Slashdot Mirror
New Security Bill Proposed
frdmfghtr writes "ZDnet is reporting on a new security bill coming up right before the election in November that is geared towards increasing security in the U.S. "One section anticipates storing the "lifetime travel history of each foreign national or United States citizen" into a database for the convenience of government officials." Senator McCain and HLS secretary Tom Ridge are mentioned specifically in the article: "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints." Reminds me not-so-vaguely of checkpoints in Soviet Russia where you needed papers to pass."
Don't say I didn't say all of this - right here three years ago.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hmmm... "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, [...] Internet hubs "
Internet hubs? Man, that's going to suck. "The networked printer needs paper, dear, I'm heading down to the basement" 'Badge, sir?'
More seriously, even when I drive into D.C. and pass in spitting distance of the Capital, the occassional roadblock/checkpoints don't ask for ID. They rely on an officer doing a quick visual survey of the vehicle and occupants.
I don't see how IDs will help. 'Hmm... according to your ID, you're a known terrorist criminal. I'll have to search your car.' No, far more likely a potential terrorist will either be a clean slate (new recruit) or have a faked ID.
So the only use is either to hassle ordinary citizens while pretending it's helping fight terrorism, without really increasing safety or security. I predict the bill will pass by a landslide.
For the children's sake, of course.
A.
Of course we all know that it is only a pre-election PR stunt which will most probably get forgotten by most of people few months after the election, however it will continue silently violating privacy and after reading this article I must say that it sounds frightening. It is frightening because it goes much further than necessary, mostly affecting honest people. When new supposedly anti-terrorist security measures such as this one are introduced, Bruce Schneier always asks a great question: "would it have stopped 9/11 if we'd had it in place then?" Good question.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Maybe '1984' was just a deadline that slipped a little...
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
The challenge when bills like this are proposed it to come to where the proponents are, rather than setting up a civil liberties versus safety showdown. To oppose this, we need to frame the argument in ways that relate to the safety concerns that are driving the bill-- otherwise, people will always pick safety over some seemingly paranoid and vague worry about big brother. The case needs to be made that this restricts freedom, which is the goal of the terrorists, and that it will not increase safety, which probably could be easily demonstrated by analyzing previous attacks and whether or not this type of checkpoint would be able to head them off.
- - - - - -
The Regular - slashdot for politics (news for wonks)
I for one welcome our new Department of Homeland Security overlords.
I'd throw in a "In Soviet Union" joke as well, but I have to go and dig a hole in my garden to hide in when the guys in jackboots come for me...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
This is the kind of thing tha keeps pushing me toward libertarian... /In Soviet Russia, (fill in yourself) //Family Guy
I didn't need those civil rights anyhow... Im sure the politicians, which are mostly nice people anyhow, except for those dirty (other party) who eat babies, wont do anything wrong with that info.
(/sarcasm)
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
You can. Call or write your Senators
You are assuming that I am a USA citizen. I am not. Unfortunately, the USA turning into a police state affects the whole world, not just USA citizens.
Basically, complacency. If a terrorist really wanted to accomplish some task (and let's assume he/she doesn't mind getting killed in the process), this travel database is good only for post-mortem analysis. Why? Simple, the terrorist just starts taking "regular trips" to establish a history. Once people are comfortable or consider such trips normal, the terrorist can move with near impunity. Heck, the 9/11 guys conducted test runs!
This is simple social engineering. In my job, I service customer accounts. During my first few visits, I may get asked who I am by several people wondering if I'm where I should be. After a while, even the most security-conscious place treats my coming and going as a normal routine requiring no scrutiny. After that, I'm free to walk through almost the entire plant without question. If I wanted to, I could steal a lot of information or cause damage.
The same applies to the travel database. If the 9/11 guys were willing to plan for years to pull off the attack, what makes anyone think they wouldn't take the time to "establish" themselves as "normal" travelers. This database, like CAPPS, won't do anything but let the government obtain information about its own citizens.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
The engrossed amendmend Sec, 3081 is the section on "Studies on machine-readable passports and travel history database"
Except we're talking about John McCain here. You know, one of the front-runners that ran against Bush in the '00 Republican primaries? The only Republican right-wing crazies hate?
It's time people realize that the biggest threats to civil liberties in the US doesn't come from the White House but from the domed building down the street. Don't forget that Congress is still full of most of the people that were around to vote in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act.
and this is what you get.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Don't fool yourself. It's all from the same source. They want to turn the U.S. into a christiofascist empire. Usually McCain is more sensible, though. Maybe he's just the messenger?
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Why don't they concentrate on safeguarding dangerous materials?
The plane that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland (killing 270) was brought down with 400 grams of Semtex, an RDX-based compound.
The definition of reasonable:
A peace officer should have probable cause for asking me for my ID. Unfortunatly "shouldn't" isn't "can't". If a police officer asks me for an ID, I respond "What is the problem, officer?" The fact that everybody else in the country seems to feel that they must obey every request put to them is one of the biggest problems in this country (USA). I do live in the real world, and I respectfully challenge situations like this whenever they present themselves. I have yet to be arrested or charged with a crime. Government officials have no business in my affairs without probable cause. Drag me away and lock me up forever, but I will not submit without atleast some effort to defend my rights.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
I wouldn't consider the Murrah Federal building a place where "few people are". You've not shown a clear delineation of how many people should huddle together for protection before they deserve it, either. Nor would I consider it proof that our security is good to say that we haven't had an attack since 9/11 -- when was the previous one before 9/11? What attacks, precisely, have our counter-measures thwarted? We actually have no clue how good our security is, except for, say, research papers proving that ethnicity-based screening is easy to circumvent and actually counter-productive if your enemies are halfway intelligent (which I know is often doubted.) We've put a lot of people in jail (military or not,) we've given our police forces extra powers we had previously sworn never to give them, but have we actually improved anything?
... even the Algerians seem to be changing their minds about terrorism. Things change, and not just because of physical security -- in fact, I've seen very little evidence (actually none) that increased physical security is really doing anything at all to protect us from, as you put it, "reality."
... (for those who care, I'm not implying which, if any, of the above should or should not be federal programs.)
Nuclear suitcases are exactly why sidewalks are cause for concern -- that's where you'd scare the most people, make them feel vulnerable. This isn't about efficiently killing people -- terrorism is about making you feel fear. (People don't throw their own lives away easily, yet consider Palestinians blowing themselves up and yet killing nobody, or only a few other people. The ratio is terrible, but the effect is palpable.) People react even to relative failures, like France did to the 8 people who died in a series of bombings of the parisian metro in 1995. Police and military in every school and metro station? Sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo metro system killed, what, a dozen people? Was there increased security? Were there further attacks?
Political change seems like a much more effective way of keeping people safe. The Basque ETA will likely try to find new ways to fight for independence, after the Madrid bombings -- the response was such that it was obvious this would no longer be a viable method. The Corsicans, the Northern Irish
My worry is that we'll concentrate on one method of protection, ignoring all other possibilities. Our response to 9/11 was to increase security on planes, but we pretty much entirely ignored every other possible vector of attack. We weren't attacked, even though we were wide open. Does that mean anything? The move seemed much more geared to making our population *feel* safe than actually *be* safe -- we had had attacks against planes, but our planes were now safe, so all was well again, obviously. It's an expensive placebo, no? And no, you don't actually feel safe -- if you did, you wouldn't be asking for this protection.
Private bodyguards are already in use; obviously someone thinks they're appropriate and effective. But they're localized, they don't affect those of us who don't want to be affected. And they don't require federal funds. (Yup, even a non-republican can care about how much we spend.)
You're right, terrorists have failed to hurt and scare me enough to react. But if you want to save lives that can be easily saved yet aren't, invest in sending food and medication to countries that need the help, researching new cures, education to prevent spreading diseases and the misuse of guns and drugs, vehicle safety, programs to encourage people to stay healthy (fewer, say, heart attacks), better/cheaper healthcare so people won't go without even when it's available,
This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money.
How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.
How much training does it take to legally and inconspicuously buy gasoline and fertilizer, mix in large barrels, that are set to go off by a primer made up of yet more household materials? Even the inbred idiots who attacked the Oklahoma City federal building were able to do something similar. In fact, the only reason they could have been tracked was because they used blasting materials as the priming charge, but this isn't even necessary if you're willing to take one for Allah's team and ignite the thing yourself.
What everybody seems to forget is that 9/11 was accomplished by men with perfectly legal papers and boxcutters... boxcutters...
Under what kind of draconian government surveillance and "protection" would we have caught THAT? I implore you, how can you adequately defend your weakest, unexpected point without going to extremes? A patient, intelligent man who's willing to die for his cause is a deadly weapon indeed.
Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latter.
We'll never adequately secure ourselves. Our infrastructure was never designed with that in mind. It was designed for efficiency, convenience, and freedom of movement. To attempt to do so not only has diminishing returns but is also self-defeating. Defense, therefore, is not a realistic option, our only chance is to take a pro-active stance against the enemy and take the fight to them.
-Grym