Slashdot Mirror
Registered Traveler Program Open For Business
storem writes "Enrollment into TSA's Registered Traveler program started yesterday at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Frequent flyers are given the opportunity to sign up for a fast-track system using biometrics to identify themselves. It seems this is pretty much the same system tested in Europe in the s-Travel program. There frequent flyers carried their biometric identifiers (fingerprint & iris) with them between airports on a smart card (privacy reasons)."
If they carried their information with them on a smartcard, couldn't someone edit the smartcard and fake their info?
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
Now planebombers need to practice their routes more than before, establishing their frequent flyer status. Their biometric IDs will ensure that only the suicidal dupe is making the runs. At least the final flight will be recoupable in earned mileage. Saudi oil billions will buy only so much air travel.
--
make install -not war
If your aim is to use the plane as a suicide bomb, will it matter to you if are fingerprinted? The people who were behiond 9/11 weren't known terrorists/criminals. They were quiet people, under the radar....
My Favourite Meme
No, the hidden subtext is "We really want to make this compulsory but cannot. So we'll give people the chance to opt in and over time make it really inconvenient for those who choose not to until eventually everyone opts in just to avoid the hassle."
Been through a fast-lane enabled toll booth recently? The cash lanes are getting fewer and slower all the time.
From the sound of the phrasing (I haven't RTFA), it would seem to me that the card is a relational link between your biometrics and the record in the database.
Without the card, they can't peg that ID number 481453 is John Smith. That's the privacy aspect.
The card has your biometrics on it to let them verify that you are the proper bearer - they compare it's digital copies of your biometrics to the real deal, then they know that you actually are the person that 481453 refers to, and so the green light actually applies to you.
As I say, that's just how I interpret the submission. It's probably totally wrong.
Raise the bar high enough that everyone's equally suspect and no one stands out as a suspect either. We're right back where we started, except more repressive. In a sense this makes things easier on potential terrorists as the rules are more overt, rigid, and thus defined and gamable.
Raise the bar higher and everyone is treated like a criminal, but the criminals are the only ones that don't mind.
KFG
However if the card says "I am John Smith, iris 0x1234ABCD5678FEDC" then it is trivial to pull the said iris' pattern out of the central database and check your real eyes against that trusted copy. By changing the direction of search they simplified the task immensely.
Besides, right now there is no central d/b yet, and all passengers carry their pieces of the database with them. This won't last, though - it is far more practical to have the database centralized. Then even a nudist can fly, as long as he remembers his SSN. Maybe that's the whole point, after all :-)
I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned that Israel has been offering a "trusted traveler" program since 1996.
:
Regardless of your politics or religion or whatever, you have to admit that there are few countries that have to deal with terrorism on a more daily basis than Israel.
And it appears that Israel's voluntary program has also been effective on a logistics level. I found this quote via Google, from the page of Sen. Hutchison (R-TX) referencing a report by the General Accounting Office
At Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, security waiting time has been reduced from approximately one hour to 20 seconds through the use of biometric identifiers.
The biometric identifiers mentioned are part of the "trusted traveler" program.
As long as any program such as this is not compulsory, I view it as a useful option.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
No. More like "Stop being assholes".
I never heard of any prior and specific demands when those planes hit the WTC. I figure that they simply couldn't be bothered asking and having to go through the ordeal of taking hostages - knowing full well the US wouldn't give anyway.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Nobody is liked by everyone... the diversity of ideas and viewpoints on a planet with multi-billions of people will absolutely ENSURE that someone, somewhere, hates you. Besides, does being unpopular justify violent action?
Just a couple of comments.
1. Fair point... I'll grant you this one.
2. In the right circumstances, I fully support preemptive war, just as I endorse police officers not waiting until they're shot at to shoot back (as a former SWAT officer, I've personal experience with this one). Giving your enemies the first punch is stupid; I can't see sacrificing lives on the basis of either indecision or moral cowardice.
3. Intelligence is often nothing more than a best guess. Occam's razor may be appropriate here... don't attribute to malice that which is explained by simple incompetence.
4. Avoid torturing? Good advice, and probably followed by the vast, overwhelming majority. But defining torture... and whether it's ever permissible is a great debate. Rhetorically, a case can be made for torture in some circumstances (if a terrorist knew where a nuke was, and refused to divulge that info, is torture justifiable? Does the tiny private moral victory of "I'm a good person... I don't torture others" drown out the screams of the millions you might be sacrificing by staying within your own moral comfort zone?) I honestly don't know the answer to that one. As technology progresses, and the technological bar to enter the nuclear-club gets lower and lower (and as nukes proliferate, ala AQ. Khan), that scenario becomes plausible... Seriously... what would you do?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
So far it seems no one has pointed out the flipside of this "solution" and the social problems that follow. I'm talking about the effect it will have on the people who sign up and use it, instead of worrying about the system's effectiveness at discouraging terrorism (which is an altogether very important risk) I'm talking about its effective on our nation's social structure.
Without a doubt, some of the earliest users of this system will be the political class. Right now we are suppossed to be subject to random searches (as well as an apparently random no-fly list, but that's another topic). This condition means that potentially anyone, all the way up to the speaker of the house and the senate majority/minority leaders must entertain the possibility of being subjected to random search and all the inconvenience and embarrasment that goes with it.
There have been countless stories in the news of big famous celebrities and big important rich white politicians being subject to "pointless searches" since everybody knows they aren't terrorists. Well, besides the fact that some of these people are clearly off their rocker to begin with, at least being subjected to a search is equalitarian or in other words, it's "keeping it real," for those who make the rules too.
Once all the big fat important people effectively opt out of the hassle of searches, only the occasional flyer, the average joe and his poorer cousin, who still make up the majority of passengers, will be subject to the hassle of searches. The people in power will no longer have to live with the consequences of their (assinine and useless) "security" while the rest of us will still bear the brunt of it.
The next logical step is for "security" measures to be stepped up one little bit at a time because, after all, what politician wants to be seen as "soft on terrorism?" More thorough and invasive searches adding, say, 20 minutes to your wait time -- not a problem on paper since we are all expected to get to the airport 4 hours before departure, so there is plenty of time for extended and more frequent searches (yeah right). Since the very people who will inevitably be tightening the screws on the thumbs of general public will never feel the pressure themselves, it makes it that much easier for them to fuck with us with impunity.
On the plus side, the database of people in this program is certain to be a high-value target for identity theft. If security on the data is handled by the same people responsible for airport (in)security, then we can look forward to a successful break-in and theft of the database and all the personal information contained therein. Maybe the fallout from such a theft will be enough to get some effective data privacy laws passed in this country. But I'm not holding my breath.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Let me tell you something about torture.
It's only good for one thing: getting some innocent bugger to "confes" anything you want to hear, so you can then hold a fake trial and execute them. That's why it's been used so much for the last 10 millenia or so, and is still loved by dictators.
Think just of the _millions_ (literally, and we even have the records) who confessed to flying on broomsticks, having sex with the devil, summoning vile demons and plagues, signing pacts in blood with Satan, etc, at the hands of the Inquisition. Stuff that isn't even physically _possible_, but enough torture got that crap "confessed" anyway. That's the kind of bullshit that torture produces.
You get a fellow snug on a rack and torture them enough, they'll tell you any _lie_ you want to hear, just to make it stop. You just have to bring them to the point where even death looks like a nicer alternative.
But for actually obtaining _intelligence_ it's fucking useless. What you get is whatever _you_ had already decided you want to hear, not trze information you didn't know. I.e., you could just as well just act on your mis-conceptions and prejudice, and spare the torture part, since you'll get exactly there anyway.
So you know what will actually happen in your "terrorist with a nuke" scenario? You'll torture some innocent arab who probably didn't even like the fundamentalists at all in the first place. And you'll keep torturing him until he tells you whatever false "confession" you wanted to hear, just to make the pain stop.
Will you find your nuke? No fucking way. But now you have a "confession" so you can execute or deport an innocent.
Well gee... if that's what the "land of the free" is supposed to mean...
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.