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)."

64 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm.. by Zardus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Hmm.. by gregfortune · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not if the data is altered and encrypted by the airlines each time it is accessed. Good luck ending up with the random set of bits that represents someone with a good flying history...

    2. Re:Hmm.. by aixou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, thats awesome.

      We try to get away from cards because of inherent insecurity, and now we entrust biometric info to a card. When will it end?

      Imagine if you were able to bring your own background information with you when you were fingerprinted.

      I thought the purpose of biometric security was to have a database of info about people, not to verify that they are infact the true owner of a card.

    3. Re:Hmm.. by WiPEOUT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is how I'd envision it working:

      1. your biometric details are stored on the smart card
      2. your flight history is also stored on the smart card
      3. each time you use the card, it reads biometric data on the card, checking it against that read from you by fingerprint/iris sensors
      4. then, it reads all information on the card and MD5/SHA1 hashes it. If it matches the hash stored in the database, and if biometric data checks out, it adds current flight information/status to the card, calculates an updated hash (including the new information), and stores this hash (which is propagated to other airports)

      This way, your biometric data and flight history is never stored by the system, maintaining your privacy, but is available from your card as necessary. Your card cannot be forged as the hash will be different if any bit of data on your card is changed, and will not match that on record.

    4. Re:Hmm.. by gregfortune · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they *are* the owner of the card and the flight history data is encrypted by the airlines, what's the problem?

    5. Re:Hmm.. by halowolf · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Corruptible employees of said airlines or the owners of the company that maintains the airlines card information.

      A bribe here, some blackmail there and viola, a fake card or worse.

    6. Re:Hmm.. by fatgeekuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I started this message very critical of the system as it currently stands, but in writing this comment, I have reviewed the ultimate goals.

      There are ways to crack or spoof this system. It is far from secure and should not be considered by anyone as foolproof.

      It is a compromise between security and personal freedom and as such may serve neither.

    7. Re:Hmm.. by psoriac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This way, your biometric data and flight history is never stored by the system, maintaining your privacy, but is available from your card as necessary.

      You must be new here...

      In all seriousness, do you for one second believe that the current government security agencies under Bush gave any thought at all to protecting your privacy? Your entire flight history including biometrics is probably stored, unencrypted, in some government database from the moment you sign up until your death. And probably well beyond that.

      --
      I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
    8. Re:Hmm.. by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Funny
      A bribe here, some blackmail there and viola, a fake card or worse.

      Exactly. I see this being instrumental in preventing the frequent flyer program from taking off ;-)

      (and yes, the second pun is also intended... )

    9. Re:Hmm.. by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Corruptible employees of said airlines or the owners of the company that maintains the airlines card information. A bribe here, some blackmail there and viola, a fake card or worse.

      So how is that any worse than what can happen today? There will always be someone to bribe to get what you want, no matter what system is in place.

  2. Rising cost of terrorism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Rising cost of terrorism by chaffed · · Score: 5, Funny

      But with the extensive use of blackout dates by the airlines. I think we will be safe everyday but the week you are allowed to use your miles.

      --
      What could possibly go wrong?
    2. Re:Rising cost of terrorism by jkitchel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a pretty good point.

      What do you suggest the government do instead or in addition to this? For me, right now, nothing comes to mind that anyone would be happy with (but hey, it's late)

      Does anyone else have any ideas to:

      1. Improve
      2. Reorganize, or
      3. Change
      this process?
    3. Re:Rising cost of terrorism by SideshowBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmm. Maybe the U.S. could, I don't know, improve its relationship with the rest of the world to the point that they don't want to kill us all?

      Some ideas:

      1. Avoid installing or supporting despotic dictators that repress their own citizenry and exploit the resources of their nation for personal gain.

      2. Avoid bombing the crap out of countries that haven't attacked us.

      3. Avoid making up intelligence about other countries and then using that fake intelligence as an excuse to invade them.

      4. (It really amazes me as an American that it has come to the point where we have to even talk about this, but) avoid torturing citizens of other nations.

      Just a few pointers, hopefully that will get us started in the right direction. Maybe its time to get back to that whole idea of making the world a better place and promoting liberty and democracy by setting an example?

    4. Re:Rising cost of terrorism by More+Trouble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you suggest the government do instead or in addition to this?

      Do about what? Do you seriously think that someone could successfully pull off another 9/11 style attack? The world changed a few minutes after it became common knowledge that hijacked planes could be used as missiles. Witness the UA flight 93, crashed by the hijackers when passengers learned about the WTC and Pentagon planes. Or how about this crazy?

      So given how hard it's become hijack planes, what exactly is the point of this tracking system?

      :w

    5. Re:Rising cost of terrorism by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      The dictators we support, in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Libya, and elsewhere, serve only select global corporate interests, while fueling the sources of terrorism, at the convenience of a corporate US government.

      Libya has given up the quest for nuclear weapons, in return for a normalization of diplomatic status. I submit that Libya not having nukes is of more than "global corporate interest".

      The US bombed the crap out of the Serbian military, not the people.

      Amnesty International disagrees with your assessment.

      That's one reason we don't have Serbian suicide bombers attacking us.

      Another, more likely reason is that the Serbs aren't Muslim. Non-Muslim suicide bombers are pretty rare. They exist, but not in great numbers. Also, we don't have many suicide bombers attacking us at all. They're mostly attacking Israeli civilians, Iraqi civilians, and Iraqi police.

      And let's have a citation backing your belief in (and promotion of) the lies about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, which have been definitively debunked by, among others, the 9/11 Commission.

      Here's your citation. If a US Federal Court decision isn't enough to convince you that it's not a lie, then I doubt any proof could.

      As for being debunked by the 9/11 Commission, they haven't released their final report yet, but the staff statements so far have not debunked anything. Pre-report staff statements have said they have found no evidence of a collaborative relationship in regards to the 9/11 attacks; they made no effort to prove there was no financing of Al Qaeda activities, and current events suggest they are not done with this issue. I'd hold off on calling their lack of evidence an evidence of lack at least until they release their report, if I were you.

      See original post #3, about lying to the public, and calling it official intelligence - to which which you declined to respond, since everyone already knows better than whatever veiled apology you'd contrive for BushCo's lies about intelligence they make up to justify their malevolent agenda.

      I didn't respond to it because it was a baseless insult without any evidence to back it up. It wasn't worthy of addressing.

      However, if you insist:

      Intelligence is sometimes wrong. That doesn't mean it's made up. Much of the intelligence upon which we were acting when we invaded Iraq dates from before Bush ever took office, and was deemed compelling by, among others, John Kerry.

      How about people accepting that torture is unacceptable, rather than crying "blame the troops" whenever they're not chanting "support President Bush and our troops"

      How about recognizing the difference between interrogation and torture, instead of trivializing the plight of those who were actually tortured by Saddam's regime? Those who were raped? Murdered? How about not attempting to conflate the policies with which you disagree and the illegal actions of a few sick criminals, that are completely different than those policies?

      How about recognizing that Donald Rumsfeld initiated investigations that have already resulted in convictions, with more to follow, of those involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners? How about recognizing that the General in charge was yanked from her post almost immediately, again thanks to Rumsfeld?

      See, the difference you're missing here is that when American Soldiers do something unacceptable to Iraqi prisoners, they go to jail. Under the regime we displaced, which if you had your way would still be there, they'd be promoted.

  3. How does this help? by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

    1. Re:How does this help? by gregfortune · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't.

      It does establish your identity though and reduces the time necessary for that task. Now, what might the airline do if it had some extra time for each person?

    2. Re:How does this help? by bgeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Now all the terrorists have to do is get into the registered traveler program and since they're searched less thoroughly they'll have a very good chance of sneaking weapons in. This system nearly the same as CAPPS, the only difference is that terrorists will definitively know that they've been whitelisted and will therefore be even more confident that they can bring weapons with them. Since this system still relies on whitelisting, the Carnival Booth argument still applies and this system is still weaker than random searches.

    3. Re:How does this help? by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The airline will then fire half of its clerks.

    4. Re:How does this help? by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is supposed to be compensated by more stringent checks before you get into the program. In other words, suspicious (?) people won't be allowed to join. On the other hand, majority of suicide bombers never attack twice...

    5. Re:How does this help? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If your aim is to use the plane as a suicide bomb, will it matter to you if are fingerprinted?"

      Where in the article does this promise to make terrorism harder?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:How does this help? by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      The people who were behiond 9/11 weren't known terrorists/criminals.

      This is a false statement. Some were in fact known terrorists. In fact, some had been previously denied Visas under other names.

      They were quiet people, under the radar....

      Which is exactly why they wouldn't apply for these cards; the risk of exposure would be too great.

      Therefore, they'd still be subject to random search, and they'd be more likely to be searched because the pool would be smaller, since so many people would have been effectively pre-screened out of it.

  4. Frequent flyers- such as international terrorists? by Ratface · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see how this solves a problem. A businessman of ethnic background working in the Middle East and flying regularly will not be possible to distinguish from a terrorist posing as a businessman.

    Or perhaps the hidden subtext is "The biometrics signatures will enable white non-suspicious regular travelers to whizz through customs while suspiscious non-whites are filtered for more efective controls by customs".

    Other than that possibility, I have nothin per-se against biometric controls - it's how they are used and who by that's the problem.

    --

    A little planning goes a long way...
  5. nice try by corian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There frequent flyers carried their biometric identifiers (fingerprint & iris) with them between airports on a smart card
    Actually, we carried our biometric identifiers on our FINGERS and our EYES. That's the whole point, you see?

    1. Re:nice try by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There frequent flyers carried their biometric identifiers (fingerprint & iris) with them between airports on a smart card.
      Actually, we carried our biometric identifiers on our FINGERS and our EYES. That's the whole point, you see?

      That's what I'm wondering about. Since we carry our fingers and eyes with us, why is a card necessary? A card can be manipulated, probably more easily than someone can fool a fingerprint/iris scanning machine with an airport agent watching.

      Aside from creating a fast-track for a few people, how does this help things?

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    2. Re:nice try by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:nice try by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The card is necessary because it's awfully expensive to check relations of one pair of eyes against 260,000,000 pairs of eyes. You'd need a lifetime to do that.

      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 :-)

  6. Nice that it's an option by gregfortune · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only problem with an optional service that has an advantage over the standard service (ie, shorter lines...) is that it might become the defacto method over time. If enough people agree to the tracked biometrics, the entire system will inevitably switch over to biometrics.

    And I'd probably defect to the "convenience" side myself if I were flying fairly often. Not really that different than the privacy invasion I tolerate for using a credit card. Boy do we pay for our conveniences in the long run...

  7. Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris by genixia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris by gregfortune · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But they'll still know he is that businessman from the Middle East rather than a random dude who decided to pose as a business man. Establishing identity is a cruicial step in any security system and while it doesn't solve the problem directly, it will help reduce resources needed to establish identity. It also raises the bar for the terrorists a tad.

  9. only a few minor details before USA = USSA ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If a person looks at the definition of a police state, it would seem that we are darn near to becoming fully certified.

    Or one might simply peruse a copy of Huxley's prophetic Brave New World...

    And wonder how are the themes of Brave New World any different than the themes of the US government (or any government) of today?

    The Themes of Brave New World

    1. COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY- VERSUS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

    Community, Identity, Stability is the motto of the World State. It lists the Utopia's prime goals. Community is in part a result of identity and stability. It is also achieved through a religion that satirizes Christianity- a religion that encourages people to reach solidarity through sexual orgy. And it is achieved by organizing life so that a person is almost never alone.

    Identity is in large part the result of genetic engineering. Society is divided into five classes or castes, hereditary social groups. In the lower three classes, people are cloned in order to produce up to 96 identical "twins." Identity is also achieved by teaching everyone to conform, so that someone who has or feels more than a minimum of individuality is made to feel different, odd, almost an outcast.

    Stability is the third of the three goals, but it is the one the characters mention most often- the reason for designing society this way. The desire for stability, for instance, requires the production of large numbers of genetically identical "individuals," because people who are exactly the same are less likely to come into conflict. Stability means minimizing conflict, risk, and change.

    2. SCIENCE AS A MEANS OF CONTROL

    Brave New World is not only a Utopian book, it is also a science-fiction novel. But it does not predict much about science in general. Its theme "is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals," Huxley said in the Foreword he wrote in 1946, 15 years after he wrote the book. He did not focus on physical sciences like nuclear physics, though even in 1931 he knew that the production of nuclear energy (and weapons) was probable. He was more worried about dangers that appeared more obvious at that time- the possible misuse of biology, physiology, and psychology to achieve community, identity, and stability. Ironically, it becomes clear at the end of the book that the World State's complete control over human activity destroys even the scientific progress that gained it such control.

    3. THE THREAT OF GENETIC ENGINEERING Genetic engineering is a term that has come into use in recent years as scientists have learned to manipulate RNA and DNA, the proteins in every cell that determine the basic inherited characteristics of life. Huxley didn't use the phrase but he describes genetic engineering when he explains how his new world breeds prescribed numbers of humans artificially for specified qualities.

    4. THE MISUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING Every human being in the new world is conditioned to fit society's needs- to like the work he will have to do. Human embryos do not grow inside their mothers' wombs but in bottles. Biological or physiological conditioning consists of adding chemicals or spinning the bottles to prepare the embryos for the levels of strength, intelligence, and aptitude required for given jobs. After they are "decanted" from the bottles, people are psychologically conditioned, mainly by hypnopaedia or sleep-teaching. You might say that at every stage the society brainwashes its citizens.

    5. THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS CARRIED TO AN EXTREME A society can achieve stability only when everyone is happy, and the brave new world tries hard to ensure that every person is happy. It does its best to eliminate any painful emotion, which means every deep feeling, every passion. It uses genetic engineering and conditioning to ensure that everyone is happy with his or her work.

    6. THE CHEAPENING OF

  10. Here's an idea by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I suppose this is a consolation for having REALLY LONG security lineups in the US, but I can't help but wonder....

    Rather than concentrating on doing things to secure planes from mad people, shouldn't we concentrate more on doing things to make mad people NOT want to blow us all up?

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get with the program, that's too difficult.

      Option 1.
      Convince man, whose family you've just murdered by way of collateral damage, that you're actually nice guys at heart.

      Option 2.
      Throw tax dollars on expensive security programs which will only keep half the mad men out.

      DUH! You must me new here!
      Well I for one welcome our fingerprint, retina-scanning overlords
      In Soviet Russia, the Retina Scans YOU!..oh wait..

    2. Re:Here's an idea by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...shouldn't we concentrate more on doing things to make mad people NOT want to blow us all up?"

      Like caving in to extremist demands?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish we could. The problem is that the people who want to blow us up want to blow us up because they believe God told them to. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. There is no rationality here...there's no "let's sit down and talk about it, and you'll see God doesn't really want you to kill people."

      Before this, we fought the Soviets. Well, that was a political system. There was nothing sacred there. Eventually, the people came to realize that a capitalist democracy is superior to a communist totalitarianism. Changing political and economic systems is easy. Changing religious beliefs is difficult, if not impossible.

      Islamic fanatics are about as likely to come to the rational decision that we can all live together in peace as a southern Baptist is likely to rational decide that homosexuality is no threat to his marriage or society in general.

      Part of the problem is that Islam is not just a religion...it's an entire way of life. Mohammed was not just a prophet. He was also a military commander, and a statesman. The Koran doesn't just tell you how to worship Allah...it also tells you how to structure your government, and how to run your household, and how much you should charge for goods and services.

      Ultimately, the problem is that Islam never had a reformation. There's not much difference between Islam today and Islam of the middle ages, whereas Christianity and Judaism today are vastly different than they were in 1500. Notice we're not burning people at the stake anymore. The Christian world came to the conclusion that, in general, church and state should be separated, and can live together in peace. With Islam...no such thing.

      That's not always the case, of course. There are peaceful Muslims. Turkey is the world's only secular democracy that is primarily Muslim, and they do pretty well. However, that's the minority, sadly. The majority opinion in the Islamic world is that Westerners (not just Americans, mind you, but all decadent Westerners) need to convert or die. I don't know about you, but I'm not converting. So, we've got two options: tear down Islam, or kill the militant Muslims. What's your choice?

    4. Re:Here's an idea by evilviper · · Score: 3, Funny
      shouldn't we concentrate more on doing things to make mad people NOT want to blow us all up?

      Yes, exactly. Everyone who is currently getting instructions from their dog to kill people, gets a coupon for one free popscicle...

      Problem solved!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Here's an idea by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
  11. Modeled after ActiveX by serutan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This seems like it was designed by Microsoft -- let's make the system more secure by adding ways to bypass it in the name of convenience! I feel much better about flying now.

  12. Only useful at one airport? by Hoodsen · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the CNN article:
    • "The designated checkpoint won't open in Minneapolis for a couple of weeks, and only travelers who consider it their home airport will be able to use it. In turn, Minneapolis passengers won't get special access at the other airports."

    Now, what is the reasoning behind this? Why can people registered only use the designated checkpoints at their "home" airport? For folks who frequently travel across the country, will saving half an hour at one measly airport be worth giving a governmental organization their fingerprints and iris scans?

    I don't get it. If the TSA obtains this data, it seems they should allow a person to use special checkpoints in Boston, Los Angeles, Houston and Washington (other cities testing the program) as well as in Minneapolis. For a lot of folks, not having to wait in line when they start their flights in Minnesota (but getting no special priviliges anywhere else) won't pay the cost of the government "knowing who they are".
  13. too much to remember by momogasuki · · Score: 5, Funny

    With my luck, I will show up at the airport and then realize that I left my fingers and iris at home.

  14. Watch out by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Within a few years this "innovation" will be mandatory, and nobody will be allowed to fly without it.

  15. Client-Side Vs. Server-Side by mp3LM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think keeping the information closer to where it is used is much better. They could simply have a card with a persons ID#, and then when they go...they put the card in, give and iris and fingerprint scan. That way we don't have to worry about it being hacked.

    I believe every programmer knows that giving variables to the client are less safe then keeping them on the server, even beginners such as myself.

  16. MultiPass by axonal · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see how insecure this will all wind up being.

    Leeloo Dallas, Multipass.

  17. Your government at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read in today's San Fransisco Examiner , page 3, PJ Corkery column 6-28-04:

    Then I wish [visiting] Bill Clinton could roam the streets of SoMa, where he might spy the posters showing the hooded, bewired Iraqi prisoner, with the angry caption, "Got Democracy?" The posters are the work of Robert Mailer Anderson, the gifted and funny novelist of Northern California ("Boonville", Mr. President, is Anderson's terrific novel about growing up as the child of especially narcissistic and narcotized Baby Boomers). Those posters were prompted by Anderson's on going concern about civil liberties, a concern sharpened into dismay when, while trying to board a plane last month, he was told that his traveling companion was on the government's "No Fly List" and could not alight the plane. Who was this suspect traveling companion, this possible terrorist?... Anderson's two-year old daughter, that's who. This toddler was identified by name as one too dangerous to let on a plane."

    These are the people you're paying billions in taxes to for Homeland Security?

    1. Re:Your government at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      he was told that his traveling companion was on the government's "No Fly List" and could not alight the plane. Who was this suspect traveling companion, this possible terrorist?... Anderson's two-year old daughter, that's who. This toddler was identified by name as one too dangerous to let on a plane."

      Do you know how nasty and obnoxious and disruptive two-year olds can be? They don't call it "terrible twos" for nothing! Those little terrorists!

    2. Re:Your government at work by swfranklin · · Score: 2, Funny
      Who was this suspect traveling companion, this possible terrorist?... Anderson's two-year old daughter, that's who. This toddler was identified by name as one too dangerous to let on a plane.

      It's his own damn fault for naming his daughter "Osama bin Laden"...
  18. Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  19. Re:Identity theft by tuxette · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who the hell needs to murder someone for their fingerprints when all you need is some gelatin?

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  20. Singapore's Immigration Automated Clearance by 200_success · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It actually makes a lot of sense to use biometrics to automate immigration checks, because it's entirely a question of verifying the passengers' identity. Once the gonvernment has made the determination that a citizen/resident is eligible to enter the country, that person will be likewise eligible to enter every time henceforth (until the passport or residence permit expires).

    On the other hand, in pre-boarding security checks, identity verification is not the question at hand. The objective there is screen passengers for weapons. A seemingly well behaved citizen could be weapon-free 99 times, then sneak a weapon through on his 100th flight. It might even be unintentional -- a terrorist would try to plant knives in the luggage of these trusted fast-track individuals.

    The TSA's Registered Traveler program is analogous to automating the customs check instead of the immigration check. The fast-track passengers may be statistically more trustworthy, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. The TSA could get more or less the same results by adding express lanes requiring a minimum of 50000 miles on your frequent-flyer card.

  21. Wow. I feel really safe. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Funny
    Could the government FOR ONCE come up with an idea that does not totally EAT MY BALLS?

    You'd think that with the hundreds of thousands of people in government, one could have an idea that actually does what it is supposed to, without ulterior motives?

    Why are we confiscating fingernail clippers? To protect against hijacking, or to touch everyone in some small way and remind them of exploding planes?

    I fail to see how whitelisting white people is going to help anything, other than padding the info of CAPPS, and introducing biometrics to the public -wrapping it in a sense of convenience to help the spread of this insecure ID.

    If I held my breath until our government did something *for* me, rather than to or against me, I'd be goddamn Suffocated Smurf.

  22. Israel Already Does This... by Landaras · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Israel Already Does This... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 regardless of your politics, you have to admit that there is no country that has been more spectacular at failing to solve their terrorism problems than Israel. For all their logistical ability, Israel is on the top of list of countries that we should avoid emulating when it comes to actually dealing with terrorism.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Israel Already Does This... by _Spirit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your reply might have some merit, but it has nothing to do with the case in point, which is stopping a terrorist from boarding a plane and wreaking havoc. Israel has been pretty effective there.

      --

      beauty is only a light switch away

  23. Singapore Immigration Automated Clearance System by jpatokal · · Score: 2, Informative
    Singapore's had this feature for frequent travellers for a few years now.

    http://app.ica.gov.sg/serv_pr/oth_serv/iacs.asp

    It doesn't cover separate security checks, but does allow one to speed through the immigration lines at entry and exit.

    The above cut'n'pasted from the parent AC; I had moderator access, why couldn't I mod it up? The mod button was missing completely for that post alone...

    Cheers,
    -j.

  24. That's not possible by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:That's not possible by Ba3r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am not trying to start a flame war here (hows that for a pre-emptive strike! :)

      On 2: As a police officer you should also have heard of 'innocent until proven guilty'; someone is innocent until the situation is fully ascertained (not when you are first storming the building) or when a crime is blatantly committed (you are fired upon). Until then, any assumption of guilt is purely circumstantial, and thus not worthy of punishment. There is an acceptable level of uncertainty on the police officer level, but not in the international policy level.

      On 3. I agree with you on the nature of intelligence, just wanted to be a pain, and point out you meant Hanlon's Razor', not Occam's Razor.

      On 4. The classic argument for torture (terrorist, nuclear bomb, 3 hours before detonation.. heated argument in philosophy 101) is hardly applicable to the current problems encountered in Iraq. I am sure you read the articles, so I am sure you remember that a large number of young men, who may have been invovled in attacks on soldiers were tortured and humiliated, although many of the soliders admitted to not doing it to extract any information. The problem here is that torture was the rule, not the exception.

  25. Why This Solution Really Sucks by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  26. Oh puh-lease by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  27. Convenient? Perhaps - but where's the security? by putaro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with the whole airline security mess is that they are trying to secure a very large area with the goal being to keep out less than 1/1000 of 1% of the people - and that group of people is not known. It simply doesn't make any sense. Military bases and other secure areas work by keep out 99% of the population and those who are allowed in are reasonably well checked. Trying to keep out an unknown .001% is impossible.

    The old system worked reasonably well. During the 9/11 hijackings no guns, bombs, chemical mace, swords, stun guns or other major weapons were used. The security system worked. The failure wasn't in the security system - it was in how the flying populace was trained to react to a hijacking. Five guys with box cutters will not be able to take over an airplane again.

    This new measure will make it easier for frequent flyers to put up with the current nonsense, allowing the TSA to perpetuate itself while offering no real security. There is no way you can keep hijackers off an airplane because YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. We have been successful in keeping them from having any major weapons. That, combined with the new attitude passengers will take towards hijackers are sufficient.

    The next terrorist act in the U.S. will not involve airplanes. That barn door doesn't need any more shutting.

  28. I'll tell you a little secret by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    European countries already have to deal with terrorist attacks every year. E.g., see the bombing in Spain. I'm sure I've seen mentions of it even on tech sites.

    But you know what? We still didn't devolve into a scared mob led by aggressive retards. We also didn't use it an excuse to either torture people or invade muslim countries for oil. We didn't burn mosques down, nor deport random arab-looking people each time someone detonated a bomb.

    So get over it. The whole "oooh, scary terrorists, let's let the government fuck us 7 ways to sunday" scare in the USA just make me laugh. And the funny coloured alert level codes each time someone thought the neighbour's cat acts funny, really give me the fits of laughter.

    You haven't even seen a fraction of the terror attacks the rest of the world has seen. You know how many terror attacks you've had in the USA last year? Exactly _zero_. Nil. Nada. Zilch. Nix.

    And you still use that piss-poor excuse to justify torture or giving totalitarian powers to an illiterate retard. (Bush Jr.) You want to torture innocents for what? For a terror threat you _don't_ _even_ _have_? Geeze...

    Here's an idea: those constitutional rights are there to protect _you_. If you let a retard take that away from you, in the name of a bogus terrorist scare, it is _you_ who'll have a problem, not the terrorists.

    Here's another idea: How about taking a hint from the rest of the world already? You're the mightiest nation on Earth, for fuck's sake. Might as well finally start acting that way, instead of screaming in terror each time Bush Jr scared himself by thinking about the bogeyman under his bed.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  29. Why bother? by nursedave · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The thing I can't understand is, why bother? I've travelled internationally several times since our 'security' was 'heightened,' some from Saudi Arabia even, and I can't tell what it is that this smart card is supposed to do for me. I would hope that certain security measures would be made irregardless of having or not having a card. I've had to go through metal detectors, bomb sniffers, my luggage x-rayed, my passport scanned to ensure it was legit and not stolen, etc.; all things I would hope would happen if I did have one of those fancy-pants cards.

    Guess I'm just missing something; I've not felt like security was too big a pain in the ass anyway.

    --

    The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

  30. Think of the (frightening) possibilities... by gschwim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Think of the things to come from this wonderous technology. I *really* can't wait until I can pay for things by fingering a nearby cash register... er, biometric validation register...

    Sheesh... how long until we start seeing information from this system used against *us* (the NON-terrorists) in court? It's already being done with EZ-Pass and the like. ("Yes, your honor, it was my finger that purchased those condoms...")
    This only makes it worse...

    I think it's time for a one way ticket to Antartica!

  31. Airport security is easy by Zed2K · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't know what these frequent fliers have packed in their carry on bags that causes them to waste so much time at security. I've been to the nations busiest airports at the worst times (holidays) and have never spent more than 10-15 minutes or so getting through security. I never set off the metal detector therefore I never have to get searched. Its extremely simple:

    1. Empty out your pockets into your carry on bag. Everything! Keys, changes, everything! I usually keep my wallet on me just because only thing in there is paper and plastic.
    2. Stick your boarding pass in your back pocket so nothing is in your hands.
    3. Wear sneakers. If you can't wear sneakers then take your shoes off ahead of time and send them through the machine.
    4. No big metal belt buckles. I see this so often, people are idiots.
    5. Walk through normally, not folding your arms or hands in pockets.
    6. Be polite! This is a biggie! I've seen so many rude frequent fliers and businessmen at security.

    Using these simple steps avoids any metal on you and gets you through security without getting stopped. It takes no time at all to put things in your carry on bag before you leave your home or car. But people are so freaking lazy then they act like the security is singling them out when the real truth is they set off the detector because they are a freaking moron.