TSA Violated Privacy Act

pin_gween writes "Remember when the TSA said they wanted info on travelers last year? They said they were only using names to test new software. Apparently, they lied. The Guardian has an AP wire about a Congressional report on the TSA. From the article: 'The agency actually took 43,000 names of passengers and used about 200,000 variations of those names - who turned out to be real people who may not have flown that month, the GAO said. A TSA contractor collected 100 million records on those names.' They also 'published a second notice indicating that it would do the things it had earlier said it wouldn't do.' A TSA spokesman said the info will be destroyed when the test is over. My question -- will the test actually end?"

Comments

Lies, lies and more lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft: "You can trust our trusted computing platform"
SCO: "There is UNIX code in Linux"
Bush: "We will get the WMD out of Iraq"

etc etc.

Nobody really cares in the end, it's all so easy to forget being blatantly lied to as long as things are mostly OK in the end.

Right?

Who is suprised?

[mfloy]

This is how companies handle privacy. They do something the majority of people will accept (taking names) and then they secretly change the scope of their project to get much more data. Then their defence is "If they gave us their name, we assumed they would be OK giving us this. We are a reputable company". I think they should be prosecuted for this, what if their system got hacked? That is a great deal of possible identity theft.

Did anybody believe them anyway?

[Goosefood]

This once again is a classic example how a group of human beings, who individually may be fine upstanding citizens, collectivly turn into an untrustworthy and unethical entity.

We must always remember that a commitment from a company is not worth the electrons over which it is communicated.

When will it end

[overshoot]

My question -- will the test actually end?

You're not allowed to know that under the Patriot Act. In fact, even asking has identified you as a terrorist; the Department of Homeland Security has been notified.

Fly Safe ....

[ta ma de]

Fly Naked.

I'm starting a grass roots initiative right here, right now. Every passenger will be required to fly naked under the influence of ecstasy. As a result, we will have no hi-jackers, at least not the kind that commandeer aircraft.

Privacy Act violated by TSA!

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

So, what's the status of the prosecution? Has special counsel been appointed? Grand jury convened? Charges filed?

That's what I thought.

Contempt for Law

[Aaron M. Renn]

It doesn't surprise me that the TSA has demonstrated contempt for the law here. As a regular traveler, I can tell you that they already (with some notable exceptions whose names I wish I had so I could cite them as positive examples) have contempt for the actual public they are charged with protecting. They have gone the way of all elites who profess to act in the name of the people, but actually do things that are in interally focused institutional interest.

I can certainly understand that law enforcement wants to "get the bad guys". Unfortunately, so much of today's law enforcement activity has little or nothing to do with actual criminals and spends most of its time operating against ordinary citizens. If you think this is limited to terrorism, think again. The Illinois State Police where I am routinely set up "seat belt enforcement zones" where people are pulled over and forced to prove that they aren't law breakers. It's similar to more and more "checkpoints" that are set up for all sorts of things and a presumption on the part of the police that they have the right to search you just to find out if you are doing anything wrong. That puts the 4th amendment on its head, and unfortunately our courts have gone along with it. Unless you are actually in your home, you can probably assume you can be investigated, searched, questeioned, etc. by the cops for any reason or for no reason at all.

So I don't see the TSA as some unique manifestation of anti-terror laws or a rogue agency. I see them as very symptomatic of what has been going on in law enforcement for a long time. This is just the next chapter.

Re:The TSA

[JDevers]

OK, a few notes... First off, I fly a lot and I have been "singled out" for my random search a few times. None of these times involved strip searches. They basically made me hand over my carry on and they went through it while another agent (or at a really small airport, the same agent) waved a metal detector over me very slowly and patted me down. Mildly invasive yes, strip search not quite...
Second, profiling IS bad. Not because we are a happy feely culture that thinks race should never be identified, but because if there are a handful of "triggers" that automatically get one searched instead of random searches then "the terrorists" will just figure out those triggers and send up people that don't meet those triggers. It would end up being easy for true terrorist organizations to avoid while ONLY catching regular people (and really stupid terrorists).

Don't assume for a second that all terrorists are men between 20-35 years old with long beards and "ethnic" clothing.

Terror Is as Terror Does

[Doc Ruby]

The TSA will, of course, lie whenever possible. Because they have no accountability. And lying gives them power. Not just "to take over the world", but to do a lousy job. To be lazy, incompetent, and still get paid.

Really, it's completely obvious that, except for the Qaeda and the Taliban, that slogan about "the post-9/11 world" everyone on TV chants, "everything changed", is total BS. Nothing changed, except the ability to scare people into submission went off the charts. People who wanted war in Iraq, no matter what, got their war. People who wanted giant defense budgets got them. People who wanted to discard habeas corpus protections got rid of them. People who wanted Republicans to control all the branches of government got them. People who wanted an excuse for a broken economy, to cover up offshoring, inadequate education, failed confidence from Enron, WorldCom, ArthurAndersen, and a generation of Wall Street snake oil salesmen, got their excuse. People who wanted tax shirking got it. People who wanted racial profiling and massive privacy invasion got it. People who wanted government handouts to their welfare states, at the cost of $trillions in debt, got all that. And all the oil profiteers got $60:barrel oil, which costs little more to extract and sell than when it was $25. And of course they got federal tax credits for buying SUVs that get <15MPG, rather than 50MPG alternative energy vehicles.

But only if you embraced terror: became a terrorist. People who didn't, like the Democrats, didn't get what they wanted. They didn't get their candidate in the White House, because they didn't get a big noise in the media about how the Qaeda specifically planned to avoid attacking the US. Freedom lovers haven't gotten the rest of the 1990s "peace dividend", like forcing China to stop its tyranny with the "market power of the US" - because the businesses which own the new Chinese industries, and their American markets, are profiting from the fear that distracts from the perpetual terrorism that keeps their Chinese slaves in line. And we didn't get Osama bin Laden. WHERE'S OSAMA? Where's that "democratic Iraq", the "quelled Iraqi threat to American security"? It's with those who failed to embrace terror: on the ash heap of history.

The lists of who got what, and who didn't, line up perfectly on who "embraces and extends" terrorism, and who doesn't. And it's not just "who's for and who's against". Because Democrats, the losers in the political duopoly, have been just as "against" terrorism in their laws and policies, as Republicans. Republicans, however, have cast Democrats as preferring "therapy" to "killing" for terrorists, though that's a vicious lie. But that way to scare Americans about Democrats is successful terrorism, using planebombs as fuel for political power. Really, there's little difference between the Qaeda and the Bush uses of terrorism. The planebombs and tube-bombs are attacks, they're sabotage of our essential infrastructure. But they're really just the necessary spark for the actual terrorism, the terror perpetuated in the media and among people. Just like the Taliban who conquered Afghanistan on the spark of repeling the Soviets with "Islam", the neocons are conquering America on the spark of repeling the "liberals" with Christian evangelism: the Christaliban who back Bush with faith. Regardless of what you believe about conspiracies among people in Washington to allow or encourage a "Pearl Harbor event" to justify their neocon agenda, it's undeniable that some have rode the wave of fear with skill and aplomb. So we're going to get nothing but more terrorism, with the minimum of actual bombs that destroy corporate property. We're going to get more fear, more lies, more abuse. Until we wake up and reject the terror, dispelled by knowledge, and eradicate the terrorists. Starting with those in Washington and the corporate media who are closest, and doing most of the damage. Cleansing the TSA of thse lying tyrants would be a good start.

Re:Terror Is as Terror Does

[Doc Ruby]

Look, I live in NYC. Where every day is "just another day in Detroit". And of course the day of 9/11/2001 was different: 3000 people were killed, the biggest building complex in the world exploded, passenger jets slammed into the city. Controlled by 10 of the biggest assholes we've seen in our lifetime. In New York City, not famous for "anger management". And in the weeks that followed the attacks, it was difficult or impossible to distinguish the attacks from the terror they caused. No patience for any rationality: fear and anger were all we had time for. That is, of course, the entire point of terrorism.

But there is a distinction between the attack and the terror it causes. The causal relationship not only unites the attacks and the terror, it distinguishes between them. Which is an essential distinction. Because the attackers were dead after the attack was complete, after the planes hit the buildings. After that, the terror was carried and spread by us, the targets. We had no control over the attackers, at least once they'd hijacked the planes. But we do have some degree of self-control. When we recognize that the fear is doing even more damage than the planebombs - the Iraq War, for example, and the ongoing destructions of rights and property in the name of the Terror War - we have to recognize that we're attacking ourselves with the perpetuated fear. Which is something we have some control over, so we must stop it.

All fear comes from ignorance. Most fear comes from the unknown, and the mind's projection of "worst case" overkill in searching for solutions to problems that at least won't be "too weak". Fear perpetuates a state of irrationality, which prevents learning the knowledge that could stop the fear cycle, so the fear->ignorance->fear cycle gets locked in. And even fear of real threats comes from ignorance of the effective defense. The only way to fight the fear is at its root, with knowledge. That knowledge lets us react with focus and clarity, actually solving the real problem.

Like forcing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to stop creating terrorists and sponsoring their networks. Not invading Iraq to create new ones. Not locking down our societies into a Christian version of the medieval fear camps in which the Taliban fester. The reactions we've taken in the US are the reflexes of fear, striking at the inner monsters we had already, regardless of their relation to the Qaeda and their network of attackers.

Britain has more experience with terrorism than does the US. The IRA, centuries of defense from asymmetric warfare, the levelheaded, understated manner that keeps emotions from spiraling into counterproductive control of the situation. My words might fall on ears deaf from the screams in the London tube stations. But that grip of fear must last only briefly. If we want to beat the fear, beat the terror, beat the terrorists, we must learn to keep our heads, and not do most of their dirty work by spreading the terror ourselves. We can be angry, we can be violent, but only if we counterattack the actual causes of the fear will we stop the fear itself.

Brilliant Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sick and tired of all the stupid libertarians/liberals here always misunderestimating the President, whose only goal is to keep us all safe from harm.

Terrorists hate America because they hate our freedom, right? By taking away Americans' freedom, you effectively remove the terrorist threat. Take that Osama Hussein!

Re:Its all about Bush, isnt it

[Peaceful_Patriot]

"We're supposed to be the party of God..."

Give me a break! This is an example of Republican brainwashing of the ignorant masses. Your party has no claim to God, there are good dedicated Christians in every political party. Perhaps you mean you are the party of radical Christian fundalmentalists which feel free to ram their religious beliefs down everyone else's throat. There are many Middle Eastern countries which have fundalmentalist leaders who also consider themselves the 'Party of God.' You have more in common with those close-minded mullahs than you would like to believe.