, etc.

I know that, did you read the parent post?

Whenenever the CIA do almost anything, they are breaking the laws of the country in which they are working.

Which is irrelevant since we're not talking about anyone else's laws...

So, I can't really see how the CIA can have any legal power to do anything outside of the US...

As in "they're not going to get hauled in front of a Senate subcommittee when they get home".

Really, the US needs more draconian laws, which they have the legal right to enforce in other countries, that would really help things get under control. All which is needed is alot more weapons and a bigger army.

Justficiation for that proposal?

It's legal when you make the laws.

[Trigun]

Nobody's going to get fired over this, nobody's going to go to jail over this, nobody's going to even care about this.

If you do, you're un-American. Welcome to McCarthyism, population: you.

Re:It's legal when you make the laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to McCarthyism, population: you.

Thanks for your brilliantly crafted laugh of the day

Re:It's legal when you make the laws.

[matt2413]

There's nothing funny about this comment...

In case you didn't know...

[Unnngh!]

...the way this works is:

• large business violates customer privacy to government agency concerned with national security
• judgement is made that this type of activity is okay because it is necessary for nat'l security
• bill may be passed to state the obvious

And, well, there's no ...? - profit involved:)

Re:In case you didn't know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

There is no ? becasue the profit is guaranteed.

If you are big enough you can either buy yourself the legislation you need to make money, or you can get the government to bail you out.

Re:In case you didn't know...

[Anonymous Coward]

When applied to the government, the list is slightly different:

1. Repeal Bill of Rights
   
2. ???
   
3. Security

See also the three phases of the history of warfare by Douglas Adams.

Fear the airport or the guy with the knife?

[fizz]

Gee, now we have to worry about the airlines giving away our personal info to just anyone? Does this mean Bin Laden could soon wield your CC numbers? heh

Re:Fear the airport or the guy with the knife?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Please kill yourself now.

Re:Fear the airport or the guy with the knife?

[Politicus]

Does this mean Bin Laden could soon wield your CC numbers?

He's too busy wielding your tax dollars to care.

Re:Fear the airport or the guy with the knife?

[0utRun]

He's got his own construction company and makes plenty of cash. How much do *you* have in your bank account?

Privacy Act Violation

[insomnyuk]

If they mis-handled Social Security numbers alone (simply by sending them to the TSA without the approval of the people who possess those SSNs) then this is a very clear violation of the Privacy Act. Hello lawsuit?

Re:Privacy Act Violation

[jwcorder]

I don't know about you, but I have never had to give my SSN to get on an air plan. Driver's License maybe but never SSN. Don't tell me that your butthole hurts every time you fly either :)

Re:Privacy Act Violation

[BearJ]

Sure, now all they have to do is release that big list of SSNs and credit card numbers, along with names and expiry dates so I can check if I'm on there.

And if I am...

Bah...

[Ag3nt]

Mz6 makes a very good and valid point. I can't say I blame the airlines though. Bad times plus the chance for a law suit sure would make me put all my cards on the table. I am amazed however by how many people think that they have a right to privacy. Unfortunately, no where is it written in the Constitution or any other civil documents that individuals are entitled to privacy.

Re:Bah...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of laws regarding the handling of SSN's, though.

Re:Bah...

[XipX]

Fine, I'll be waiting for your credit card number, social security number, and your medical records in the mail since there isn't any right to privacy. Thanks.

Re:Bah...

[ckaminski]

Last I checked, there's no right to breath free air in the Constitution either. Doesn't mean I have given up that right.

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Get that, reserved by the people. Nice little catch-all Amendment.

A bit naive perhaps...

Re:Bah...

[Ag3nt]

Hmm, so what you are saying is that ALL elements not stated in the Constitution are delegated to the people. Does this mean that just because it is not stated in the Constitution that the people automatically gain that right? I think not...

Re:Bah...

[Anonymous Coward]

When have you provided your SSN number to fly? Perhaps to get a partnership credit card from a bank that partners with the airline to provide you frequent flier miles, but that information wasn't provided for you to travel.

Re:Bah...

[stanmann]

Unless enumerated in the constitution or other subordinate federal or state law... Hence the ?need? dubious as it may be to explicitly make illegal every molecular change made to an opiate. And the draw of "designer drugs" because if its not Illegal, its legal. And its really hard to make something you don't know about illegal.

Re:Bah...

[transient]

no where is it written in the Constitution or any other civil documents that individuals are entitled to privacy

This very statement is why many people were opposed to the Bill of Rights. They thought it would limit people's rights. One subtle but important fact of the Bill of Rights is that it does not grant rights to anyone, it only lists them. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness inherently. You were born with it. This right wasn't granted to you by a piece of paper. The Bill of Rights simply declares that which is already so.

It is entirely possible that they left one or two things out.

Re:Bah...

[bla]

You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness inherently. You were born with it. This right wasn't granted to you by a piece of paper. The Bill of Rights simply declares that which is already so. It is entirely possible that they left one or two things out.

that would be why the phrase "...and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence and not the bill of rights? :)

Re:Bah...

[red floyd]

Actually, yes. Only it's not the Tenth, it's the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Bah...

[fishbowl]

The 10th Amendment is an important pillar in the basis of the entire system.

You are not constrained only to those rights that are enumerated. It's the opposite. You have *every* right not specifically abridged.

The whole point of the Constitution is to establish a government wherein the State is fully empowered except in the specific ways it is constrained. You, as a citizen of the state, are likewise granted all rights not prohibited by the state.

This is pretty much the basis of what we call "freedom."

Re:Bah...

[fishbowl]

> I think not...

Why not? You're free to do anything that's not illegal. And if the state wants to call something illegal, they are obliged to make such laws in a way that does not conflict with the Constitution.

If you want to live in a country where the only rights the people have are those that are specifically granted, and only those rights are granted, you have choices.

1. Persuade Congress and the voters among the States to agree with you, and amend the Constitution to fit your preferred model.

2. Move to a country whose government better fits your beliefs.

In the US, the very essence of "freedom" is that you are free to do anything that's not specifically forbidden. You seem to want to turn that on its head:

Anything not MANDATORY is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN.

Re:Bah...

[code_monkey_steve]

It is entirely possible that they left one or two things out.

Except that they didn't:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I.e., "We didn't think of everything. You still have right R, even if it's not listed".

Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I.e, "Unless explicitely listed, the gov't doesn't have right R."

Re:Bah...

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be why the phrase "...and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence and not the bill of rights? :)

It's not a problem. The creator does not need our legal authorizations! Human rights are independent of system of government.

Re:Bah...

[dave420]

You don't have the right to life in the US. No medical insurance? You'll die in hospital, surrounded by great doctors who won't lift a finger to help you. Another reason the US is the largest hypocrisy in the world, yet people still keep banging on about how good it is. Americans are easily fooled, it seems.

"Sensitive Data"

[artlu]

The data that I have provided to airlines has definitely not been sensitive. I have never been queried for my DOB, SSN, Driver's License #, or any unique information besides my name. I think there is a big flaw with the airlines in that anyone can purchase an airline ticket for anyone else. Anyone else can then get a "non-legitamate" ID card and get on an airplane. If they disclose when I travel, then maybe the data can be considered sensitive, but then again me leaving my car at long term parking will provide the same information.

Aj

GroupShares Inc. - A free and Interactive stock market community.

Re:"Sensitive Data"

[plague3106]

think there is a big flaw with the airlines in that anyone can purchase an airline ticket for anyone else.

Well I personally would not have been able to get from NY to FL to attend my grandmothers funeral if that were not possible. I'm sure there are plenty of valid reasons to buy someone else a ticket.

Re:"Sensitive Data"

[pagz]

I don't know about you but when I flew from NJ to CA they scanned my drivers license right after they took my ticket at the jetway...I'm fairly certain that the drivers license number is encoded on the card

Re:"Sensitive Data"

[Wedge1212]

I agree....i mean when was the last time anyone ever gave their DOB or SS# to someone to book a plane ticket. The data that is taken is hardly sensitive. Credit card numbers are the only thing i can think of that would be considered sensitive data. I guess some people book plane tickets through services that require a blood sample before you travel.

Re:"Sensitive Data"

[fishbowl]

"I think there is a big flaw with the airlines in that anyone can purchase an airline ticket for anyone else."

I don't understand. I buy plane tickets for other people all the time. You have to give the passenger's name. They have to check in with ID that jibes with that name. What's the problem?

It Matters.

[redfenix]

so what? what comes of it?

Nothing, that's what.


What comes of it is that the broken government which now serves itself takes more of us, the people that it should be serving. One morsel at a time, all the while spending our money to reduce our freedoms.

Here's my plan: Amass a small fortune, then move to some small country that no one knows about and live like a king.

Re:It Matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my plan: Amass a small fortune, then move to some small country that no one knows about and live like a king...

Sure, then get accused of harboring terrorists, get invaded by US, have a nice visit in Guantanamo Bay.

Re:It Matters.

[jwcorder]

"Here's my plan: Amass a small fortune, then move to some small country that no one knows about and live like a king."

When you amass this fortune, be sure to forget that if it wasn't for this great country that you live in that is run by this broken government that has worked so well for over 200 years you would probably be nothing more then a substance farmer bathing and pissing in the same river that the cow shits and drinks in.

Also when you find this small country that no one knows about, let me know...I want one too.

Re:It Matters.

[azmatsci]

Better idea, you should move to a small island. People who complain about the government in the US make me laugh. It's probably the easiest government in the world to change if you don't like it. Get a bunch of like-minded people together and vote in a new one. Stop your complaining and change it if you don't like it.

Re:It Matters.

[Le Marteau]

When you amass this fortune, be sure to forget that if it wasn't for this great country that you live in that is run by this broken government that has worked so well for over 200 years you would probably be nothing more then a substance farmer bathing and pissing in the same river that the cow shits and drinks in.

It WAS a great country, but the country reached its apex and began its decline began about 80 years ago. We are now living off the results, fruits and momentum planted prior to that. Anyone with intelligence and an above average grasp of history would agree.

A country is like any other entity. It has it's rise, glory, and decline, and we are witnessing the decline of the American civilization. That is beyond dispute. The country has quite a few years before the shit REALLY hits the fan, but for now, we can enjoy pretending our country is the best thing that's ever happened, and will alway be the best thing that's ever happend, that things can only get better, and can continue to wave our flag; slapping ourselves on the back for having made the excellent choice of having been born here.

Re:It Matters.

[jwcorder]

How can you say that the 20s were the peak of our country? So I suppose that for nearly a century we have just been running on fumes? I agree we have our problems with partisan politics and bureacrats that have no business leading the masses when they don't understand the common man, but to stand there and say that our country is heading for crapper is an insult to every man, woman, and child that have died in the name of America.

In conclusion if you aren't happy you were born here, and at peace waving the flag that allows you to bring your highly educated, liberal arse on this website and spout such nonsense, then I would suggest you take the first plane outta here.

Maybe a few years in a third world nation would change your mind and make you realize not only how greatful we should be to have the life we live, but that we didn't accidently get here by stumbling around in the dark for the past 3/4 of a century.

Re:It Matters.

[redfenix]

I wish there were a moderation option of +1 Ironic.

Re:It Matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

> you would probably be nothing more then a substance farmer bathing and pissing
> in the same river that the cow shits and drinks in

What's a substance farmer?

Re:It Matters.

[wwest4]

to stand there and say that our country is heading for crapper is an insult to every man, woman, and child that have died in the name of America.

Or maybe the fact that some people have steered it into the crapper is an insult to every man, woman, and child that have died in the name of America.

In conclusion if you aren't happy you were born here, and at peace waving the flag that allows you to bring your highly educated, liberal arse on this website and spout such nonsense, then I would suggest you take the first plane outta here.


Or maybe we can welcome dissent and participate in meaningful discourse. Did it ever occur to you that you can simultaneously dislike your government and love your country?

Re:It Matters.

[StalinsNotDead]

A farmer who grows substance.

The guy probably meant subsistence farmer. A farmer who grows barely enough to live.

Re:It Matters.

[isotope23]

Perhaps he meant the 20's were the peak of our country in terms of a FREE democracy?

IMO our democracy is running on fumes. The country is fine, and will continue to be so, but as an EMPIRE, not a true Republic.

As for the "In conclusion if you aren't happy you were born here," line, I'm sure the British could've used the same line on our founding fathers.

You may not understand it, but as an american citizen, you not only have the right, but the DUTY to criticize the government when you think it has gone wrong. The founding fathers knew the government would grow in power, and begin to abuse it. They expected the citizens to try to keep it in check. They also knew we would fail at some point, and the whole cycle would begin again. That is history. Read "The decline and fall of the roman empire" and see how well it compares to us today.....

Re:It Matters.

[jwcorder]

I never said you couldn't criticize it. I absolutely wouldn't pass gas in Bush's general direction.

I also have to disagree with the free democracy comment. Prohibition was one of the biggest failures of invasion of privacy I have ever read about.

I stand tall and say government needs help. We have an idiot in the Whitehouse and a bunch of Senators that are being steered by special interest and deep pockets inside of the people.

That wasn't his argument though, he had doomed up to death by our own hands.

Like this is news.

[jwcorder]

Seriously, how many of you in here can read this and say you are surprise? Not I said the duck...Not I said the goose....Not I said the little red hen. This is not surprising. (Place tinfoil hat on now.) The government has the ability to know anything about anyone of us that they want. As long as you stay "Above ground" ie, you have a life, you are easily traceable by almost anyone, more or less Uncle Sam.

The deal is the same with ET and life in space, the majority of society is not ready to know this. Joe Smoe in Suburb A, Good Ole Boy, USA doesn't want to know that I can find out whatever I want on him and the government can probably tell where he is within 5 feet at any given time. That is if they want to waste the resources.

This is why I am amazed that the Olympic Bomber Dude (sorry, pressed for time and can't remember his name nor wish to google) spent years in the mountains of my home state without anyone finding him. HE would still be there too, if he hadn't come back into town....

I kinda got off topic for a moment, but to me, this is not news. If you think other companies don't do the same thing you are crazy. If the government came to me and said do this this and this or I am going to shut you down, and not pass this bill that will keep you in business, as well as block this foreign trade, then you would do it too. American Way baby.....

Re:Like this is news.

[jwcorder]

And you are obviously an asshole. Good luck making it in the real world at all. This is /. not a damn spelling contest. Didn't realize I had to wear the Sunday clothes to Wednesday lunch.

Although, I will have to admit that English never was my subject, something about having to read and write, I didn't know that the teachers were proofreading the works today.

Now excuse me, I have to get back to my low paying job working in a Call Center for the Deaf and Blind.

Re:Like this is news.

[JGski]

My direct experience working in the gov't is that our greatest protection against Big Brother has been (until recently) the pervasive Byzantine and internecine nature of the government bureaucracy. In general the gov'ts fundamental inefficiency has been underestimated by the tin-hat crowd. The scary part of much of the WOT is that it seeks to eliminate that protecting inefficiency and self-destructiveness. Efficiency != Democracy. Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Re:Like this is news.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are obviously an America

I guess that means you understood what he meant when he said Eric Rudolph was from his home state then. Here's a cookie.

Re:Like this is news.

[Prior Restraint]

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Just FYI: That was a myth.

This fact had to be exposed?

[schoolsucks]

It's common knowledge that any data that the government wants, it can have. Ofcourse they need a good excuse for it, and I guess the only thing the article exposed was what excuse the govt used.

Re:This fact had to be exposed?

[dave420]

"they need a good excuse for it"

Before the PATRIOT act, maybe. Now, a fed can walk into your house and take whatever they want, without a good reason. Makes you think, huh?

Re:Oh, STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth would they need your credit card details or home phone number?

The question is not whether the airlines should have that data, but whether they should give that data to government agencies.

Please, try to troll on topic.

Re:Why timothy is not my favorite editor

[Tarantolato]

Before I get modded down, let me clarify why this is a problem:

It's a police state, Bush is the Führer, and any democracy and freedom you believe you have is an illusion (remember the Diebold scandal). The sooner the Americans start a revolution, the better.

Okay granted, under the normal Slashdot regime you'd just substiture 'M$' for 'Bush', but the above is something we've been seeing an awful lot of lately. Let's push for some more biodiversity of paranoia!

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

A new slashdot trope! The new unit of terrorism is the 9/11. Lockerbie was about 0.10 9/11s, for example.

The US Gov is not going to defend you from terrorists, no matter what you want. Individual actions against small groups of people are impossible to defend against, no matter how much money you spend on new police cars. The US Gov needs to stop terrorism at its root cause. Not pissing off every Muslim in the world would be a good place to start.

Paranoia

[stanmann]

I understand the worry and concern about mis-use of this data, BUT as I recall, and you might also, in the short months directly following the 4 attempted attacks using airliners the airlines and associates were running scared and were providing the FBI and later HSA any and all information they had, requested or not.

So any surprise or concern over this data seems misplaced. Patterns were being examined and evidence compiled. Yes, extreme measures were taken and should be acknowledged and where appropriate apologized for, but these events should surprise noone and these revelations simply confirm what we already know.

Some people(and corporations) do foolish things when faced with a catastrophe.

Re:Paranoia

[the_mad_poster]

You make it sound (intentional or not) like this was done as part of an investigation. This data, however, was provided as part of a screening tool test. Grabbing needed information to investigate a crime that has already occurred seems acceptable. Grabbing personal information to make people into unwitting, unwilling guinea pigs is not.

Re:Paranoia

[stanmann]

It's not clear from the article why the data was provided, or what it was used for. In fact, the author of the article seemed confused about the purpose of the screening tool.

And further given that we know who the 9/11 attackers were, how better to test the tool than to feed it the appropriate data and see if it catches one or more of them???

Re:Paranoia

[Jtheletter]

I understand the worry and concern about mis-use of this data, BUT as I recall, and you might also, in the short months directly following the 4 attempted attacks using airliners the airlines and associates were running scared and were providing the FBI and later HSA any and all information they had, requested or not

I can understand and forgive providing this type of information in a heightened alert situation, such as what you mentioned above, however the information that was handed over to the TSA in this case was not for immediate security purposes. The data was provided to help develop and test new security screening systems. This means that:
A) dummy data could have been created and used in it's place
B) there was adequate time to request permission or inform those whose data was to be used, since there was no crisis in progress
C) None of the data provided added any measure of security to those flights, i.e. there was no immediate security benefit that would have helped predict or prevent another hijacking attempt. It merely helped the TSA evaluate and debug its new system.

I'm not against this type of screening per se. However I am a little wary about how much information is needed to provide results that are not simply another form of profiling, or if in fact that's all we'll be getting from this system - a bunch of red flags on anyone with low income and of middle eastern descent.

What I, and I think many others, take offense to here is that the data they shared was in violation of the Privacy Act, was more than what they needed (credit card numbers should never have been given), and was done completely under the radar for no legitimate reason beyond avoiding complications and cost of actually getting people's permission.
And frankly, how hard would it have been? When you get your ticket they ask you if you've had your bags the whole time etc, couldn't they have also asked "As part of our increased security screening we are developing a system to evaluate passenger data to find terrorists, would you like to allow our airline to use your passenger data to help develop the system? This will not affect your flight or your business with us in any way." Then they check the yes or the no box on the computer and off you go.

Re:Paranoia

[the_mad_poster]

It's not that they USED the data, it's that they gave it away in an underhanded manner AND (at the very least in the case of Northwest) they betrayed their own privacy policies to do it.

Depending on the data collected, it might not have even been much of a concern if they'd have at least notified people. When an airline tells me they'll do one thing, then silently do exactly the opposite, it does not endear a whole lot of trust.

Re:Paranoia

[stanmann]

If as I said above, you are testing screening, you will want to use data where at least some of the targets being screened for are known.

We know who the 9/11 terrorist were, both the ones who died, and the ones who for various reasons aborted. SO if we take the data from the months of august and september and feed it through, it should identify those individuals as suspect. If it does not, or it identifies known innocents then it needs more work.

This is how we test software, first we give it known good dummy data, then we give it known bad dummy data, then we test it with sample real world data.

this applies whether writing hurricane tracking software, or a word-processor.

Re:Paranoia

[Jtheletter]

If as I said above, you are testing screening, you will want to use data where at least some of the targets being screened for are known.

Perhaps I missed your original grandparent post, but the one I replied to mentioned nothing about using data with known targets for screening. Which, btw, I'm fine with, I think we should go back and review that data to find the indicators. AFAIK the data in question here had nothing to do with the attacks directly though, it was random day to day data from months after. If I'm wrong about that then ignore that point; it still doesn't invalidate the fact that if the passenger data were from September it would be justifiably used in an investigation, but this was not an investigation, this was software QA.

[...] This is how we test software, first we give it known good dummy data, then we give it known bad dummy data, then we test it with sample real world data.

I'm not posting on slashdot because I'm a moron, I do write software for a living, I understand how to test it. No one is concerned with the testing measures, and yes, at some point you have to use a real data set, trust me I know the headaches associated with real datasets. But the way in which the real data was acquired - by being transferred secretly and without permission, and then later the transfer of that data was falsely denied - was immoral, illegal, and unacceptable. Why? because we have privacy laws in place, and because there were other ways of legally obtaining that data, like asking for permission. Increased cost and timeliness are not an excuse for illegal activity, otherwise we might as well just go back to dumping all our industrial waste into the nearest body of water.

Re:Paranoia

[stanmann]

The article doesn't say when the data was from, or what it was used for, in fact IMO the article was fairly short on facts and long on rumor/speculation.

I understand that you aren't a moron, I also know that many slashdotters are differently technical from me and appreciate some detail.

This info is important!

[scumbucket]

You must be crazy to think that not using the inofrmation doesn't "make us secure". Do you even know how much crap is confiscated from passengers during searches? My friend works for the TSA and they've confiscated, among other things, switch blades/knives, drugs (LOTS of it, and not just pot either), guns, etc... And almost all of the time these items are taken from white/american citizens.

Now imagine what would happen if that gun wasn't confiscated, got on the plane, and some nutcase decided to start firing at people for whatever reason.

Being "secure" means being certain that there are no holes in the screening process, even if it inconveniences you.

Re:This info is important!

[ITman75]

Yes i can understand confiscating those things, but taking home phone number...Ok, I'll give you that, make sure that its a true home number and citizen.

However, Credit card info and other types of private info, like SS# I would not want that stuff given out.

Re:This info is important!

[gantzm]

Now imagine what would happen if that gun wasn't confiscated, got on the plane, and some nutcase decided to start firing at people for whatever reason.

That's when I start feeling really sorry that they confiscated MY gun. Guess I won't be returning fire on that trip. Maybe I can call 911 on the inflight phone...

Re:This info is important!

[poot_rootbeer]

Being "secure" means being certain that there are no holes in the screening process, even if it inconveniences you.

How does having my home phone number or Social Security number help the government find concealed weapons on airline passengers?

Re:This info is important!

[d34thm0nk3y]

wait, how does having my SS# effect the operation of metal detectors again??

Re:This info is important!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, one of those guns could have been used to stop one of the 9/11 hijackers!

If _all_ the (non-convicted-felon) passengers were armed, _noone_ would dare hijack a plane.

Re:This info is important!

[Anonymous Coward]

> You must be crazy to think that not using the inofrmation doesn't "make us secure".

No I think you are in that it does.

You go on to cite all the items confiscated from "white/american citizens" as if this also matters. Care to inform those of us reading this how a phone or CC # contributed to any of 'protection' you speak of?

Re:This info is important!

[glorf]

And all those same things were getting on planes before the TSA existed, but didn't seem to be enough of a problem that anyone was worried about it.

If some guy sitting next to me on a plane has a kilo of cocaine taped to his stomach, it doesn't negatively impact my security unless he opens it up and forces me to partake.

Your gun case is bogus. Obviously if the 9/11 terrorists brought no guns they must have felt that gun screening was effective enough that it would have stopped them.

If the TSA were truly effective, then maybe it would "make us secure". But it's not.

Re:This info is important!

[The Angry Mick]

I call bullshit.

The only way to be totally secure , is to park your monkey ass in a shallow underground bunker and NEVER leave. Ever. Pray that your God delivers you food and water, because actually having someone deliver it is a risk. Going to the store to buy it is a risk. Eating anything ever handled by another human being is a risk.

In other words, welcome back to the dawn of man where just being alive is a security risk!

There is a deeper problem here. Any idoiot that believes if we only collected more information, we'd be a lot more safer, is fooling themselves and ignoring a much greater set of problems.

Terrorism exist because of anger, distrust, and a sense of hopelessness and/or exploitation. Deal with the core issues as they arrive, instead of waiting for them to fester and explode, and it is entirely possible to limit, if not actually eliminate, the rage quite literally blowing back in your face.

But its neither easy or convenient to think like this - in a capitalist society, some would even consider it heresy. It's time consuming - don't think that declaring a Palestinian state would make Osama retire tomorrow. It demands a greater understanding of foreign culture, idealogy, and history - don't assume that global economics will eventually "buy" peace by making all the citizens of the world consumers in a common market. It'll cost time and (get ready to flinch) money.

As a nation, the U.S seems far more attentive to the fear and loathing aspects of human existence, than it does its so-called "Christian" beliefs and values - there is very little of Christ in American christianity right now - and most of the fear is centered on pure and simple economic greed. Blame mass marketing, blame capitalism, blame anything, but this country loves its money and all the toys it can buy more than it has ever loved anything else. Other cultures see this, and resent it, and learn to hate it.

Just stop to think for one second what the goodwill payoff would be if a country like the U.S spent just one-tenth of its defense budget on development programs in third world countries. Millions of people would benefit, and, to give the hard-core capitalists a reality check, would be more likely to invest in U.S products and interests.

Just so my point is clear. Increased data collection will not stop the terrorists.

It will, however, make it easier to market to the families of the victims . . .

Re:This info is important!

[Laroue]

Trying to keep dangerous weapons off of planes is a futile effort.

Yes you confiscate a gun, whoppie. I can take my steel bodied ink pen and a paper bag full of gunpowder. No one is screening for matches. As long as we allow the people on board we are allowing weapons. The mind is the only real weapon anyway. I find the security in airports a joke. I flew threw Portland, recently, and a terminal was being remodelled, cordless drills and tools everywhere, with no one watching them at all(I assume it was the lunch break for the crew). Anyone could pick up and take whatever they want onto the plane. In Cincinati you can buy the nail
clippers that are prohibited in the terminal. Take liquids for instance, we don't check them to see if they are volatile. Anyone could walk on board with a 20oz Sprite bottle filled with nitro and no one would question it.

I will say it again airport security is a joke. period.

The only way that I see to secure our airlines, is to issue every adult border a knife/handgun/weapon. Then we can be sure that everyone is armed. Perhaps a simple check, "Are you prepared to defend the plane if terrorists attack?" if not you can drive.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:This info is important!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to agree with the rest. What info gathered while purchasing the ticket, exactly, led to this confiscated property? Oh, it had nothing to do with it? Thats what I thought. No one has an issue with TSA searching passengers for guns/knives/whatever. This actually helps our safety. However, how does handing ALL of my personal info over to the Gov't help YOUR safety. It doesn't. Not in any way.

This is exactly the problem that the US is having right now. Sheeple (thats you BTW scumbucket, no offence, its your sig), get told, "Oh, its for your safety, to protect us from THEM", and you buy right into it. They half relate the issue to something that does concern you (like boarding a cruise missle), and you cave in. Suppose, that for some reason, the red flags all went up, and I was on a watch list because some bizzare combination of unrelated data points lined up and the computer spat out "TERRORIST ALERT". Now, if I clear security, and have no guns, knives, explosives, nailfiles or anything else, how am I a risk? The cockpit doors are locked, and reinforced, there is probably an air marshal on board, the flight crew is trained to deal with me if I get out of hand (and armed in cases), and I think a good number of passengers would be willing to kick my ass if I started some Koranic rant (hate to use a sterotype here, fill in the personaly offensive rant of your choice) at the front of the plane.

So, how are you safer? The answer is, you are not. The only thing that has changed, is that some unknown number of goverment agencies now know a little more about you than they did before. This information used to require a search warrant to be signed, showing probable cause for why the state needed this information, now they get it by asking. Ask yourself, do you trust your government that much? You shouldn't, look into the very recent past, and listen to the screaming, bold faced lies that they spew every day. Then ask yourself, does your government trust you? They do not, at all. If they did, they wouldn't be trying so hard to get every single piece of information that they possibly can on each and every one of you. I have no idea what the motives are, I can not speak for their intentions, and NO, I do not wear a tinfoil hat. However, history shows that when governments start taking this level of interest in their citizens, something uncool is about to happen.

Re:This info is important!

[strike2867]

Now imagine what would happen if that gun wasn't confiscated, got on the plane, and some nutcase decided to start firing at people for whatever reason.

By your logic, security people should be searching people at every store entrance. Why not go even farther, station them at every door, and strip search people as soon as they come out of their house.

Re:This info is important!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. scumbucket:

I would like to tell you how secure that our screening process is. On Saturday, June 19, 2004, I got off of a Delta flight from Venice, Italy's Marco Polo airport at NYC's JFK airport with a connecting flight to Chicago's O'Hare airport. I proceeded through customs and travelled outside to have a cigarette. I walked past several taxis and strangers and back into Delta's domestic terminal at which point, being a ticketed passenger with a boarding pass issued in Venice, I was able to walk through security without being screened. Now it didn't occur to me until I got on the plane that I could have picked up ANYTHING outside and gotten onto that connecting flight. Granted, this was not a 767, but it was a jet that could have caused a massive amount of damage were it to hit something. Now how secure do you feel? I certainly felt no inconvenience. But here is the truly odd thing. I felt perfectly safe on that flight. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Re:This info is important!

[DeepHurtn!]

"Being "secure" means being certain that there are no holes in the screening process, even if it inconveniences you."

Okay, I'm sure everyone has seen this quote a million times, but it seems appropriate here:

"Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither."-T. Jefferson

Re:This info is important!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Giving up my personal data makes me more secure: From terrorists, the government, scammers, con artists, or other undesirables and/or corporate oppressors.
2) Private corporations help federal agencies violate federal law.
3) US Supreme Court rules that citizens do not have a 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons in public.
4) Giving up the data helps TSA employees (like the one in PHX who was shining a laser pointer in my eyes out of boredom, which, by the way, is a CRIME in Arizona) find "weapons" on the persons of or in the luggage of morons who try to carry them onto airplanes.
5) ?????????????
6) PROFIT!

Re:This info is important!

[jpmorgan]

Right, because obviously crossfire is just what we need on a crowded aircraft.

Re:This info is important!

[gantzm]

Right, because obviously crossfire is just what we need on a crowded aircraft.

Well, bullets are already zipping about the aircraft, potentially killing passengers. What do you suggest we do, shout "Stop!" ?

Re:This info is important!

[theLOUDroom]

Trying to keep dangerous weapons off of planes is a futile effort.

More to the point:
The problem on 9/11 wasn't that the terrorists had box cutters, it was our policy of giving someone with so little as a frickin box cutter whatever they wanted.
9/11 was the result of a POLICY problem.

If we had already adopted the simple policy of "Kill the motherfucker as soon as he pulls out a box cutter!" the death toll for 9/11 would have probably been less than ten non-terrorists. Post 9/11, you can bet almost any airline passenger has adopted this policy and the same mistakes are much less likely to be made.

Re:This info is important!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also interesting that NRA say that enabling ALL citizens to go armed reduces the risk of attack.

Ergo, they should issue guns to people who don't have them whengetting on the plane.

Re:This info is important!

[geoffspear]

It's really sad that a "quote" that's been quoted so often, as you point out, could be so horribly misquoted.

Will this bring lawsuits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious how many lawsuits this will bring? I've never flown on any of those airlines and now I'm glad to say I never will. I always fly Southwest.

Re:Why timothy is not my favorite editor

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderation -1
70% Offtopic
30% Interesting

At least one moderator agrees!

Sabre &Travelocity?

[jdunlevy]

Travelocity was "Born of leading travel innovator Sabre (the world's largest travel agent reservation system)." (In fact, recently spun off from?)

And if they ask....

[Creepy Crawler]

YOu cant refuse to give them your name anyways.

They still'll get all your data.

Re:And if they ask....

[Have Blue]

Sure you can. You just won't get on the flight either. But then again, you don't have a right to fly.

Re:And if they ask....

[Creepy Crawler]

You dont get what Im saying. Look at Monday's verdict of NOT GIVING YOUR NAME TO SOMEONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. Fines and/or imprisonment ensues. http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

Re:And if they ask....

[Have Blue]

Last time I checked, airline ticket agents were not law enforcement officers. Your tinfoil hat is cutting off circulation.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent poster has been modded flaimbait. I would have modded insightful!

Who cares about laws ?

[Anonymous Coward]

have you not seen the news ?, the current USA administration couldnt give a shit about laws, international or domestic, this is the new American way

Re:Who cares about laws ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They care...they just don't follow them because they have the media and special interest on their side. :-(

Re:Who cares about laws ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the current USA administration couldnt give a shit about laws, international or domestic, this is the new American way"

If nobody in this supposed "International" world cares to stand up and draw the fucking line, formally denounce the US, sever trade with the US and forbid travel for Americans, or even use force to alter this trend, then...

Are they wrong?

It looks as if the US has tested the theory that it rules the world, and that pretty much all other nations can be depended on to line up behind as the US moves on a course of empire, throws off any pretense of "International law" or even "diplomacy", and the rest of the world is just fine with it.

There's a lot of talk in venues that don't actually matter, that the world is "not just fine with it." But as far as the leaders of all those other countries are concerned, the US is A-OK.

Name a sitting head of state or an active diplomat that has formally denounced the US government as illegitimate. (Nations that were already considered enemies of the US before 2003 don't count.)

I am seeing none. Business as usual. Nobody really believes the US is rogue. They don't believe it earnestly enough to actually say so in any sort of formal way. Like walking out of the UN. Or pulling out of the "Coalition" (okay, Spain. Good start. But the Spanish government stopped short of challenging the legitimacy of the US government, or even, openly criticizing the legality of the Iraq invasion.)

Not even France, Germany, or Russia has actually gone this far. Americans are still welcome to travel abroad. Other countries continue to trade with the US.

This so-called "International" of yours doesn't seem to have much integrity, does it? Enjoy having it both ways, do they?

Re:Who cares about laws ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute, but what's your stance on this mess?

The only good "privacy policy"...

[hey]

... is not taking the info in the first place!
As if anyone believes any companie's "privacy policy"... especially when the fine print says it can change at any time and any new law (PATRIOT act) superceeds it.

I wish there was some way to go thru the world without leaving a HUGE record of everything I did. Why does every business request your name, address, etc? (Yeah I know why). What ever happen to the idea of obtaining a token from (say) Visa which is worth $500 and passing that to the airline ... and no other info.

Re:The only good "privacy policy"...

[Bri3D]

Why do you care?

So?

[azmatsci]

So? Forget the fact that all of this information is available on the Internet, the FBI can pull this information very quickly anyway. I support this because it just eliminates the wasted time for the FBI to do so. Passenger tracking by governments is going to be a way of life permanently thanks to a few morons. Just prey it doesn't extend fully into automobile driving, trains, or buses. The fundamental issue here is citizens willingness to have their personal information and whereabouts freely available by the government they are currently involved with, be that their home country or the country they reside in. But I think that is just a phantom of the real issue which is people's fears that by governments simply having that information it can be stolen or sold to somebody to use it against the individual. This is a valid concern in most countries right now. As governments advance and globalize, this kind of information sharing should become more secure and less invasive. Meaning full detailed information will not need to be kept on anyone because if you are in a modern country the needed information will be generated when you need it and not sitting on a server to be misused. I personally don't mind my government (US) tracing my whereabouts and my purchases because I don't feel they can use that information against me. Mainly because I do nothing that they would conceive as harmful to them. Some people want to keep everything private because they fear misuse, but I truly believe most people that want to keep everything out of government hands is because they have something to hide. Perhaps I am wrong in calling them the majority, but I don't understand when someone is worried about your government knowing where you are or how to find you.

Re:So?

[g0bshiTe]

Yeah and next we will all have to have the proper papers to fart. Let me ask you this. Since Sept 11 and the Patriot Act went into effect, are you or do you feel anymore secure? Does it make you sleep better at night knowing that the FBI can knock down the door of a suspected terrorist in the middle of the night? Your door in fact. Should your paper boy get pissed because you stiffed him last week on his tip and dropped a dime, told some agency that he has seen plans in your house of building blueprints. And they kicked in your door. Pulled your family out of your house at 3 am at gunpoint, this makes you safe? Statistically you have a greater chance of being eaten by a shark than ever encountering a terrorist. Personally I would rather live with the terrorist threat, than lose the freedoms that my father, and those before him fought for. Don't confuse false security with real security. Welcome to the new police state. They are watching us all.

Re:So?

[poot_rootbeer]

Forget the fact that all of this information is available on the Internet

That's bullshit. Read the article.

If my credit card number and health records are available on the Internet, there are going to be some lawsuits forthcoming.

Re:So?

[stanmann]

OK, sue these guys

experian
Equifax
Trans Union

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your name isn't Harry Tuttle, right?

Imagine how things would have been a few years ago if your name also would have been "Timothy McVeigh", and you happened to have been born in the same state as the infamous OKC bomber (so your SSNs would probably have very similar first 3 numbers). Hmm... Imagine a mis-entry in an Experian database with your ssn, where a human mis-entered it once, and the one who corrected it used the other Timothy McVeigh's SSN (because they checked by name, and, well, the numbers were close enough), and then the govt pulled information on "Timothy McVeigh", and somehow you got snarled up in the dragnet?

Wouldn't THAT be so much fun, having to prove your innocence?

Re:So?

[deity]

I personally don't mind my government (US) tracing my whereabouts and my purchases because I don't feel they can use that information against me. Mainly because I do nothing that they would conceive as harmful to them.

I take it that you don't sit too far from the center of the political spectrum. You're probably not a third party supporter (Communist, Green, Libertarian, etc.). You're probably not Muslim. You're probably not gay or lesbian. By your statements, you don't strike me as an activist for social justice or civil liberties. It might surprise you to learn that our country has quite a lot of folks who, for some reason or other, are currently or will eventually be persecuted for being different, holding different political or religious beliefs, or pissing off the wrong elected official. Think about the journalists--what happens when their every move is known in advance? This is a power that the government should not have, not without warrants and the traditional Constitutional protections given to our people by the Bill of Rights.

Head over to Wikipedia and read the article on CAPPS (disclosure: I wrote it a few months ago) and CAPPS II. There are so many problems with this system, besides the big one--it won't work.

In my opinion, the most disheartening aspect of this debacle is that a syndicate of large corporations lied to the public, lied to their customers, and undermined the Constitution. But there will be no reckoning. This is a burning example of our corporate "citizens" escaping responsibility.

Re:So?

[Jtheletter]

but I truly believe most people that want to keep everything out of government hands is because they have something to hide. Perhaps I am wrong in calling them the majority, but I don't understand when someone is worried about your government knowing where you are or how to find you.

Wow. So do you also believe that all people who choose vanilla icecream over strawberry do so because they are allergic to strawberries? I'm not exactly a card carrying member of the tinfoil hat club, but I do value my privacy and actively work to ensure it stays private as much as possible. And not because I'm involved in illegal or illicit activities.

At some point you need to stop asking "Why do I care if the government has all my information?" and start asking "Why does the government care if it has all my information?"

This falls under the slippery slope scenario (yay alliteration!), the first steps seem harmless: provide your ID when you enter, then it's provide a fingerprint, then it's fill out this form for our records, then it's "no thanks, we don't need to see your ID, I know everything about you thanks to your fingerprint tied to this database." and then it's "Johnson, get me the precise location of the man with this fingerprint by tracing the RFID tags in all the clothes he's wearing and see where he was last scanned."

Maybe you don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean spit when you're arrested and thrown in jail because your government profile - for whatever reason, mistaken or otherwise - flags you as being dangerous. Sure, eventually the mistake might be found, or your innocence proven, but in the meantime you're still spending some special time in lockdown with Bubba and his chums.

The point here is that at some point the government knows enough to do it's job, and really doesn't need to know when was the last time you bought milk and who you were with. The more information there is the greater the potential for abuse. It is abuse of the system that we are trying to prevent, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of flesh in my book.

Re:So?

[bckrispi]

I personally don't mind my government (US) tracing my whereabouts and my purchases because I don't feel they can use that information against me. Mainly because I do nothing that they would conceive as harmful to them. Some people want to keep everything private because they fear misuse, but I truly believe most people that want to keep everything out of government hands is because they have something to hide. Perhaps I am wrong in calling them the majority, but I don't understand when someone is worried about your government knowing where you are or how to find you.

Since you have nothing to hide, you certainly wouldn't mind the government tapping your phone or net connection without a warrant, would you? Perhaps you checked out a copy of Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries (or the Koran) from your local library. Are you a student? A history buff? A socialogist? An anarchist? A Nazi? A terrorist in training? Since you have nothing to hide, you won't mind when the feds knock on your door to find out why you would be reading such "controversial" literature, now would you? Have you ever bought a copy of Hustler? Maybe out of boredomm you bought a subscription to a porno site once. You'd better hope that the cute eleven year old girl accross the street from you never winds up missing, because the government already knows who the sex pervert in your neighborhood is. As you are being interrogated by the police for her disappearance, keep repeating this phrase to the nice detectives: "I have nothing to hide".

The reason I don't want the government to know details of where I travel or what I purchase is simple: It's none of their fucking business!!

Re:So?

[azmatsci]

Spot-on. I generally spport ACLU-type causes but don't care enought to get involved with any. Agree with your comments at least partly, but the fact is 35% of the country is at the center, and less than 10% at both ends combined. And don't bring up journalists, never met one I trusted. To be bold, I would trust my local fed more than my local reporter. At least they aren't as interested in spinning events to sell articles or issues. Besides, as media outlets are controled by fewer and fewer 'interests,' doesn't that make them a large corporation that can lie to the public, custmers, and do what they want with the information they have? That is scarrier than the govt. we have now.

Re:So?

[azmatsci]

It was none of their business when we had a population that could adequately control themselves. We have a war going on and soldiers defending the US, UK, etc are dying right now. Yet people still think it is 'ok' to kill their neighbor or steal a car, or write a virus. When people can police themselves then they are responsible enough to not need a large government.

Re:So?

[azmatsci]

Actually, more secure. Perhaps that is because I work where I do and see the things I see.

Re:So?

[isotope23]

"When people can police themselves then they are responsible enough to not need a large government."

Let's take a look at this shall we?

Assume you care for a small child. Now because you don't want him to hurt himself, or get sick etc. You decide to keep him inside the house, for his "own good".
Assuming the house does not burn down, and you supply him with food etc. He will not probably hurt himself as he grows up.

Now consider you wait until he's 18 and then say okay you are grown up now you can go outside.... Chances are the first time he goes out it will scare the crap out of him and he will not do it again. Thus the system of "safety and security" is the only acceptable world he can live in.

IMO this is the world we are moving towards, where personal responsiblity is minimized or discounted, and everything is considered "not my fault". People cannot and will not learn to be independent in this type of environment.

Re:So?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I do nothing that they would conceive as harmful to them
>most people that want to keep everything out of government hands is because they have something to hide

OK, you've got nothing to hide. (Does that mean you don't use a shower curtain?)

The point is *you have nothing to prove* in a free society. We have hundreds of years of law that says the government needs a reason before they investigate you.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're a sharp wit, eh?

So you're telling me that I can just go to any of those sites and retrieve credit card statements and full credit histories for anyone I please?

Oh, wait, I can't?

Yeah that's what I thought.

The original poster made the assertion that all this data was available 'on the Internet' which is a big fat lie. Yes, I can get Equifax to present me with a credit report for *me* through their website, but can I do the same for the guy down the street?

Re:So?

[stanmann]

If you know enough about him... YES.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Nazi's started that way too.

Re:So?

[rhizome]

You're pushing your idea of "adequately control" on the rest of the world. It's a logical fallacy to generalize based on one example, and the fact that you think that people can't "adequately control" themselves does not mean that people are out of control. However, if you do in fact think that people think it's okay to kill their neighbor I really wonder where you live, or if perhaps you're being extreme to make a point. A point that serves to justify an authoritarian government. What do you think is the easiest way to get people to police themselves? How far up in the rankings do you think "governmental surveillance" would be? How are people supposed to learn how to "police themselves" when the government is stepping in at every moment to take care of their peace of mind for them? I tell ya, I'm a US citizen in a large city and "fear of being killed by a terrorist" doesn't even register in my world of personal safety. As has been demonstrated by the government's response to 9/11 (this means 'not including WTC/etc. fatalities') that Americans are more likely to be falsely accused of being a threat to national security than they are of being a victim of a terrorist act.

As far as the war business goes, I've always been told that soldiers fight to defend the freedoms of their countries. But look, here we are giving up privacy in the name of war, how ironic! Any other freedoms been curtailed in the last few years that you can think of? Oh, but we're in a war, that's right.

Re:So?

[azmatsci]

Bet the Iraqies didn't. Or the Afghans, or Somalians, or Boznians, etc, etc, etc. Shall I go on?

I guess the point is you need to have both a strong government and a strong populus to have a successful system.

Can you say lawsuit?

[g0bshiTe]

Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.'"

Is a direct violation of the Grahm Leech Bliley Act which states that any private information may not be released to third parties without the persons prior notice. The only time it may be given out is if there is an investigation into that individual. Seeing as how several airlaines gave it to the TSA I wonder who authorized that information to be released? Had I flown with them then and found this out, the requesting agency had better have the proper authorization, or I would damn sure file a class action lawsuit against the TSA and the airline.

Re:Can you say lawsuit?

[marcop]

IANA-Lawyer but I skimmed the Grahm Leech Bliley Act and it seems to apply to transactions between financial institutions. I thought about the HIPPA law in regards to health data, but that seems to apply only between medical practictioners and insurance companies. Again, I haven't read it clearly. However, airlines and the government may claim that neither of these laws apply because of semantics. Remember that this is the same government that argues about the semantics of torture vs. interegation.

Makes me made that they do this, but they make me fill out forms to talk to my insurance company about my wife's medical bills even though she is on MY insurance.

Re:Can you say lawsuit?

[g0bshiTe]

So true.

That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[Jack_Frost]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Your credit card and medical information can easily be argued to be your "papers and effects." Privacy is one of the few rights that is specifically defined by the Constitution.

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[Ag3nt]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. That information was disclosed to the airlines willingly, with full knowledge of the implications of the disclosure. As I restate, no where in the IV amendment does it say that it protects against unlawful disclosure of personal information.

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[Tackhead]

> Your credit card and medical information can easily be argued to be your "papers and effects." Privacy is one of the few rights that is specifically defined by the Constitution.

Your CC#, SSN, and medical records are just as valid today as it was before a copy was transmitted to TSA.

In the context of the Founders (who were talking about people stomping into your place, rummaging through stuff, and locking it away while you wait for trial), in what way have your airline's "papers and effects" been "searched or seized"? If filesharing isn't stealing, then it doesn't matter whether it's you and me sharing MP3z, DivXz, and warez, or your airline and your government sharing records of financial transactions.

And yes, I meant "your airline's" data. That data wasn't in your hands, but in the hands of the credit reporting agencies, airlines, and insurance providers, so it ain't your papers we're talking about.

If there really was a Fourth Amendment issue, it'd be trivial to have a judge issue warrants against the three major credit reporting agencies, a few dozen airlines, and a few dozen insurance agencies, specifying the data to be copied.

As Bill Joy said, "Privacy is dead. Get over it."

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[trentblase]

full knowledge of the implications of the disclosure

BS -- if everyone knew what was going to happen with their personal data, the same group of people who are complaining now would have been complaining back then.

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[Politicus]

As I restate, no where in the IV amendment does it say that it protects against unlawful disclosure of personal information.

You would think that when the constitution says "unreasonable" that it also means "unlawful". Why would anyone expect it to be within reason to be searched unlawfully? If that is the case, then the constitution no longer applies and it doesn't matter what it says so this argument is mute.

Oh wait, this administration has already invoked nationalism and fear. What was I thinking. Failure to report to the nearest GOP office to receive your brown shirt and shiny black boots may be held against you come 2005.

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[m1kesm1th]

Since data files, particularly programs and mp3s like you mention are clearly defined as copyright infringement, your argument is flawed. Neither CC, SSN nor medical records are copyrighted works and therefore are not comparable in the way you have described.

Also, if like you say, there really was a Fourth Amendment issue, it would not be trivial to have a judge issue warrants in against the three major credit reporting agencies a few dozen airlines and a few dozen insurance agencies specifying the data to be copied.

And thats even BEFORE you realise a judge would have to do it individually for each passenger when an application is made highlighting why it isn't unreasonable.

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[einhverfr]

You would think that when the constitution says "unreasonable" that it also means "unlawful". Why would anyone expect it to be within reason to be searched unlawfully? If that is the case, then the constitution no longer applies and it doesn't matter what it says so this argument is mute.

Oh wait, this administration has already invoked nationalism and fear. What was I thinking. Failure to report to the nearest GOP office to receive your brown shirt and shiny black boots may be held against you come 2005.

New T-shirt idea!

I want a picture of the twin towers with a chilling caption:
The American Reichtag, 1966-2001.

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Privacy is one of the few rights that is specifically defined by the Constitution.

Some of the Founders didn't want to add a Bill of Rights. They were afraid that people would assume it was a complete list, or get the idea that the people's rights came from the Constitution.

Hence the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[Tackhead]

> And thats even BEFORE you realise a judge would have to do it individually for each passenger when an application is made highlighting why it isn't unreasonable.

Yeronner, we request a warrant that demands that "Foobar Airlines Inc", supply us with a copy of its database. We require this data is reasonably required as part of an ongoing investigation relating to terrorism.

Even if we assume a warrant is required (which it probably isn't, assuming the DoJ lawyer uses the right catchphrases to take advantage of the new powers granted to him under the new laws), once a Judge signs such a warrant, it's legal even under the strictest and most literal possible reading of the Fourth.

We probably disagree on how hard it ought to be to get a judge to sign off on a warrant (I think warrants should be required so there's a paper trail, but that getting them signed should be little more than a formality), but leaving that disagreement aside -- why do you think it's hard to find a judge who'll sign a warrant?

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just pointing out...

You said "searched or seized".

They took the CC#. Searched.

Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment.

[m1kesm1th]

Well, even without disagreeing with the warrant, they'd have to be placed for each of the companies involved like you mentioned. I wasn't actually disagreeing with finding a judge that will sign the warrant, just that the judge if we're looking at the 4th as applicable, then there should be a justifiable reason. Not just seizure on suspection. But, even putting that aside.

You list 3 differents types of companies with each 'a few dozen' (lets say this is 24) individual companies, apart from credit card companies which is 3.

Thats works out to not be a few it actually turns into a larger (51) even theoretical figure. I know you wanted it to appear short, but actually the paragraph in question sounds like a great deal of work on its own. Additionally the data we're talking about is not static, in nearly all cases, the information requested would not change, however in this case we have new data (new flyers) flying all the time, people suddenly travelling with a different airline, visitors, people on vacation, etc. So, to keep a current database, any warrant made, would have to be open. Not just to enable agents to retrieve the data or request the data, but be given frequent updates of the date involved also. This is new. For example if permission is given for a wiretap, normally agents observe a certain protocol, that for one the date must be relevant and after a period of time, they must be reapplied for, once sufficient evidence is shown that it is producing results. Basically by giving out vague assurances as ongoing terrorist investigations, I could request to go into your house and take all your documents every day indefinitely. However, if that sounds a little stupid, maybe something a little similar to article in question, a monitoring of how much you spend and your bank account transactions. The reason given could ongoing tax evasion investigations. Like the warrant you mentioned, it has no target, just all people using the airline, needs no evidence (which is hardly the strong basis for a warrant regardless). The data involved is not needed by the bank, they only need a current balance, yet they hold the data for you. Its yours, but held by them. Similar to credit card numbers and medical records.

So say we're talking an application for the entire database (not an individual, despite we're saying the literal representation of the 4th, which actually should be represented to an individual), since it is not the companies the warrant basis is about, its individuals. Sure, they may hold the information, but its in relation to the individuals.

All in all, this is just a few of the complications, however if the state just decides to do it and no-one objects, then its all moot. Its hard to stop someone doing something illegal to you if you can't prove it. If new patriot act powers allow this then its not important either because I'm sure the constituition will be ignored. The constituition was created to protect people and provide them with privacy, despite the description not including the word databases and personal records, it was written a long time ago and I think requires change to preserve the same rights.

In the EU there the Data Protection Act, which explicitly forbids the sharing of data, without the persons permission, certain waivers are customer on most banking applications to enable banks to share information with credit protection agencies (commercial, not governmental).

I think we'll disagree in the long run, but despite our differences of opinion I think whatever legislative difficulties occur, they will either be ignored of circumvented to make it possible, even if in practise it puts to the rest the fundemental meaning of the constituition (if not the literal meaning).

cross-linking

[theCat]

The airlines gave that much no doubt because they were asked to. And the reason why they were asked to is because it takes a lot of data points on an individual to fully cross-link and cross-reference all the scattered databases that are used to define who someone is and what they are doing recently.

Yeah it is excessive. I don't like it at all. It is spooky. But it happens all the time though generally on a smaller scale.

This is just one time when it was on a huge scale, and so we found out.

Before very long there will be a lot of strangers in the world (I mean all over the world, including offshore outsourced data mining facilities) that know more about the Total You than anyone you actually know personally, outside yourself. That's one of the reasons why privacy laws are such a total flipping joke in the absence of data secrecy.

It's probably better just to stay out of the databases if you don't want your whole life being dredged up in the next terrorist-inspired data dragnet.

A little more information

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting this AC because it touches on my job and I try to keep that separate.

Sabre and Galileo are Global Distribution Systems, or just GDSs to people in the travel industry. Several are or were started by groups of major airlines. Worldspan is another; I forget the names of the rest. There are about five of them in total, and they formerly were a very heavily federally regulated industry, the idea being that if they were allowed to, for example, choose their own prices they could offer different prices to different airlines (or different travel agents) and exert an unfair hold on the market. They've been deregulated by Congress within the last year, but it's too soon to say what effect that will have.

The relevant part is this: If you purchase a plane ticket, regardless of how or where you buy it, your availability and booking are handled by one of the GDSes. Access methods vary by GDS, but the reality of it is, much of your information is available to not just the government, but really anyone with the proper knowledge of how to get at it. I can't imagine too many hackers being very interested in getting your mom's flight information or personal info from Sabre, but if they did it wouldn't be especially hard.

There aren't a lot of choices to insure your privacy here. Most of us can't realistically choose not to fly.

Re:A little more information

[sapped]

There aren't a lot of choices to insure your privacy here. Most of us can't realistically choose not to fly.

How about this? Nobody needs to know my Name, Address or any other information about me to make the flight safer. If they search properly at the terminal and employ properly trained people to look out for people acting wierdly, then it would be possible for me to fly as safely as I do today, but in complete anonymity.

I am not an American and each time I book a flight with a non-US credit card then I get frisked. When I use my US credit card then I walk through with the same treatment that everybody else gets around me. Was the plane safer because I was frisked the first time around? No, because not only did I not have any intentions to do anything on that flight (which they cannot determine with any amount of data), but I also didn't have any devices with me to take over the aircraft.

So, by targeting me for a useless search because of my foreign credit card, they didn't have time to search the next guy in the line who might be walking on the plane with some perspex knives in his jacket.

Re:A little more information

[aepervius]

Galilleo (1G)
Amadeus (1A)
Worldspan (1W)
Axxess (1X?)
Sabre (1S)
and 3 other I can't remmember because they are small but i can get a list...
Bottom line "passenger are not told" is wrong. Passenger are told thru the "contract" they are accepting by buying a ticket. It is on the back of the ticket or given in an additional sheet with the ticket. Naturally nobody read it. But it is there. In germany it is in the agb (allgemeine geschäft bedingung, general condition of contract).

Now you might discuss that it might not be correct to NOT WARN EXPLICITLY the passenger, but hey, this happens also in many other field (auto leasing and small prints... Always read the smallest print...).

Bottom line is, if you give any data even in EU where we are supposed to get data protection, then it will be forwardded to the US sooner or later thru CAPS/CAPS 2 programs. As an EU inhabitant I think the EU dropped their pants on that one, but this is probably off topic.

Re:A little more information

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe crooks would be interested - your booking reference will have details of your cabin. So lets say your mom is travelling business or first class, hackers would know she has some money. They could then find out her credit card details, which is always handy. They'll also know her address and dates when she's away. I'm amazed criminals have never taken advantage of this before.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you and the parent (if different from you) are in favor of giving out information, why are you (both) posting anonymously? What have you got to hide? What's your name? I might be a police officer, so it might be illegal to refuse to answer me. And, under the Patriot Act, I don't have to tell you that I am a police officer, or that I have a warrant, since that might be secret, and it might have been issued by a secret court. Got it?

Re:Ashcroft and homeland insecurity can suck my CO

[g0bshiTe]

Vote em out hell, coup anyone?

Best. Sworn. Statement. Evah!

[Tackhead]

> Loy's sworn written response was, "No. TSA has not used any (passenger) data to test any of the functions of CAPPS II."

Pop Quiz! Loy's unsworn, unwritten response was,

a) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data to test all of the functions of CAPPS II."
b) "TSA has used (passenger) data to test functions of screening systems not called CAPPS II"
c) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data to test functions of systems other than CAPPS II"
d) "TSA has used (passenger) data not to test, but to implement, CAPPS II",
e) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data not to test, but to implement, CAPPS II"
f) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data not to test, but to implement, profiling systems other than CAPPS II".
g) "All of the above are belong to us!"

Remember, we live in a litigious society.

Republicans: You can say - truthfully - that you "did not have sexual relations with that woman", and that still leaves room for gettin' the knob polished, spunkin' up her dress, and finishing off with a slightly fishy-smelling cigar.

Democrats: Now watch this drive!

Re:Best. Sworn. Statement. Evah!

[Jtheletter]

> Loy's sworn written response was, "No. TSA has not used any (passenger) data to test any of the functions of CAPPS II."

Forgive my ignorance, but who was this sworn statement given to? Obviously it was written and sworn (what a funny word) for a reason, implying that if it turned out to be false (tada!) then there would be some sort of consequence. Is he in contempt of court? Will there be an investigation or fines?

I just can't believe someone could lie in a "sworn statement" and face zero reprecussions.

Well, ok, anyone who's not a Kennedy.

Re:Best. Sworn. Statement. Evah!

[Anonymous Coward]

> I just can't believe someone could lie in a "sworn statement" and face zero reprecussions.

Who said he lied?

Government concerns.

[Brandon Glass]

The Free State Project is an attempt by a group of libertarians to move 20,000 people to the state of New Hampshire with the intention of reducing the size, complexity, and involvement of the government in everyday affairs.

I'm not sure about the whole thing. I agree with it in principle, but it seems a bit underhanded to me to attempt to manipulate the political system like this.

It's a generally held belief that since September 11th the government has been clamping down in a way that has made a lot of people uncomfortable, but surely there must be another way of dealing with the issues raised. If these 20,000 people, as well as half the people on /. and some of their relatives and friends wrote their congresspeople, wouldn't the effect be greater, and have greater scope?

Re:Government concerns.

[op00to]

If each of those $20,000 people had $100, maybe they could become a "bush ranger" and bush might listen to them.

Re:Government concerns.

[jazman_777]

I'm not sure about the whole thing. I agree with it in principle, but it seems a bit underhanded to me to attempt to manipulate the political system like this.

No more underhanded than what happened in Texas. Owned by Spain, slowly populated by US folks, agitating for independence, declaring and winning independence.

Re:Government concerns.

[Krow10]

I'm not sure about the whole thing. I agree with it in principle, but it seems a bit underhanded to me to attempt to manipulate the political system like this.

It is neccesitated by the U.S. federalist system. Aside from buying a representative, geographically dispersed minorities have no way to get representation in the federal government. I think that becoming an influential minority in a state that already shows strong sympathies towards your position is perfectly reasonable given the system's limitations. They are being open and honest about it; and they are chosing New Hampshire over Wyoming where one newcomer vote would be proportionally worth about 2.5 times more than in New Hampshire.

Cheers,
Craig

Shocker!

[Anonymous Coward]

The government will screw you and not care. Simply shocking. has never happened before.

Great...

[imthatguy]

I now have an even longer list of airlines to boycott. This is ludicrous that people continue to look the other way/support this kind of crap. And to clarify, the information was given to government CONTRACTORS, not just the government. So some shmuck at Generic Corp USA, Ltd. has lots and lots of personal info and credit card numbers. I for one will not tolerate this and will do my damnedest to avoid these companies and any others that will use me to improve "security". As I've seen quoted quite frequently here by Mr Franklin "Those that give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither". I think the fact that we as regular Americans know what to look for on a plane or in a public place for suspicious behavior is quite enough to compensate. I know that the government is going to screw up again and terrorists are going to be able to get on a plane. And by God, if I'm on that plane I'm sure as hell not going to sit there and let them take me. This is the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE, not the land of the secure and the home of the comfortable. Freedom has a high cost, but security at the sake of freedom costs far, far more. True Freedom is its own security.

Re:Great...

[njdj]

This is the land of the FREE

The bitterest pill to swallow is that for a brief moment, say from about 1968 (when civil rights started to mean something in the South) until about 1989 (when Bush I started to shred the Constitution in the name of the 'War on Drugs'), the United States of America really was 'the land of the free'.

Why is loss of freedom on-topic? Because it has the same cause as the privacy violations. As you wrote, "people continue to look the other way." Having freedom, or privacy, is an unstable condition. Either you're willing to fight to keep it, or somebody (usually politicians, sometimes powerful corporations) will take it away from you.

Re:Great...

[Warlok]

Don't forget the period from 1789 until around 1860, when it was also the land of the free. Since then, it has been the land of less and less free...

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the period from 1789 until around 1860, when it was also the land of the free. Since then, it has been the land of less and less free...

Huh? Throughout that period slavery was legal and common in the USA. Any restrictions in freedom since then pale into insignificance compared to the lack of freedom implicit in slavery.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

For white male privlage, perhaps. For women and minorities, things have grown progressively much better since 1860.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

For some. For others not.

Re:Great...

[dave420]

You're slightly mistaken. America has always been, and always will be, the land of the FREE RICH WHITE GUYS. Seriously. If you were black between '68 and '89, you were screwed. Same if you were poor. If you were black and poor, forget it.

I'm really annoyed that people think of the US with glossy eyes, saying it's the best thing ever, when really it's pretty crappy with a good PR machine. I still can't believe everyone's still falling for it. I can go on for hours and hours as to why the US isn't the land of the free, but doing so on here (or in the US) gets you called a troll/commie/pinko/leftist/marxist/whatever.

Re:Great...

[Warlok]

Point. But you do realize there were freed blacks in the U.S. prior to 1860 (Frederick Douglas comes to mind), and that even though they were free, they were still third-class citizens, even in the North? That some Northern states passed laws outlawing black immigration into their states? That even after slavery was ended (by the 14th Amendment, not the Emancipation Proclamation), they weren't allowed to serve on juries, defend themselves against criminal accusations, or vote in many cases, even in the Northern states?

I agree, the freedom in the country prior to 1860 is sullied by the presence of slavery, but it's absence didn't improve freedom for everyone. The fact that Lincoln started a war and his Republican party (the "Party of Lincoln" they called themselves) raped the South under the guise of Reconstruction did more to hamper the causes of freedom for whites and blacks in the U.S. than ending slavery helped it. Slavery could have been ended peacefully (as it was in a dozen other countries at the time) and in such a way as to increase freedom rather than as an excuse to curtail it later.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with a lot of what you said, and I wasn't trying to make some sort of anti-South or pro-North point, nor to suggest that Lincoln was motivated by a desire to end slavery. I was just pointing out that, as I think you agree, to describe the USA as "the land of the free" in that time period is to ignore a terrible violation of the freedoms of many people. Lack of freedom on that scale is not something that can be brushed aside.

Health data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the credit cards -- where did they get the "health data" from? That seems far more invasive to me...

how paranoid is too paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point the question that begs to be asked is whether we are living in the land of the free or whether we are being raised like cattle - observed all the while and grown to conform.

Why are we the only country where we cant do anything without leaving a trace? Its almost virtually impossible to do a transaction without using your credit card or some trackable electronic means. Take the air tickets for example - want to buy cheap online? You ABSOLUTELY have to make an electronic transfer - there's no "brick and steel shop" which will take my cash!

And on the other hand, why should I bother about all the "privacy nonsense"? After all, a law abiding citizen (overlooking those minor transgressions like speeding, browsing web pages that would make others blush!) should not have anything to fear about disclosure... right? I meet both extremes at work - one guy refused to open a new bank account a few days back because the bank told him that they were required to scan the IDs for any new accounts (after 9/11 I presume). And on the other hand there are of course people who could care less... What do you think folks? How paranoid is TOO paranoid?

the fine print...

[Anonymous Coward]

and not only will we take your information...we'll host it on the most insecure, unpatched servers we can find... and have a bunch of untrained clowns admin them...
(it's the fine print on the sign saying "Welcome to the United States of America")

All laws can (and often will) be abused

[linuxhansl]

As history taught us (or not is seems)...

Laws increasing governments' power will ultimately be abused.

How long before the transmitted information will be used to catch tax-evaders? Be crosslinked with other data to find *potential* criminals (Minority Report anyone)?

The funny thing is that this information won't even help to catch any terrorists. How often can a suicide bomber be caught repeating his crimes? All that terrorist groups have to do is to send previously unknown people.

The only people suffering are average joes going about their lives.

And don't tell me: "If you don't have anything to hide, why bother." If that is the case, than why not install a camera in everybodys home ala 1984... Nothing to hide... No problem... Right?

And this is just the beginning. I remember a few years back an extensive camera system was installed in London, allegedly to find terrorists. Well, now this system is being used to catch speeders, and to track where everybody is going in the city just in case (which is used to collect tolls).

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

And don't tell me: "If you don't have anything to hide, why bother." If that is the case, than why not install a camera in everybodys home ala 1984... Nothing to hide... No problem... Right?

What is a good response to "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"? The parent post is not a good response; it doesn't actually convince the person who's ready to give up privacy. It falls back on the "we're all sinners" argument -- and some people recognize that we are all sinners, but still feel that the panopticon would reduce our sinning.

Any good ripostes?

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[Cyno]

"Laws increasing governments' power will ultimately be abused."

That would be why I'm a libertarian.

"You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy." - US President Herbert Hoover, right after our decline into the great depression.

And that would be why I'm a communist, or at least believe that currency is a waste of our resources and time.

Capitalism doesn't seem to be working for everyone, so my suggestion is to compromise and apply some socialist or communist concepts on top of our capitalist system to improve things. Its not like we haven't done this already, but it still needs more work, IMO.

But that might require everyone have a heart. That's probably too much to ask.

On a similar tangent I ran across some interesting information in social psychology last night. I was very interested in what it had to say about situation vs. the Fundamental attribution error. And how that related to people who are currently in a situation of poverty and how they might or might not be helped out of that situation in light of recent public discussion about the loss of jobs and conservativism. What do you think it would take to get the President to write an essay in his own words explaining his position on this topic?

And here I am a freakin pothead reading a psychology book. How the hell did that happen?

Destroy the economy once, shame on you. Destroy it two or more times, sha.. er, whatever. Just legalise Cannabis! :)

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[Cyno]

er actually I have no idea what that had to do with history and civil rights and stuff. Oh well. :P

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[linuxhansl]

Hmm.
In the end there is a balance between privacy and security.
I don't feel cops on patrol invade my privacy, even though they may oberserve my actions and act if I'm committing a crime.
On the other hand I didn't want them to pre-arrest me every now and then, because I may commit a crime.
The truth is in the middle.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is missing the point, because "fear" refers to possible prosecution. Of course I don't have to fear prosecution if have nothing to hide. But that does not mean that I'm willing to give up my basic right to privacy, just because somebody thinks I may commit a crime at some time.
And as I said before, information will be misused, so it is very important to keep a tap on who can collect what information when.

There's an old theory which goes something like this:
"Because of the lack of control in democratic societies, laws should drafted such that almost everybody is violating the law sometimes. With sufficient information gathering policies, it is then always possible to apply force to any person".

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Of course I don't have to fear prosecution if have nothing to hide. But that does not mean that I'm willing to give up my basic right to privacy, just because somebody thinks I may commit a crime at some time.

But if you never commit a crime, why do you need (or value) privacy? What do you get out of it?

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[Prior Restraint]

But if you never commit a crime, why do you need (or value) privacy? What do you get out of it?

What about things which are not illegal, but just socially frowned upon? Have you never heard of Matthew Shepard? What happens if there's a coup, and The United States is taken over by a hate-monger? Do all those databases filled with your personal peccadillos suddenly disappear?

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

What about things which are not illegal, but just socially frowned upon?

That's not a bad point. But the Joe Average you're debating with will often feel that "socially frowned upon" is the same as "wrong", which should be the same as "illegal". In other words, arguing that privacy is necessary so that you can continue to practice your "perversions" doesn't convince people who want to take it away.

Re:All laws can (and often will) be abused

[Prior Restraint]

In other words, arguing that privacy is necessary so that you can continue to practice your "perversions" doesn't convince people who want to take it away.

Fair enough. How about this? "I heard the FBI wants to secretly videotape people while they vote/have sex/take a dump/whatever. I assume you have no objections, since you don't have anything to hide."

Re:So what?

[Roger W Moore]

A new slashdot trope! The new unit of terrorism is the 9/11. Lockerbie was about 0.10 9/11s, for example.

Of course, in places which are metric the unit is the 11/9.

Sensitive Customer Data

[ledbetter]

Sources report the "sensitive customer data" included:

-Passenger's favorite brand of peanuts
-Success passenger had flirting stewardess
-Whether or not passenger washes hands after using washroom.

Re:Sensitive Customer Data

[Tackhead]

> Sources report the "sensitive customer data" included:
>
> -Passenger's favorite brand of peanuts
> -Success passenger had flirting stewardess
> -Whether or not passenger washes hands after using washroom.

I'm authorized to disclose that for all subjects where data element #2 is nonzezo, graphic #2 as a function of time shows either an uptrend or a downtrend, and that data element #3 is strongly and positively correlated with the direction of this trend.

What do the peanuts have to do with it? Or am I not cleared for that?

One can plainly see...

[grunt107]

that American liberties are being subverted by an out of control, increasingly oppressive goverment. It proves the adage 'Those willing to trade freedom for security get neither'. There is no reason for phone number, email address, OR ESPECIALLY financial access #s to be transmitted to ANY agency. This should be treated like the medical testing information, where almost all sensitive information is either hidden or encrypted. IMO all of the new 'security' measures need completely revamped with the focus that most people are NOT willing to sacrifice this much/any freedom for security (and privacy is a freedom).

Can they search your browser cache / trashcan?

[gentlewizard]

Compounding the problem is the vagueness of policies and incomplete training of personnel. My laptop gave a false positive for TNT a while back, so I had to submit to a secondary search at the security checkpoint. Besides proving that the laptop did indeed boot up, the police officer double-clicked on my trashcan to see what files were there, and checked the dropdown on my browser to see what recent links I had been to.

It didn't look like the officer was following any kind of script, was just nosy. But I was quite steamed about it at the time. (Good thing I had recently cleared both before packing the laptop!)

Re:Can they search your browser cache / trashcan?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It didn't look like the officer was following any kind of script, was just nosy. "

If it had been my laptop, he wouldn't have been able to log in, and I wouldn't have been able to give him permission to do so. The reason is that it would require security clearance that is given to my boss (a civilian) from his boss (an Air Force officer).

Violating this security would expose me *AND* the airport security person to charges of espionage.

I would be happy to miss my flight explaining that to everybody up the management chain.

Re:Can they search your browser cache / trashcan?

[jjoyce]

It sounds like before we travel, we should enable the login or bios password.

Re:Can they search your browser cache / trashcan?

[gcaseye6677]

I hope your laptop was not running Windows, if so, the security procedures you and your organization follows are pointless. Not to mention easily defeated with a knoppix boot disk.

Re:Airline/Fed collusion

[Anonymous Coward]

"Meanwhile, the airline/Fed partnership let planebombers hijack *4* transcontinental planes, without scrambling our air defense to shoot them down, turning our whole world upside down."

That is the stupidest statement I have ever heard! No one could have known beforehand that the terrorists were planning on crashing into any buildings. Once you start shooting down any plane that has been hijacked, you have become morally equivalent to them. True, in the 9/11 case, it owuld have saved lives, but think of the cost! No, while the gov't is not perfect, I would much sooner have it how it is now than to be in a country where we shoot down our own.

well duh

[surreal-maitland]

i was expecting this. i mean, wow, i didn't think anybody used their real info for stuff like this anymore.

Ms. Claus

123 North Pole

North Pole, NP

(123)456-7890

mclaus@gmail.com

Re:well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

no, no, a thousand times, no.

use:

George Orwell
1984 Europa ST.
(your hometown)

What's really sad is after using the above for over 10 years and getting countless "thank you, Mr. Orwell"'s, there has been only one (1!) acknowledgement of said gag.

Re:well duh

[surreal-maitland]

wow, that's beautiful. i think i'll have to start using that one.

Re:well duh

[Joe the Lesser]

As for me, I live on 13 Fake St.

Re:well duh

[rixster]

How about

1 Letsby Avenue

Bada-boom!

Changing the US is easy?

[redfenix]

I'm not sure if you're an actual U.S. Citizen or not, but either way, it seems you've forgotten that the U.S. is a representative democracy.

This means that most of the decisions are not made by the people, they're made on behalf of us by our representatives. And for that, there is a timeless quote by William Blake: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

If this quote is not disputed, that means virtually anyone with power who is not directly accountable (i.e. most politicians) will abuse the power they enjoy and bend it to their personal whims.

This is the current state of the U.S.

No accountability + Lust for power = Police State

Re:Changing the US is easy?

[Anonymous Coward]

redfenix: ...anyone with power who is not directly accountable (i.e. most politicians) will abuse the power they enjoy and bend it to their personal whims.

dickcheney: Fuck off!

Ummm ......

[Anonymous Coward]

those were guys ....

Can this data be used in jury selection?

[Anonymous Coward]

When called in for jury duty, do the lawyers use this kind of info in the jury selection phase? Once you're being questioned as a prospective jury
member, and thus have identified yourself in open court, do prosecutors and defense attorneys, and their hired jury selection consultants, do searches on you to see your history, employment, ownerships, travel, and thus likely biases, etc? Just asking, I don't actually know.
~

Re:Can this data be used in jury selection?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL either. But the rules pertaining to how voir dire is done will be covered in the Rules of Court for your state. But it's a safe bet that all of the voir dire must be done in the courtroom at the discretion of the judge, and you're not going to be permitted to do a bunch of fishing. You *ask* the jurors these questions. The state might do a certain amount of checking before you get into the jury pool, but that information isn't going into the courtroom.

I smell a lawsuit... really!

[LittleGuy]

Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.

According to HIPAA, this is a big, costly, no-no.

IANAL. Yeah yeah.

Re:I smell a lawsuit... really!

[zoombat]

According to HIPAA, this is a big, costly, no-no

HIPAA only applies to Covered Entities:

1. Health plans
   
2. Health care providers
   
3. Health care clearinghouses
   

Thus these companies are not Covered Entities and are not bound by HIPAA law, unless they have a Business Associate Agreement with a Covered Entity to preform some function for them, but that is very unlikely.

Re:I smell a lawsuit... really!

[/dev/trash]

Uh. I doubt the GOVERNMENT would put such restrictions on itself.

stupidester

[Doc Ruby]

Dick? President Mr. Vice President, is that you? How low you've sunk, posting as an Anonymous lying Coward to Slashdot.

Surely you knew terrorists were planning on crashing into buildings after the President's Daily Briefing intelligence clearly said Al Qaeda was planning on crashing planes into buildings. Or after the French government foiled a well developed plot in the 1990s to crash planes into the Eiffel Tower.

Of course, your "moral equivalence" calculator is broken. I'll point out the moral distance between crashing a hijacked plane into the US Capitol housing Congress, and shooting down that plane: one US Congress, and everything that goes with it.

Cut the crap with rhetorical nonsense like "the gov't is not perfect" - that strawman BS is too tired to even bother with. The government's job is to protect the people. Instead, the Bush/Cheney government has miserably failed to do so, at every turn. Instead of lying behind an anonymous Slashdot post, try reading the 9/11 Commission report, which details a government in "widespread chaos", as summarized last week in a NY Times front-page headline. I only hope I'm wrong, and the actual poster isn't actually controlling the US Executive Branch from some creepy "undisclosed location", but is rather merely controlling a grubby keyboard in their parent's suburban basement.

Re:stupidester

[demonlapin]

Assume, for a moment, that every bit of that information was taken totally seriously. At huge expense, F-15's assume patrol over major American flyways, guaranteeing the ability to intercept ANY target within 15 minutes of notification.

On the morn of 11 September 2001, an air traffic controller notices a plane drop off the map - not a particularly rare occurrence. He contacts the craft, which reports that it's just fine, thank you, and boy, that sucker sure must be broken, but we'll keep in touch with the towers and keep our collision-avoidance beacon on.

He's preternaturally suspicious and forwards the info to the red phone. The duty officer on the other end is equally suspicious and scrambles an F-15 to find out where that plane is. (We don't have enough radar across the US to actually paint the skin of every bird in flight - we just rely on them to tell us where they are. You couldput AWACS on station, but I doubt the AF has enough of those birds and personnel to be able to keep them up 24/7 over every major flyway.)

The jets somehow guess that yep, that's a terrorist, and if I were a terrorist wouldn't I go to NYC too? So he cranks the afterburner and notifies air command for NYC to scramble someone from there heading north. Amazingly, they manage to catch it just south of Poughkeepsie, following the Taconic.

Do you honestly think that everybody, across the political spectrum, would have been okay with Bush ordering the death of everyone on board that plane (and on the highway below, and any residential area nearby) based solely on a bunch of reports that told him that Islamist terrorists were considering flying planes into American targets? Would you? Even considering that the reports are, essentially, no stronger than the case that Iraq possessed WMD's (which, remember, was repeated over and over again throughout the 90's by Clinton, Chirac, and every other sensible human being on earth)?

The problem was in part the govt, but was also in part us - we weren't ready to take that kind of action yet. We weren't willing to kill a lot of civilians on a hunch. The real solution, the one that actually worked in the long run, was letting people know that there were nutballs on board who wanted to fly the plane into a populated target. On average, Americans are pretty resourceful folks. You can't have police and surveillance and armed guards everywhere - but you can give people the information they need to be able to protect themselves when bad things happen.

Re:stupidester

[Doc Ruby]

The law requires that any plane which turns off its transponder be considered a hijacking. Also, a stewardess on one of the flights connected early over her cellphone, informing the FAA that it was hijacked. Stop making excuses for the incompetent government that let the planebombers attack and kill us. This all might be a fun armchair secondguessing game for *you*, but I continue to live in NYC. And I want the failed US government accountable, gone, and replaced by one which protects me in light of lessons learned by the 2001 catastrophe. Excuses, denial and coverup are keeping me, and millions of my closest friends, in the line of fire.

BTW, Cheney claims he gave the shootdown order. He further claims he got Bush's OK. I think both claims are lies, along with his "Saddam WMD" and "Saddam - Al Qaeda" lies (repeated by none, other than his faithful chorus). But that's the rule, those are the least bad options in the nightmare scenario, and that's what stands between my life and the repeat performance that's hanging over our heads while these incompetent liars work merely to cultivate excuses for their failures.

Re:stupidester

[demonlapin]

Regardless of the presence of a shootdown order, my question remains: do you think, given what you think of Bush and his administration, you would have been okay with his splashing around 600 US citizens because their four planes had been hijacked? When nobody had ever done that with a hijacked plane before? On the basis of intelligence information no more reliable than what you insist, in your post, are lies - that Saddam had WMD (good enough evidence for everyone, throughout the 90's, to insist he had them) and that he cooperated with al Qaeda (evidence for which even the NYT finds at least credible enough to publish)?

Look, I know you can't stand the guy, but the political will just wasn't there. It's sad - but if he had had perfect foresight, people would have accused him of total paranoia at ridiculous expense. And there would have been endless parades of "George Bush killed my husband/wife/child/friend". It's a terrible thing that it happened. It's even more of a travesty that the kind of simple steps - like giving cockpits armored doors that cannot be unlocked during flight - that would render these attacks impossible (though introducing new risks of their own) were not taken. But I don't think it's realistic to say that an Al Gore administration would have prevented the attacks from succeeding. And I would, honestly, have been surprised if a Gore administration took a terribly different approach than what Bush did. There would have probably been more foreign veto power over our actions, and press conferences would have been a lot duller without Rumsfeld and with Gore. But significantly different? Nah. Most Democrats are anti-war now for the same reason most Republicans opposed Bosnia - it makes the wrong guy look good.

Re:stupidester

[Doc Ruby]

Since you keep beating the WMD gong, I remind you 1> they don't exist, and 2> they didn't exist, further 3> only the warmonger neocons who eventually got us into the Iraqmire through their endless lies ever said they did. The weapons inspectors, and the UN which sponsored them (including the US, when it was a democractic republic), demonstrated that they had destroyed what little remained after the 1991 war. OK, you love these despicible tyrants who have seized our country and sent it to hell in their handbasket - but drop the Al Qaeda / Hussein propaganda, which was never proven, has been debunked, and is reported only in propaganda outlets like the NY Times when it serves corporate agendas. If you're going to peddle that addled gibberish, why should I even bother to engage you? Because the reason it still floats to the top of the corporate American media toilet is because insidious suckers keep poisoning the debate with it, hoping to con more of the passive media consumers who are so easily seduced by warmongering lies that kill thousands to keep the fatcats fed.

So I again spank the straw man rhetoric out of a rightwinger's clattering jaws: drop the "perfect foresight", "Gore administration" "foreign veto power", Bosnia... we're getting rid of the bloodthirsty morons in the White House ASAP. Replacing them with a party that actually *governs*, rather than monkeywrenches America in an apocalyptic classwar, inventing "intelligence" and destroying our credibility at every turn. That isn't competing in the Central Asian gas pipeline business with bin Laden and his Saudi relatives, or in the apocalypse business with their crusading jihadis. Political will? The 2001 planebombings were the best thing - the only "good" thing - that ever happened to these Bush jokers. And they're riding it into a mushroom cloud sunset. All of that insane robbery and violence has got to go, for the good of America, and the rest of the world. Or we'll just have American tyranny vs. fundamentalist terror until the world ends. It's up to you to decide for yourself whether you're part of their problem, repeating their lies on an endless defensive against the truth, or part of the solution. Open your eyes and make a difference.

Re:stupidester

[demonlapin]

I'm not beating a gong, I'm asking a question. Since you said that the Bush administration should have stopped the attacks - should, indeed, have shot down the flights ("I'll point out the moral distance between crashing a hijacked plane into the US Capitol housing Congress, and shooting down that plane: one US Congress, and everything that goes with it.") - would you have been totally okay with George Bush killing roughly 600 Americans in airplanes on September 11, 2001, on the basis of evidence no more reliable than what you characterize as out-and-out lies?

Re:stupidester

[Doc Ruby]

I won't participate in validating WMD lies in any context, especially the planebombing nonsequitur so cherished by rightwing conspiracy fantasists. There are no absolutes like "totally okay" in making decisions to defend the country with violent means - even when I accept their necessity. But the policy to shoot down a hijacked plane was the rule. And the VP claims he exercised it. Yet those planes took out the WTC and the Pentagon. So what are we talking about here, except your sneaky attempt to somehow prop up WMD lies, and apologize for the government's total failure to protect the country from devastating attacks? Why are you wasting our time spinning words to protect these clowns, when they've done nothing but jeopardize our country, and our own lives? Are you getting a check from them? Or do you just hate America?

Re:stupidester

[demonlapin]

Just this: in a world of imperfect information, are you willing to let George W. Bush order a civilian jet to be shot down based on information that might be flat-out wrong? Would you have been willing to do so on September 11, 2001? And would you have accepted his expanation as fact even if none of the post-facto evidence that we found turned up?

I don't think you would have been. I certainly would have had severe doubts about it. And that's what I meant how each of us contributed to the failures of that day. And it's why I mentioned the one technique that did work that day. Each of us - every one of us living in this country - should be informed of as much as possible because governments can't be everywhere. More information means more eyes watching. You want a great reason to bash this administration? Ask them why they still haven't come up with a policy that relies on giving people the information to protect each other instead of a government guards program.

Re:stupidester

[Doc Ruby]

This government isn't anywhere except in hiding from its criminal profiteering, other than its hands in every pocket. I don't start asking questions just once the planes were off course: I ask about every step of the way, where they screwed up each opportunity to protect us. Where do you get this "bashing" word from, Rush junkie Limbaugh? As you love information so well, try reading even the incomplete, cowardly edited 9/11 Commission reports of the last few weeks, detailing the total chaos of the government that day. Luckily, Americans get regime change chances every 4 years, and those of us who care about keeping freedoms like that which protect our safety can hardly wait for these Bushy criminals to mutter aw, shocks.

Re:stupidester

[demonlapin]

"Rush junkie Limbaugh"? Jesus, I feel like I'm on a playground. I guess if you won't answer a simple question after I ask it 3 times, there's not much point in keeping this up.

Re:stupidester

[Doc Ruby]

If your playgrounds have junkies, that explains why you don't accept my steady refusal to dignify your loaded questions, my denial of your agenda. Now here's a loaded question for you: who will preside over more accurate, less politicized intelligence agencies, Kerry or Bush? Who even understands that the word "intelligence" represents something worth having, rather than to be feared and despised? And therefore, who will protect you better from violent attacks and ensuing media terror like the 2001 planebombings? Who puts a person in the White House who earns respect for judgement, not apologies for incompetence?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Parent poster has been modded flaimbait. That is because there is no fucktard mod. > I would have modded insightful! See above.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Mr. Strawman. The answer is 0. It is not the job of the government to protect us. That would be your responsibility.

What is America?

[redfenix]

I believe that these two posts have more in common that they realize. The question is: What "America" are they talking about?

The latter is talking about the great country that was founded by a handful of pioneers hopeful for a new life away from the stagnant politics and unjust population control that they escaped from (then, England...taxation w/out representation, repression, etc, etc.) This is a great country, full of great people who have given their lives (in life and in death) to ensure our prosperity and enrichment as a people.

The former references the single largest threat to the latter: the government itself. The former is apalled by the erosion of the one virtue that this country is founded on: Freedom. As the song goes "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free," Where is the pride of America when the Freedom is gone? When U.S. Citizens can be labelled "Enemy Combatants" and lose all constitutional rights, where is the pride in that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely proud to be an American. But, when America no longer stands for what it was founded on, then is it truly America any longer?

Re:What is America?

[jwcorder]

This sounds like a more reasonable topic of discussion. I would agree that the level of our freedom may be eroding, but we must all agree that we are still the free of the free.

Due to the recent events within our country, we have to make sacrifices. Now we could start a whole other threat about the levels of the sacrifices we have to make. But I look at this just like during World War II. No sugar, no new cars, rations, etc, they made sacrifices. I am willing to make a few to ensure that so I can send my kid to school everyday without dirty bombs and worries over flying planes as weapons and terroristic activities.

We should be thankful that we don't live like some others live. Israel and Palestine are prime examples and if it means that an airline has to take all the information on me right down to the streak in my underwear and turn that over a the government then I am all for it. As a wise man once said, the only people who will complain are the criminals. If you can't handle it, don't fly. If the government has nothing better to do then watch me live a boring average life, then I say more power to them, but they better get some No Doze...cause they are gonna need it.

To answer your question, America still stands for being free, but you cannot be free at the expense of the masses. You cannot be free to choose, if chosing means it kills 3000 people who were just trying to have the American Dream, with a beautiful wife, a good job, 2.5 kids and a dog.

September 12, 2002 was one of the greatest days I have ever lived. I have never been more prouder to be an American, because for the first time in my lifetime, people came across the aisles and shook hands, and the whites cried with the blacks, and people went home, hugged their fathers and kissed their mothers. For a few weeks everyone was nice, and loving, and actually showed gentle sincere kindness for their fellow man.

2 years later, everyone seems to have forgotten the lives, and the tears, and the nightmares. They want to complain that we are going to hell in a hand basker people Uncle Sam knows that your boss sent you to the middle of hell on your kids birthday to rub elbows with a rich, pompous ass and the airline didn't tell you that they were gonna tell.

(Catches breath......whew...getting long winded here)

There are two sides to every story, everything a man does is right in one eye and wrong in another. If we are all free to do as we want with no limitations, our society would self destruct. The Patriot Act has a purpose, just like your kid trying to cut his own hair. It may not be perfect, but it is a work in progress. At this time in our society, with buildings falling and planes crashing and people getting their heads chopped off for just living, I would rather be safe then sorry.

Re:What is America?

[wwest4]

> during World War II. No sugar, no new
> cars, rations, etc, they made sacrifices.

Yeah, but you can get all that stuff back after. The legal/governmental repercussions of WWII are still with us, namely, the CIA, the NSC, and the mammoth defense budget. Yet I have never wanted for a cup of sugar because of WWII.

> everything a man does is right in one eye and wrong in another.

Some things are just wrong. Like what you just said, for example.

> The Patriot Act has a purpose, just like your kid trying to cut his own hair.

I never let my kid play with scissors, and G HW Bush should never have let his kid play with rubber stamps :)

Re:What is America?

[StalinsNotDead]

"Due to the recent events within our country, we have to make sacrifices."

Some Slashdotter has a sig line that reads something along the lines of [paraphrase]Those willing to sacrifice freedom for securiy deserve neither freedom nor security.[/paraphrase]
Ben Franklin (If memory serves)

And another has a sig line that says that people recognize posters by their sig lines. Which is true in at least two instances.

Re:What is America?

[jwcorder]

There is no argument in the world where you cannot find one man who finds it right and another who finds it wrong.

I don't let my kid PLAY with scissors either, but he uses them, and if you don't let me someone else will.

If the world is ever free of terrorism, then you I will demand any lost freedoms that I need or want and you should too.

My main point which you have still missed my friend, is that I will trade a small percentage of my freedom for a safer country. Now I am not going to agree to a body cavity search every time I want to fly, but I am cool with having to prove I am who I say I am, and that the airline in turn tells the government who I am, what time and flied, and where I went.

I have enjoyed your point of view it's helped me make it through my Friday....

Re:What is America?

[jwcorder]

Wow I really screwed that post up....excuse the grammar, I was in a rush. I think you can get my point though.

Re:What is America?

[wwest4]

I was just joking about the scissors - I just didn't understand your haircut analogy.

I understand that you're willing to make a sacrifice for the greater good, and that's admirable, but my original point was that lost freedoms have a way of staying that way. Example - after the 2nd world war, the executive branch basically took over powers that used to be legislative (as close to yours and mine as we're going to get) by creating the CIA, which doesn't have to submit its budget to the people's representatives - and the national security council, which is a closed-door council that essentially runs the country in secret, out of public view. Trillions of dollars were subsequently poured into maintaining a standing conventional and nuclear arsenal.

The excuse for these changes was the Communist threat. Well, now the Soviet Union has collapsed... almost 15 years ago. We still have a huge defense budget (that's our tax money), we still have the unconstitutional CIA (also our tax money), and we still have the NSC running the country without any real oversight. The point is that we never got those dollars, power, or information back because the executive administrations (lib and con alike) are used to having them and don't want to give them up. They just keep finding new reasons to keep it all going, and since we can't see what they supposedly see (all this intelligence, for instance, that Dick Cheney is privy to and we are not, for - you guessed it - national security reasons) we are scared, coerced, or frustrated into trusting that they are acting in our best interests.

Then when you want to know, for example, why we're in a third world country already rendered impotent and impoverished by sanctions, fighting off rebel insurgents and homocidal extremist nutjobs (which we just lump together and call "terrorists") at a cost of billions in taxes and debt, we're told that they know stuff we don't. Hey you, stop asking questions! It's for your own good, and we can't tell you why.

They should just come out and say it - they think rejuvenating the economy is important, and they think that war is an acceptable means to enter new markets, and that blood spilled on the enemy side is no loss to us as long as only a relatively small number of US troops die. They really believe this will help us, but they are willing to take our rights and take foreign lives in order to get there. If they give us our rights back and come out of the secret executive closet, we might see that terrorism can be easily stopped without war, and that there are ways to make money without killing people. They don't like those other ways, for personal reasons (we usually like to call these "shareholder interests") so they are hanging on to whatever powers we give them.

Sadly pointless effort

[geoff lane]

Someone in the FBI/NSA/etc seem to have the belief that it you gather terabytes of low grade "intelligence" that you can shove it through a computer and generate pearls of wisdom. Fortunately we already know that this will not happen. In fact Babbage knew it would not happen...

On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], ``Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?'' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage

Oh my God!!!

[isotope23]

Guns on the plane? Thats just terrible!

Imagine if that nutcase with the gun didn't just have it on the plane, but took it with him off the plane...

Whatever would you do if he had access to a gun, and lived NEXT DOOR??? I mean he might decide to just start shooting is neighbors! Boy oh Boy, The Dept of Half-assed security better find some sort of terrorist exemption to run around and pick all these gun-loving potential terrorists up!

Re: What does privacy protection protect?

[MoebiusStreet]

The way I read the 4th Amendment, it says that people should be free of unreasonable searches PERIOD. It doesn't say that the gov't can check anything it wants, but can't use the product in any prosecution. The Constitution says, very simply, to leave the people alone.

so giving a fake name to get on a plane is ok?

[adamgeek]

seriously, not flamebaiting you. but how is giving a fake name nowadays to get on a plane an okay thing to do? yes, you said MANY years ago. and now you dont travel on planes. presumably because "big brother" is so intrusively watching you by wanting to know your real name and verify it against a picture ID, and even.. *GASP* perform a mildly invasive check to make sure you're not carrying explosives or weapons. What an evil empire we live in.

So, i guess my question is: if we live in this "evil empire".. if you were president and had all the magical power to rewrite the rules, what SHOULD the government do, instead of verifying the identities of people who fly, and looking for possible suspicious patterns in their bevahior to find more terrorists among us. I dont much like them being invasive either, but if they dont take some drastic measures, there are certainly more terrorists, currently walking among innocent civilians, who will kill and injure many more of the people around them. If the government just turns a blind eye to "respect" your privacy, you may very well die the next time some fundamentalist blows something up. So, what's the solution?

I'm not particularly on either side, i just think this is a very complex problem (balancing privacy with the possibility of more deaths in the future) that just can't be dismissed by saying our government is evil and intrusive and up to all sorts of macabre tasks.

Re:so giving a fake name to get on a plane is ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government just turns a blind eye to "respect" your privacy, you may very well die the next time some fundamentalist blows something up.

Excuse me, but how does knowing the identities of people on a plane make flying safer? Checking carry-on baggage for guns, knives, boxcutters, cigarette lighters etc makes flying safer. But knowing people's identities doesn't. You're not going to be able to filter out known suicide hijackers, because all known suicide hijackers are dead.

Re:so giving a fake name to get on a plane is ok?

[Lars T.]

Well, supposedly not only were most of the hijackers known to be terrorists, they also travelled under their real names.

Probably redundant...

[blankmange]

but this is not news - our government abuses its power over its citizens and doesn't tell us for how long? This is not news and anyone surprised by this should be slapped with the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and any other insidious legislation that has been passed by our Congress who seems more willing to trade our civil rights for an illusion of security. How much more secure are we for this trade-off? We are not. We spent a truck load of money, created a new administration in our government, increased taxes, and are currently watching our own men and woment die in foreign lands for this veil of FUD called 'Homeland Security'.

I work for the government and all I have seen from my end as an employee is an increase in regulations, paperwork, and workload but no difference in how difficult it is to enter the country, purchase a fake identity, and live/exist here with little or no fear of being caught. We can track a single cow to its origin if we suspect that it may be infected with mad-cow disease, but we lose how many dozens of legal aliens every year, not to mention the illegal ones that we genuinely have no idea of...

Again, nothing new here, move along with the rest of the sheep....

Re:Ashcroft and homeland insecurity can suck my CO

[Anonymous Coward]

> Vote em out hell, coup anyone?

Practically no one. For all the rhetoric, there really isn't much opposition to the Bush administration. So far, I think the highest level of active politician to actually openly (not even formally) denounce Bush has been the Mayor of London. In other words, heads of state, members of parliaments, prime ministers, UN ambassadors, basically nobody whose opinion really matters in politics, has put their own careers and reputations on the line in order to publicy voice opposition to the Bush administration. (Iraq doesn't count.)

So, for all the talk of all the world hating America, there's nobody actually doing anything about it. Observations:

1. The rest of the world remains perfectly happy to trade with the US.

2. The rest of the world continues to allow Americans to travel within and between their national borders.

If the US Government is corrupt, and illegitimate, why are observations #1 and #2 true? Why aren't any world leaders going to the line and saying they won't put up with it for another day? Why is there any other topic of discussion in diplomatic forums such as the UN? Could it be because the notion that the rest of the world hates the US is just a myth?

Upcoming lawsuit?

[myNameIsNotImportant]

So the question is, is there a lawsuit coming? I fly JetBlue 3 or 4 times a year, and I've always considered the company to be reasonable in the way they run their business. OTOH, I don't appreciate violation of my privacy, and would definitely consider joining a class action lawsuit just to teach them a lesson.

Re:Why timothy is not my favorite editor

[dr_dank]

Let's push for some more biodiversity of paranoia!

I agree. Saran-wrap and wax paper hat people are sorely underrepresented here.

Mistakes are never made, Mr. Tuttle/Buttle...

[geekotourist]

When the former privacy czar of Canada wrote his Warnings on why privacy protection is important post 9/11, he intended it to be a warning to Canadians not to lose rights Americans have already lost. I'm sure he didn't intend it to be an anti-guidebook for Ashcroft et ilk. The essay answers your question:

"A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear... the truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others... The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.

But there also will be tangible, specific harm.

• The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life...
• wrong information and misinterpretations will have potential consequences. If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect...
• Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight...
• That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state.
• The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada.

Here's where Ashcroft is using the essay as a guidebook:

"Last summer, the CCRA informed me that, contrary to its past undertaking, it has decided to keep all API/PNR information about Canadian travellers for six years in a massive new database.

All this personal information - more than 30 data elements including every destination to which we travel, who we travel with, how we pay for the tickets (sometimes including credit card numbers), what contact numbers we provide, even any dietary preferences or health-related requirements we communicate to the airline - will be available for an almost limitless range of governmental purposes...

"This is unprecedented. The Government of Canada has absolutely no business creating a massive database of personal information about all law-abiding Canadians that is collected without our consent from third parties, not to provide us with any service but simply to have it available to use against us if it ever becomes expedient to do so. Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society...

It is difficult to imagine a m

Re:Mistakes are never made, Mr. Tuttle/Buttle...

[n9fzx]

"That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada."

Yet like any other totalitarian society, Canada lacksthe Right to Keep and Bear Arms (see also Lott). The Right of Free Speech is also incredibly limited by the requirement of not offending anyone, and let's not forget Freedom of the Press is only a secondary consideration.

Canadians are simply more comfortable with less freedom. Then again, so are people in California and Massachusetts...

Re:Mistakes are never made, Mr. Tuttle/Buttle...

[geekotourist]

so totalitarianism is defined by gun control laws? Canadians certainly have guns: my Canadian relatives grew up hunting their own meat and the ones in rural areas still do. [As an aside, for Lott there are debates about his data, but he has a point]

On free spreech- the not publishing trial information before the trial is over is a difference (+1 for the US). On the other hand Canadians get to use strong language or show nudity on broadcast TV without pixelation or 3 million dollar fines (+1 for Canada). [And equal rights = the right to go topless in Ontario (+lots for Ontario)]

Freedom of the Press is a secondary consideration? It is one of their Fundamental Freedoms: "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" (explicit freedom of thought- that's spiffy).

Canadians aren't required to carry identification at all times, or to identify themselves on demand: better than the US on that regard (+1 Canada).

Anyways, from a Webster's 1913:

'1.totalitarian - characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control; "a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"- Arthur M.Schlesinger, Jr.'

That doesn't seem to describe either of the US or Canada.

Re:Mistakes are never made, Mr. Tuttle/Buttle...

[n9fzx]

so totalitarianism is defined by gun control laws?

I'd maintain that it's a necessary condition of freedom in a state where government power is limited; certainly the wording of the 2nd Amendment in the US lays it out that way.

Canadians certainly have guns: my Canadian relatives grew up hunting their own meat and the ones in rural areas still do.

Gun ownership is about more than putting meat on the table (not that there's anything wrong with that); what about people who want to be able to defend themselves, and not rely on the state for protection? In any event, all gun ownership in Canada is subject to registration, which has been eventually used throughout the Commonwealth to eventually consfiscate long guns in Australia, as well as the UK itself. If the government knows who's packing, that also dramatically reduces the worth of gun ownership in limiting the power of government.

On the other hand Canadians get to use strong language or show nudity on broadcast TV without pixelation or 3 million dollar fines.

True enough, but on cable or satellite (which the vast majority of people in the US have), I can see all the cussin' and boobies I want. *And*, I can see thugs blown away and other violent/un-PC material that one cannot see on CBC.

[And equal rights = the right to go topless in Ontario (+lots for Ontario)]

Okay, having seen the "Canadian Ballet" in Toronto, I'll grant you that one.

Canadians aren't required to carry identification at all times, or to identify themselves on demand: better than the US on that regard (+1 Canada).

Neither are people in the US; please, please, read the Supreme Court opinion bandied about in this august forum.

'1.totalitarian - characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control;

You mean like, say, The Queen? Look, for example, at the previously mentioned cite, and you'll see that The Queen is the source of your ability to bring a matter to justice.

Honest, we like Canadians down here, but we'll have a heck of a lot more respect as soon as you Ditch The uh, er, Queen...

As a former Sabre employee...

[luke923]

...I have to say that this is scary, considering that both Sabre and Galileo aren't limited to airlines for their clientele. In other words, if you booked a hotel, rented a car, bought a train ticket, or anything other transaction that can be made on Travelocity (a Sabre Company), then your info could possibly be in the hands of the TSA or other third parties. Also, I remember when I first started working there, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork stating that I would not give out sensitive information to third parties. This is crucial considering most of the paperwork was for EU compliance. I'm not surprised that the EU is not in an uproar.

Where's the French when you need them?

HSA & TSA use M$ products ...

[quarkscat]

so it will not be too long before everyone's
personal data collected under MATRIX & CAPPS
will be available to all the hackers, for free.

Re:HSA & TSA use M$ products ...

[KlomDark]

Whoa, aren't you THE Trinity who hacked the MATRIX dbase?

Isn't that ironic? :)

ObAYBABTU: Was: Best. Sworn. Statement. Evah!

[egriebel]

g) "All of the above are belong to us!"

Smokescreen on!
Someone set us up the data!
Ha-ha-ha-ha

Re:Ashcroft and homeland insecurity can suck my CO

[g0bshiTe]

If you believe that the rest of the world hating the US is a myth, than I urge you to test your theory and travel to said forgein land and announce to the entire community there you are an American. If the US is not the most hated country, then why is it that Americans visiting Greece for teh Olympics have been urged not to wave American flags at the games? No other country has been prohibited from this. As for #'s 1 & 2 of your statement of course countries will continue to trade with the US. Have you worked for someone you didn't like? Yet you still took thier money right?

So don't Fly

[Glidedon2]

It's only a convenience, you could walk, your choice

Re: What does privacy protection protect?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the 2nd amendment guarantees that the right to "keep and bear arms" "shall not be infringed".

That hasn't stopped them from preventing ordinary citizens from owning shot guns less than 18 inches in length, automatic weapons, or to be free from background checks which can be used to prohibit ownership.

Re:Ashcroft and homeland insecurity can suck my CO

[Anonymous Coward]

rest of the world doesn't hate America or American's THEY HATE GEORGE FASCIST BUSH AND HIS CRONIES.

sick and fucking tired of being told i need to be a "good moral christian man" fuck that.

damn bastards should be sho_ . (censored for whatever fucking cyborg nsa/fbi fuckheads read these boards looking for "terrorists" (read intelligent individuals with differing opinions).

BUSH WHEN YOU CAME OUT, BATTLEAXE BARBARA ALMOST FLUSHED THE TOILET THINKING YOU WERE A PILE OF SHIT....SHE WAS RIGHT!

Carnival Booth

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that this information won't even help to catch any terrorists. How often can a suicide bomber be caught repeating his crimes? All that terrorist groups have to do is to send previously unknown people.

Read about Carnival Booth. It pretty much lays out why CAPS is a stupid, wasteful attempt at false security.

Better paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Ashcroft is actually a Riticulan. He and Bush are collecting a giant database they can sell to the Martians. Bush and Ashcroft get mucho dinero and first dibs on the best uninhabited Martian land. The Martians get advanced notice on what sort of targeted advertising they should have in place when people get to Mars.

Re:So what?

[tail.man]

Protect us?

We are the target.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

According to NPR (radio)

[Anonymous Coward]

According to NPR, it was not health, it was diet preferences.

My constitution does have Privacy...

[geekotourist]

Article 1, Section 1:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and

privacy.

That's California. I also have Amendments IV, IX and X of the Federal constitution. (And just because "freedom of thought" isn't listed either doesn't mean IX and X don't cover it.)

Plus the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Articles 12 and 13:

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

I include 13 because if you have to give up your privacy entirely to travel, you don't have freedom of movement. And no, the ability to bicycle cross-country as a substitute for flying doesn't count.

In other person's words:

From A Watched Populace Never Boils:

"People often ask why a loss of privacy... is a restriction on freedom. ... Some welcome it, feeling that the extra surveillance will cut down on crime, and provide some increased level of safety or imagined safety.

But the truth is that invasions of privacy invade our freedoms quite directly. This is true even if the surveillance isn't abused by the watchers, even though history shows that it always is.

When we feel watched, we feel less free. We censor ourselves and our actions...

Yet the mainstream will never fear monitoring that much, just as it is more comfortable with censorship. What civil rights protect is not the majority, but the fringe. The fringe is usually feared by the majority, and most subject to its oppression. Yet the fringe is the lifeblood of a society's future. When I say a watched populace never boils, I refer to the ability to bubble with change and novelty. Yes, it also means unrest, for there are both positive and negative elements to the fringe. Yet the fringe today becomes the mainstream in the future. That is how a healthy, dynamic society works. That is how our society works...

And as I just commented there's the best essay on privacy post 911:

"Now "September 11" is invoked as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis and persuade us that we live in a suddenly new world where the old rules cannot apply.

If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it - and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered.

But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy - the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us - is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being...."

"When people are worried about their safety, when we have seen the horrors of which today's breed of terrorists are capable - and there may be more - it's easy to lose perspective. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that security is all that mat

Re:My constitution does have Privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

My modpoints, where are my modpoints :-(

Thanks for the link to "A Watched Populace Never Boils", that put my gut feeling into the words I was never able to find.

the constitution grants no rights...

[zogger]

... to the soverign individual. None, zero, it's not in there. You are automagically BORN with them, all of them. They are not government granted. they are not constitutionaly granted. The constitution merely delineates SOME of your rights, not all of them, just a few they thought particularly important..

It is primarily concerned with delineating how far government can go, and that's about it. All other "rights" not especially granted to government, by actual statement in english words, by default, go to the states and the individual. ALL RIGHTS start with the soverign and free individual. The states have theoretically more granted rights than the feds. The feds in theory have didly squat very few "rights" and only a strictly limited jurisdiction as well, and only for a few specific things. That's how it is supposed to be, but their default now is they have all the rights,100%, and you get permission from them to do something, if they feel like it and only then, and they can change that on a whim to whatever they feel like. It's bass ackwards in the extreme, and it's criminal and I'll use the t word-treasonus..

But they got the order followers with the guns, so this is so now. And you dassn't sass back to massah, ya'hear boy?

So now, with the mini history lesson over, show me where the constitution grants government the right to dork with my privacy. It doesn't unless a grand jury indicts me and I get arrested, or something like that. Lets see where government can suborn a private corporation to dork with my privacy. it doesn't but they do it anyway. Show me where it says government itself can be anything but transparent, ie, no secrets. it doesn't but they do it anyway. Show me where government can just seize my property for any reason they want to, and call it some rule, like an EPA reg or endangered species or whatever. It doesn't but they do it anyway. Show me where in the constitution I am not allowed to own property-ANY property. It doesn't, but they declare all sorts of property to be illegal, or charge YOU a fee or make you get a permission-permit for owning your own property.

What you WILL find is illegal executive orders being used as "laws", and they build on each other. You will find un elected bureaucrats spewing forth edicts that are enforced as laws by one or another of their 40 police forces. You will also find the legislative branch giving away their powers-which they aren't supposed to do or even be able to do. You will find a supreme court that redifines words to suit the latest political scamfoolery. You will find soverign states giving in to bribery and blackmail by the feds.

What you WON'T find is anything that is actually Constitutional law, and because 99% of the people out there don't care,and have no idea how it was originally setup and run, and no desire to find out. So we get what we get and it won't ever get any better, just worse, with things like in this article happening DAILY now..

How many people died from knives/drugs on planes?

[geekotourist]

Until 9/11, knives were legal. I carried my leatherman or pocket knife, and never heard of them being used for much more than opening those titanium-strong bags o' snacks. Post 9/11, knives wouldn't work: passengers aren't going to obey hijackers, knowing the new possibilities. So, knives were dangerous on 1 day only. (Especially now with reinforced doors. Plus, the 9/11 murderers didn't just have knives- they had bomb threats.)

In fact, I feel less safe given that all passengers have no methods to defend themselves. No, I wouldn't want potentially depressurizing / cabin damaging guns aboard. But a few knives? Could be useful.

And drugs? 99% of the bad events I've heard of on planes comes from legal doses of that legal drug alcohol. Yes, illegal drugs are illegal, but I'm not seeing what the harm *to me* is that someone forgot to take their stash out of their bag. Unless they're the captain or crew, their stupidity or their buzz/high/trip doesn't make me any less safe than the dangers from the alcoholics in 1st class.

some amendments can't be abrogated

[zogger]

The first ten delineated are inalienable rights. They can't be amended. They are at a different standard from the rest of them.

We disagree on that, but on this statement "The clauses "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" have turned out to be the most abused in the Constitution." MAN do I agree with you on that. You NAILED it,right in the top boneheaded mistakes in the constitution. The other big one to my way of thinking was not addressing bondage and slavery in more detail and enforcing it right off the bat. Jefferson wanted to but he got out juiced or something by the fatcats who profited from not observing humansd are human. It was an apparent dichotomy, but they let it slide on by, leading to a lot of grief later on.

Re:some amendments can't be abrogated

[Binky The Oracle]

The first ten delineated are inalienable rights. They can't be amended. They are at a different standard from the rest of them.

I wasn't aware that the first ten couldn't be changed. All the better. =-) My point was simply that much of what the Federal government does today is in violation of the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't be doing it (although most of the time it does, only that they need to get the amendment passed to give them the legal authority to do it.

It should be hard for the Federal government to expand... not to prevent change, but to make sure that the change is truly mandated. But over the years we've watched the Constitution erode to the point where presidents can effectively wage war without Congress, legislation can be purchased by the largest association, and the courts can more or less change the law to their liking, I don't hold high hopes for the foundations on which the country was built when all three pillars are crumbling so badly.

Re:some amendments can't be abrogated

[zogger]

it's a fascinating subject to be sure. I wish kids were taught it better. I wish adults took it seriously. I wish government employees would stop following illegal orders. I mean, you can go right down and the list and see where it has been ignored.

Of course, I wish ice cream was magically free and delivered to anyone who wants it, too...not many wars fought over ice cream. super poor to mega rich, they all like ice cream. Hard to be angry while eating ice cream. Dogs like ice cream. I bet aliens like ice cream.......

ice cream diplomacy!

err, back to reality...

Best you can do right now is live your life as an honest and free man, and spread the word that that is a worthy goal. And spend some time finding out about government malfeasance and turning your neighbor on to the data, help spread the word. We'll never take back honest and constitutional government from these various and overlapping little coup mongers we have been inflicted and infested with until we have a critical mass of aware people willing to do just a scosh more than think about it.

Might not ever happen, but to my mind it's better to try then to not try.

Re:some amendments can't be abrogated

[einhverfr]

The first ten delineated are inalienable rights. They can't be amended. They are at a different standard from the rest of them.

IANAL, but I think you are incorrect here. While it is clear that the Framers certainly saw these as a set of safeguards of the people against the government (hence bill of rights), I don't think that these are any more immutable than the rest of the Constitution.

Also, there is another back-door in the Constitution which allows at least for a limited form of ammendment-- that is that the Constitution states that treaties which are entered into by the US and ratified are considered to be equal to the Constition. This doesn't mean that treaties can revoke or ammend the Constitution, but rather that they can be used to "clarify" it for the benefit of certain people.

Re:some amendments can't be abrogated

[zogger]

The first ten are guarantees to "the People", added after the fact of the ratification, so that the Federalists would not take liberties with the wording and vastly increase the power of the federal government beyond their initial first strict rights/duties/powers.. These are areas in which the federal government can never intrude,because they are solely reserved for the People or the States, and as such, they can't be amended,because an amendment process is by default a federal action in it's aggregation in conjunction with the states, so they never have been, although in real life and in practical terms they have been slap broken illegally any number of times by a variety of governmental laws, decrees, edicts, directives and orders.

Any of the others can be amended, and new ones may be entered. There is also ongoing controversy and intrigue surrounding the as of yet unratified titles of nobility amendment(gee, wonder what happened to that one?), and the 16th amendment has a serious chance (I think it's true) of never been legally ratified by the correct number of states, but the feds ignore that little detail. I forget the numbers off hand, but I think they fell two short and used some hanky panky to insist on saying it was passed. They still use it though, so the point is moot.

As to treaties, I agree, there's some slippery slope there. I think they dropped the ball there somewhat. They certainly appear to be a trump card in *some* instances. I am in particular concerned with any treaty with the UN (or other coalitions like NATO, etc)-which is not a treaty with an extraterritorial soverign independent state. I think, and this is my opinion, that any treaties with the UN are quite illegal.

And The Big Deal is......

[/dev/trash]

Just don't fly if you want to be anonymous.

Where is your patriotism?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point that your parent and others are making is this - they would rather the enemies of the United States enjoy occasional successes, and, indeed, kill people, than see the changes to the culture of the United States that would prevent them. Because (in theory), we citizens of the United States are not "innocent civilians", powerless to guide the direction of our nation. We hold the power to choose our government, and are responsible for its actions.

Iraqis who were neither in the military nor the Ba'ath party were innocent civilians. Afghan women under the Taliban were innocent civilians. US citizens, who are old enough to vote, guide the most powerful military machine in history, fueled by the largest economy in the world, even though it has only one-sixth the population of the PRC. We voters are not helpless. If there are crimes committed by our government or our military, we are not innocent. That privilege is rare in the world now as it has been throughout history - do not throw it away lightly.

definition of ironic

[Random_Goblin]

writing a song entitled "isn't it ironic?", the "ironic events" described, not in fact being ironies, thus demonstrating that you don't have a clear understanding of the meaning of the word ironic that you have chosen to define in your lyrics...

Now that IS ironic!

Re:definition of ironic

[kfg]

Especially since she could have avoided all that public ridicule by just calling it "Doesn't that suck?" or some such.

You know what I think sucks? When someone can write a song entitled "Isn't it ironic?", the "ironic events" described, not in fact being irnoies, but she makes more money from it than an English professor does in years of, apparently fruitlessly, trying to teach irony.

It's left handedly ironic though that such a song could move dicussion of the matter from its previously limited field of the dreaded freshman English paper to a matter of public debate, resulting in at least a few more people understanding irony.

See? Pop music is really educational. I've got to go out and get me one of them thar Britney Spears albums.

You certainly can't learn anything from the sort of music I listen to.

"You can't take three from two,
two is less than three,
so you look at the four in the tens place.
Now that's really four tens,
so you make it three tens,
regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones,
and you add them to the two and get twelve,
and you take away three, that's nine."

Thank God they don't put that sort of nonsense on the radio. It's bad enough in the classroom.

KFG

Re:definition of ironic

[Random_Goblin]

you evil sod, i was completely unaware of such works as

"You can't take three from two, two is less than three, so you look at the four in the tens place. Now that's really four tens, so you make it three tens, regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones, and you add them to the two and get twelve, and you take away three, that's nine."

it's just wrong on so many levels, what a horrible horrible kludgey wave of teaching mathematics.

Re:definition of ironic

[kfg]

you evil sod, i was completely unaware of such works. . .

Really? That's perennial undergraduate math teacher Tom Lehrer's "New Math."

As he explains it in his introduction to the song in the "New Math" the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer.

He procedes to do the problem in base 8 which, as he explains, is just like base 10 really -- if you're missing two fingers.

If you're unfamiliar with Tom Lehrer you really have to do something about that.

KFG

The point: The government broke the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks, comparisons to credit card companies and the data they compile don't apply to this discussion. The Privacy Act makes it illegal for the government to compile secret databases on Americans, for any reason, without getting permission. This is not about loss of privacy to a marketing company. This is about government officials committing a felony, repeatedly lying to Congress and federal investigators about it, getting caught lying, and continuing to lie.

Let's set aside genteel conversation about privacy rights and ask ourselves the pertinent question here: Do we want a bunch of bureaucrats -- who break the law, are stupid enough to get caught, and lie about it like a third-grader that doesn't have shame -- to be responsible for protecting us from terrorists? It seems the answer from most Americans is, yes. THAT'S the scary part!

You americans need to export more stuff

[Random_Goblin]

No i've missed out on his stuff, just googled and come up with this gem..

In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics:
Plagiarize!

Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'

A trip to amazon is in order I think, I suspect the place in my life where I might have been listening to Lehrer, was probably taken up listening to Vivian Stanshall, and the bonzo dog, do-da band... his songs and random musings are one of our best kept comic secrets. His Rawlinson End saga is sublime genius

Re:You americans need to export more stuff

[kfg]

Turn about is fair play. I'll have to check him out.

KFG

The Soprano's on prime-time broadcast tv?

[geekotourist]

I wouldn't call the Soprano's unviolent or un-un-PC: it shows on broadcast TV in Canada. Not cable, broadcast.

Anyways, I'm not Canadian, but I find it worrysome that a Canadian privacy czar is warning Canadians not to lose rights that Americans have already lost. The US government *is* compiling dossiers of information on the travels of all of its persons (citizens and resident aliens: the 4th amendment says "persons"). It *is* making sure it has access to our e-mail and telephone message patterns. It *is* creating the equivalent of a national identity card through unifying the procedures for state licences.

I hope Canada can stand up to the requests the US makes of it to remove the privacy protections of its citizens, and I hope someday to get back my privacy rights as an American.

Orwell

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be ashamed!

Not warned explicitly?

[slavefishy]

Next you'll be saying that there're software writers who hide clauses in EULAs so malicious software that spies on your computing activities can be installed alongside it!

I call bullshit too; the RIGHT info is important

[Spamalamadingdong]

Terrorism exist because of anger, distrust, and a sense of hopelessness and/or exploitation.

Oh, bull. The West Bank and Gaza were enjoying a rapidly rising standard of living and unprecedented freedoms under Israeli rule. (Yes, more freedoms than under Egyptian and Jordanian rule.) Then the PA "leadership" was installed, and things went to hell.

The pilots (brains) of the 9/11 hijackers were all upper-class people. They were neither hopeless nor exploited, and they took advantage of a country that did NOT distrust them... to attempt to murder more than ten thousand of its citizens and decapitate its government. (That last was attempted by similarly-motivated terrorists in India with some measure of success.)

The perpetrators are rarely any of the things you claim. What they are is fanatic, tutored in hate in madrassas and by "educational" television which extols murder and "martyrdom" as virtues.

But its neither easy or convenient to think like this - in a capitalist society, some would even consider it heresy. It's time consuming - don't think that declaring a Palestinian state would make Osama retire tomorrow. It demands a greater understanding of foreign culture, idealogy, and history...

Ooh, irony. The first part of understanding the purveyors of terror is to take them at their own word about their beliefs, because belief is what drives them. The first part of the fight in the information war on terror is to learn what people believe and keep the fanatics the hell away from civilization, because civilized societies simply cannot be protected well enough from enemies within.

Funny?

[einhverfr]

Do Americans understand what the burning of the Reichstag meant? It was meant to be chilling and scary...

Brief history lesson. In 1932, the German parliamentary building, the Reichstag was burned (possibly by the Nazis). Whether or not the Nazis burned the building, they used this as the excuse to pass extremely draconian security measures which ensured that they became the dictatorial power. The burning of the Reichstag thus marked the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of Nazi Germany.

As yourself about the PATRIOT act, how it was quickly passed on very similar grounds, and how the Bush Administration has, from time to time, specifically stated that they do not think that they need to abide by constitutional frameworks such as Habeus Corpus (re. Jose Pedilla) or judicial oversight (general statements by Ashcroft).

You know, it says alot about the US that we are still (almost 3 years later) fighting these battles, and that in some important ways we are rolling back the worst of the measures central to the Bush Administration's War on Terror. We may not be winning all the battles yet, but we are winning some of them. Habeus Corpus still stands at the order of the court, for example, and there is a growing move to repeal at least portions of the Patriot Act.

This struggle did not happen in Nazi Germany, and it might not happen if it happened in many other parts of the world. But it is happening here.

The Bush Administration, for all I know, is not planning atrocities similar to those which happened in the Holocaust, but they did attempt a dangerous userption of power on the scale of the Nazi takeover in Germany, and have mostly failed. That says something very positive about us.