Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Well, perhaps it's not funny... But pretty damn scary.
Hmmm.
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?
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.
"I hate quotations." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Requested center seat. Indications of possible insanity.
This is why I use the bus. Nobody wants any personal information on anyone they've met on a bus.
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.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
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.
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?
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.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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.
I stole this sig.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
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.
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!
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).
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!)
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 . . .
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
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.
#### ## Laroue ####
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.
"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.
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
...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?
"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925