Slashdot Mirror


TSA Lied About Protecting Passenger Data

wk633 writes "A report by Homeland Security Department Acting Inspector General Richard Skinner, said the agency misinformed individuals, the press and Congress in 2003 and 2004. It stopped short of saying TSA lied. Bruce Schneier does say 'the TSA lied' on his blog." Scary stuff, and yet it's even scarier how little the general public has caught on.

25 of 613 comments (clear)

  1. They shrug it off... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nevertheless, most of the transfers that we reviewed were executed between parties bound by agreements forbidding additional sharing or disclosure of the passenger information. Of the more than 12 million records transferred, a passenger's data was inappropriately disclosed to the public in only one instance. In this instance, a government contractor's inappropriate disclosure of information was inadvertent.

    So, because it was a government contractor and not the government itself I should be fine with the one slip up because the contractor just didn't have the proper amount of care necessary to carry out the task with the proper amount of security necessary?

    Let me guess, the person who's information was divulged has little or no option of recourse against the contractor. Of course this report doesn't say anything about that. Will the contractor be used again? Why wasn't the contractor listed in the report so that everyone knows who they are. After all, they leaked someone's private info, I think the public should at least know that they shouldn't be dealt with at any time.

    TSA's policy environment with respect to privacy has changed substantially since its inception. From its inception, TSA recognized personal privacy and confidentiality as important concerns. Especially in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, finding a balance between these concerns and transportation and aviation security was a difficult challenge.

    There is no need for a balance. Regardless of the emergency state of the nation people's privacy should not take a back seat. We all know Ben Franklin's comment and it rings true here.

    Regardless of passenger data sharing, lists of known problem individuals, etc, people are going to get on that plane and cause problems (whether directly or indirectly). We are always a step behind and trying to close holes that were used in the past. The terrorists will always find some hole we haven't closed because they haven't used it before.

    Our weak attempts at ending terrorism do nothing but erode our freedoms and that's exactly what they want to have happen. Way to go!

    Scary stuff, and yet it's evem scarier how little the general public has caught on.

    They have caught on to what they were told to. They seriously believe that they are now safer that their privacy has been eroded. They are dazzled with big numbers and small reported incident numbers (i.e. how many people were affected by the Patriot Act).

    People want to be told what to think. They want to be told they are safe and they will seriously believe they are. People who think otherwise are labeled "paranoid" and not worthy of belief. Only those that continually fill the heads of their citizens with spin are worthy of listening to. Who are we kidding? How is the public supposed to "catch on" when they are bombarded by government sponsored propaganda centered around the positive influence the TSA has had on airline safety? If we watched network-sponsored TV news we might have had a different view on the whole situation right? The government propaganda pieces looked and sounded quite legit as they were meant to. So the people that don't rely on personal research and news from multiple outlets really did believe the TSA was doing things in their best interests.

    What I believe is scary is that people just shrug it off and say, "all administrations do these things." Perhaps, but this one was caught and you still don't care.

    1. Re:They shrug it off... by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      apathy is going to be the death of the west

    2. Re:They shrug it off... by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 5, Funny

      we don't care.

    3. Re:They shrug it off... by Ibiwan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might want to turn off your sig when making comments like that...

      --
      -- //no comment
  2. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is it really that hard to write out the name of the Acronyms at least once?

    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Lied about Protecting Passenger Data. Then you can talk about the TSA until you blue in the face. Is the BSA the Business Software Alliance or the Boy Scouts of America?

    Sure we work with computer all the time and take Acronyms all the time and many are very complex.. CPU, RAM, ROM, GNU, etc... It is fine when you are talking about computer stuff. But when you start moving to government Acronyms or Business Acronyms, we should get a better description. Is PSC Play Station Console, Public Service Commission, or Pubic Safety Control? Please think before you start using acronyms especially in less geeky topics such as business, law, politics, governments, and non astronomy sciences. Even if it is geeky related if there is a change that a lot of people wont know what you mean please spell it out.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am even more annoyed at this comment in which the author suggests we should be following the links to find out what the acronyms are ... In fact, I didn't find out what it meant until I scrolled down to your comment - which was much quicker than loading another page, especially a PDF.

      You didn't explain what a PDF was.

  3. Does this suprise anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly? The TSA is a bureacratic mess, they can levee fines against anyone they deam fit for any reason they see fit and don't even have to tell you why. You can't complain, you can't do anything about it. Yet, it is all done for your "safety."

  4. Page 40 by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Informative

    Conclusions:

    "Although we found no evidence of harm to individual privacy, TSA could have taken more steps to protect privacy. TSA did not consistently apply privacy protections in the course of its involvement in airline passenger data transfers. This inconsistency pertained to TSA's efforts in acquisitions, contract enforcement, and internal practice."

    So no evidence was leaked but they could've done a better job.

  5. Re:public... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The general public doesn't want a democracy. It wants a group of people to solve all their problems. Protects us from these bad men. Give us free food because I don't want to work. Keep my comunity safe from drugs. But the truth is the governemt can only go so far. We need to educate people on how to be active in there comunity. Be able to get things done withough having to spend a lot of tax payer money on things we could do ourselfs for less. We want clean streets? So when you see garbage on the street pick it up. If your road isn't plowed yet take out the shovel and shovel out your area. If people spent more time helping the government getting there work done and less aking the governemt to do things for them then. Then we can fix a lot of our problems ("Ask now what your country can do for you. But what can you do for your country.")

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  6. Re:public... by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The general public may not care, but that does not make it ok to do. The general public puts its trust in institutions like the TSA to protect it. And if it's failing at that, while lying to the public, there should be an investigation of this. This is where Congress should be meddling instead of baseball or the Schiavo case.

    Rather than the general public's apathy, the government's apathy is more shocking.

    Also, the TSA may be trying to do a good thing, but it is failing. The "responses were not accurate", according to the spokesman.

  7. Privacy, as if... by treerex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: as far as the US Government is concerned, especially since 9/11 and The Patriot Act, citizens have no expectation of privacy. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. People keep saying, "Oh, the government will never lie to me. They are required to protect privacy." As if. The government will tell you what you want to hear to passify you, and when found out will either flush things down the Memory Hole or give you a nice 'mea culpa' and continue doing the same thing.

    As far back as 1995 Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy wrote in The Right To Privacy that our rights, especially those under the Fourth Ammendment, were slowly being eroded.

    But as another poster said, the bulk of the American population don't know, and more importantly, don't care.

    1. Re:Privacy, as if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then be careful of who you share your info with.

      That's a good point, as far as non-governmental entities are concerned.

      However, considering that the government requires that they have information about it's citizens, they've taken the choice out of our hands. Do you understand that?

  8. Homeland Insecurity by flajann · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The real annoying thing is that there is no way the system can really work at stopping terrorists, unless they are already *known* to be terrorists.

    I personally spoke with a large software firm about this very issue -- how can such a system keep the false positives low to nill while catching the ocassional needle or two in a very large haystack, and they waffled on the question. Considering the number of terrorists are extremely small with regards the rest of the population, how can you possible have enough data to be statistically significant? Again, they waffled on the question, giving a half-baked "executive response" rather than anything concrete.

    The real truth is we are far more likely to die in a car crash than to die at the hands of a would-be terrorist. Yet, billions are being poured into Homeland Insecurity and the TSA efforts, and what do we have? High false positive rates, millions of needlessly harrased travelers, and it's hard to get a fix on the false negative rates since terrorists are so rare to begin with.

    In short, the entire approach makes no sense.

    But try explaining this to the general public, who tend to be dumb as boards when it comes to basic statistics and probabality.

    90% of the public is simply unable to think, but merely jumps from one belief pattern to another. That my friends is the problem.

  9. Re:public... by KlomDark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree, it infuriates me that the vast majority regards the government as a deity - something to grant wishes, instead of something that requires each and every person to take part in and to keep under control.

    The government is not a deity. Do not worship it.

  10. This is actually shocking by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked for the TSA for over a year and a half. I was a god-damned screener -- I was checking passengers and baggage both. I have little respect for most of the other screeners and for the management. (Did you know the hiring process was little more than "first-come-first-served" and that people were hired before background checks were complete? They didn't even check resumes much of the time! People were placed in management roles at the age of 18! Their last job at a burger joint! This is a no-shitter!) But enough of that. The TSA is also filled with a lot of well-meaning people who really want to do a good job. But I have yet to detect deceit in any of the people I have encountered regardless of how high in rank. I am honestly shocked.

  11. The general public is distracted... by ites · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the major instruments of the ruling political class is to divide and distract public opinion with intense moral-laden debate about subjects that in most other countries are treated as private matters.

    Morality-driven debate is such a powerful tool because you can, by fine-tuning the argument, get a balanced 50-50 split on just about any subject.

    And so, we get the endless debates about gay weddings, about living wills, about abortion, about the "theory" of evolution, about the role of religion in public structures, and so on.

    Meanwhile debate about subjects that in any open democracy would make the front pages, would bring millions onto the streets, and would topple presidents... almost totally absent.

    The general public does not debate the role of the state, the yawning chasms in the democratic process, the boom in military spending, gerrymandering, government-sponsored TV "news", political prisoners, torture, the corruption of every agency meant to protect the public, the environment, the economy into an agency designed to exploit and abuse...

    Give the plebians bread, and circuses, and you can pretty much do what you like.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    1. Re:The general public is distracted... by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And so, we get the endless debates about gay weddings, about living wills, about abortion, about the "theory" of evolution, about the role of religion in public structures, and so on.

      Meanwhile debate about subjects that in any open democracy would make the front pages, would bring millions onto the streets, and would topple presidents... almost totally absent.

      The general public does not debate the role of the state, the yawning chasms in the democratic process, the boom in military spending, gerrymandering, government-sponsored TV "news", political prisoners, torture, the corruption of every agency meant to protect the public, the environment, the economy into an agency designed to exploit and abuse...


      So, you are saying that the issues like gay weddings, living wills, abortion, and the teaching of evolution simply are not worthy of debate?

      The reason nobody in America debates about the issues you want to get us riled up about is because our current society is very stable, and there is nearly a consensus (for better or worse) on all of them.

      Other than libertarian crackpots like me (and a handful of pie-eyed college kids), nobody cares about the concept of "limited government."

      Almost everybody agrees that the military is one of the few things worth throwing vast sums of money at.

      Most older folks still watch TV news, but more and more people are simply turning to other sources, to get away from the endless parade of Michael Jackson trials and whatnot.

      The "political prisoners" and "torture" you speak of are not nearly the hot-button issues you wish they were.

      Government agency corruption has always been with us. Anybody who thinks it's an invention of either Bush or Clinton is simply too young to know any better.

      Meanwhile, the issues you dismissed so quickly are critically important to the culture.

      Marriage is the basic unit of family organization upon which our entire civilization is built. While I happen to think that government has no business prohibiting families made up of same-sex couples (or even multiple-partner marriages), there are those who strongly feel otherwise, and not simply for reasons of puritan bigotry. Their objections are not entirely without merit.

      Living wills and abortion both get down to a very fundamental question: At what point do your rights, specifically the single most important right of survival, begin and end? When does a person become a person? When to they cease to be a person? Are we entitled to waive our own right to life under certain circumstances? These are big questions, and the minutae of how the answers are applied can impact millions of people.

      Evolution is the theoretical model upon which all of our modern knowledge of biology is built. It is absolutely vital to the long-term advancement of science that it is taught in schools. At the same time, Darwin's second book, The Descent of Man, runs afowl of several major religions regarding man's relationship to other animals. Balancing the need to teach "this is what our best science has established" with the need to avoid saying "your family's religion must be incorrect superstition" is a challenge which presents no easy answers (unless you are willing to dismiss the other side's concerns out of hand.)

      The role of religion in public structures is also a problem. Our first Ammendment states that our government must neither endorse nor hinder any specific religion. Some people feel that public displays of religious dogma constitute an endorsement. Others feel that banning such dogma from all public places constitutes a hinderance. The problem with the debate is that both sides are completely correct. You can't really ban religion from all public places without restricting the free practice, and you can't really have public space and/or resources promoting religion without forcing those who oppose it to be in the position of contributing to it with their tax dollars.

      The religion clau

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:The general public is distracted... by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      While I happen to think that government has no business prohibiting families made up of same-sex couples (or even multiple-partner marriages), there are those who strongly feel otherwise, and not simply for reasons of puritan bigotry.
      Really? I personally haven't heard any arguments against gay/poly marriages that were not rooted in ignorance, bigotry, or both. Every argument I've heard effectively boils down to one of the following:
      1. It's wrong because the Bible says so. (Fallacy: Appeal to Authority)
      2. It shouldn't be allowed because it goes against long-standing societal traditions (Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition)
      3. It's a gay/liberal/$BUGBEAR conspiricy to undermine "traditional family values" (Fallacy: Appeal to Hatred
      Their objections are not entirely without merit.
      I disagree. Arguments based on logical fallacies are entirely without merit.

      There may be a well-reasoned, logical argment supporting the view that the state has a compelling interest to grant special legal benefits to people who are in one class of binding long-term relationships while denying those benefits to all other classes of long-term binding relationships, but I have yet to hear one.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  12. OK Slashdot. Time to wake up. by munch-o-matic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    THIS IS A RANT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

    What the fuck is all this rhetoric about "the general public" not realizing their rights are being trampled and billions of their dollars are being wasted on the TSA?

    Who the fuck are you, and what are you doing about it? YOU are the general public, assholes. All you are doing is whining on Slashdot about how goddamned smart you are compared to everyone else because _you_ really know how inept the TSA is, and no one else is clever enough to figure this out.

    WTF?? Put up or shut up. Do something about the problem, or simply shut the fuck up.

    This is just bullshit from people who aren't doing a damn thing except following the herd to slaughter while marching meekly to their deaths, self-righteously proclaiming their outrage louder than the next.

  13. Re:Some people might call me un-American, but... by geoffspear · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Of course, by making such a statement, you're accepting the Bush administration's assertion that terrorists hate us because we're free. In reality, they don't care that we're free; they have other reasons for hating us.

    If the US was a totalitarian dictatorship that strongly supported Israel and put troops in Saudi Arabia to protect our oil interests there and in Kuwait, Osama would hate us just as much as he does now. Freedom is orthagonal to the issue.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  14. Re:Some people might call me un-American, but... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Freedom is orthogonal to the issue.

    True, but that is going off on a tangent ;).

    Seriously though, it seems to me that the other big problem is that all that government is doing with all the excessive airline regulations is trying to fight the war we just lost. Instead of figuring out what is the best way to deal with the overall threat, the governement simply tries to handle what has already been screwed up and tries to apply makeshift patches to the holes.

    One of the biggest blunders generals tend to make is to try to fight the last war instead of the war they are actually in, such as some of the generals in World War One who were still using tactics from musket-and-cannon wars like the Crimean War. This is basically what is happening now with the TSA regulations.

  15. Treason by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    President Bush has been running a huge fraud. The ultimate opportunist, he exploited the 2001 planebombings to invade the totally unrelated country of Iraq, though now selling F15s to our "allies" in Pakistan, whose intelligence agency backed Qaeda's takeover of Afghanistan, while distributing stolen nuke tech to Libya, N. Korea, and Iran. He has been running a vast police state that tortures and kills people rounded up on circumstantial suspicion, holding them for years without even charging them or any due process, without producing any results. He's produced gigantic laws based on known lies and elaborate fictions, from the false Saddam/Osama connection through the need for violating Americans' Constitutional rights to capture Osama - where is he? Lying about WMDs to terrorize Americans and Congress into invading, his dereliction of security has bred an actual armed threat in a postapocalyptic state in Iraq, as former conventional military bases are looted by a predictabel international convention of the usual bad guys.

    I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush has lied about a war that has killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of our allies, and gets worse every day - counter to all their lies about brevity and local support. If ever there were a "high crime and misdemeanor", it's sending us to a disastrous war on a series of lies. Where are the Republican cries for presidential "dignity" and "integrity"? Let's impeach this monster immediately, for treason. Before he does any more irreparable damage.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Treason by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you want to take the legal point of view, you have to accept that Clinton did not lie under oath. He was asked if he had "sex" with Lewinsky, was given a written definition of "sex" that required mutual gentital contact and penetration, and truthfully said "no". Which is one reason why his impeachment failed. Bush and his lieutenants have repeatedly lied to Congress. And surely in the many courts in which they have perpetrated their actions since late 2001. Lying to Congress is a high crime, and treasonous when it sends our troops to a fraud war that destroys the Treasury and our international relations, to say nothing of destroying the credibility of the government among Americans.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  16. Joe Public is too dumb to understand. by i41Overlord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In order for a government to make the common man depend on it, it needs to give the common man an arch enemy. It used to be the Kaiser, communists, drug dealers, and now it's terrorists.

    When the common man doesn't have an absolute enemy to fear, he'll tend not to depend on the government as much. Of course this isn't in the lawmakers best interest.

    Keep your dependents living in fear and they'll always remain your dependents.

  17. Re:Some people might call me un-American, but... by slo_learner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe that to some extent what you say is true, but I also think there is another issue to pay attention to here. If you look at how the Patriot Act was written, there is a very intentional obfuscation. Some of these measures are misdirected efforts to fight the previous war, and some are ham handed grabs for power by our government. The line is blurred, and there are well intentioned people at all levels of government that don't understand what they are doing to our country in the name of security, but there are also some who are making a concerted effort to erode our liberties. The trick is deciding whos who, and giving the culprits the treatment they deserve.