Slashdot Mirror


CDC Wants to Track Travelers

gearspring writes "According to Government Health IT the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wants your email address, your mobile phone number, names of your traveling companions, your name, your address, and your emergency contacts name, address, and phone number. This information would be gathered by airlines, travel agents, and online reservation systems for all travelers. Their goal is to protect us in the event of a pandemic. The SARS crisis showed them the difficulty of notifying people that they may have been exposed to a disease. It is a noble goal, but couldn't they do this anonymously?"

28 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by general_re · · Score: 5, Funny
    It is a noble goal, but couldn't they do this anonymously?

    Anonymously? What, will they use a war-dialer to randomly notify people that someone somewhere was likely exposed to a new strain of bird flu? Maybe a really big phone tree?

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    1. Re:Huh? by general_re · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A) How is that anonymous? They have your phone number, after all. Presumably, the federal government has the resources to tie that to your name in the event of an emergency, right?

      B) That's great for Europe and the rest of the world, but the next influenza pandemic doesn't seem likely to originate in Vienna or Nice. Does Ho Chi Minh city have such a system in place? Something makes me doubt it.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    2. Re:Huh? by general_re · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But what does Ho Chi Minh city have to do with this alerting system.

      I suspect that the idea is to be able to find people who have been in contaminated areas after the fact, so that they can be monitored and quarantined if necessary. I doubt the idea is to preemptively notify people before they travel to high risk areas - rather, it's to find people who just left Phnom Penh to return to the States, now that people in Phnom Penh (or wherever) are suddenly dropping like flies.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  2. Anonymous Notification? by HardCase · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is a noble goal, but couldn't they do this anonymously?

    It just begs the question, doesn't it?

  3. Anonymously? How? by Bargearse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The submitter asks "couldn't they do this anonymously?"

    Err.. probably not. Even if you only gave them a phone number, or an e-mail address, you wouldn't be anonymous any more. And if you didn't give them any personally identifying information, how would they be able to contact you?

    Besides, I think I'd want to know that I'd possibly contracted some deadly disease, rather than remain anonymous :)

    --
    "Don't break my arse, my bargey wargey arse, I don't think my pants would understand..."
  4. read the article! by penguin-collective · · Score: 4, Informative
    It is not the CDC that "wants" your address, they want the airline to keep that information on file so that they can get it if they need it:
    The regulations will require airlines to collect and maintain in an electronic database the following passenger information:

    Almost all airlines keep that information already in some form (for marketing, frequent flyer programs, etc.), they just may be too disorganized to be able to respond to CDC requests. This would require them to be able to do that. I don't see a problem with that. This kind of mandate would even be compatible with a strict data retention and privacy standard that requires deletion of all customer data after, say, a couple of weeks.
  5. Homeless? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's easy, I'm homeless and have no friends. Maybe I'm not, but how are they going to know?
    No address, no contacts, no email, no phone. Are you going to deny someone travel because they can't afford these things? Or choose not to have them?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Homeless? by Nato_Uno · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, you can be denied travel for not having an address, etc. No address or contact info will almost certainly result in no government issued ID. No government issued ID, no travel.

      For more details, see:
            http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm

      --

      Have fun,

      Nathan 'Nato' Uno
      http://web.unos.net/
    2. Re:Homeless? by bodrell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      All the tinfoil-hatters need to band together, invest, and start a budget airline where there is NO I.D. required, no searches, no security. See how many people fly such an airline.

      There may be some people who want to get rid of searches and security altogether, but it's the ID requirement that is really onerous. If you allow the airlines to search your bags, you walk through a metal detector, you even allow them to search your person, then why the hell do they need to see a photo ID as well? Does a lack of ID suddenly make a person dangerous?

      I'm happy to go through even a pastiche of a security check that will weed out the stupidest criminals.

      I guess that's where we're different. I don't like to submit to false authority. I suppose you would also be happy to have your house or car searched without a warrant, and would gladly spread your cheeks for a cavity search. I actually appreciate the constitutional prohibition on unlawful search and seizure (what's left of it, after the Reagan regime). Civil liberties don't protect themselves--but I must be old-fashioned for caring about an antiquated document like the Bill of Rights. And no, Big Brother doesn't have mind-reading satellites, but that's on their wish list, now that they have Eschelon, the PATRIOT Act, and the ability to jail citizens indefinitely without trial.

      Let's be clear. Without a government-issued ID there is no actual prohibition on TRAVEL. There is, however, the ability for COMMERCIAL, PRIVATE transport companies (be they bus, train, plane, ferry, whatever) to REFUSE SERVICE to people failing to present such an ID.

      Let's be clear. You are obviously misinformed, unaware of the fact that the government is requiring airlines to ask for ID, citing a secret law that does not exist on the books. How would you like to be convicted of violating a law that you aren't allowed to read, and just take the police's word it exists? How could a lawyer possibly defend a client against such a law? That sounds pretty close to a definition of "police state," or at least some nightmarish Kafka story.

      I hate sloppy language, especially when it's used by chicken-littles to suggest we're moving toward a police state...like the hypocrites at Cryptome.

      You hate sloppy language? Here's something that should be straight-forward for you: we're moving toward a police state. That's not a suggestion, but a fact. If you can't see that, you're more oblivious than the "stupidest criminals" you mentioned. Start paying attention.

      --
      Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
  6. For the greater good by Venik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Back home in the good old days KGB used to collect this sort of information. Just in case you get sick and they need to give you a shot.

  7. Cutting paper by ian_mackereth · · Score: 3, Funny

    and they need to collect it electronically because, when they used to print it out on a piece of paper, those slips were often confiscated at check-in because terrorists could threaten to give someone a really nasty paper cut with it...

  8. Whaaa? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    There goal is to protect us in the event of a pandemic.

    Cool! And what about here goal?

  9. The Brilliant Way to start... by fenodyree · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Frell Security! My privacy for security, poor trade, look at Britain...

    But my health, my child's health! Definitely worth while to store all this information, in the case of an outbreak and all!

  10. Re:Why this isn't bad... by teaserX · · Score: 4, Insightful
    /troll=on
    ...you know right where to tagert the tactical nukes,thus preventing them from infecting the rest of the population or at least significantly reducing their impact.

    /troll=off

    Seriously, you're right about how it *should* work,but pandemics are rare and it's only a matter of time before someone decides that all data that cost so much to collect is going to waste. Then there's the transitive rational that ruins the whole privacy aspect the CDC is tryin to maintain ie-> "terrorism is an infectious disease" or "the disease was spread *by* terrorists" and now the (insert TLA here) has access to that info immediately until the end of time.

    Just wait till the collection agency gets a turn.

    --
    We really need your help
    http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
  11. I don't buy this by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There [sic] goal is to protect us in the event of a pandemic.

    Sure, but who's going to protect us from them? I'm always leery of people wanting to "protect" me without being asked to do so. And if the airport questionnaire asks "Do you have stairs in your house?", then I think I'd rather walk.

    --

    Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
  12. We need a constitutional amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Privacy rights seem to be eroding every single day. The military wants the right to spy on US citizens without a warrant. The FBI wants functionality built into VoIP systems so they can eavesdrop without leaving the office. And now the CDC wants to collect details not only on who you are and how to contact you, but also who your acquaintances are.

    With the seemingly never-ending erosion of privacy these days, congress needs to pass a constitutional amendment that puts clear restrictions on what data the government can collect, under what conditions, and what the government can do with this sort of data. There also needs to be clear standards for violating people's constitutional rights.

    Without some very clear constitutional restrictions, this erosion of privacy will continue forever. Next the DOJ will want your list of acquaintances so they can track down terrorists. Then the CDC will want stores to identify everyone that purchased something and when. Then they will want cell phone companies to give them constant updates on where people are.

    You would think that the fourth amendment would be clear enough:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    But then it was decided this amendment should only apply to seizures, not searches. It was further decided that it was okay to bar people from doing anything unless they "voluntarily" surrendered this right every time they board a plane, buy a bus ticket, enter a federal building, an so on.

  13. Re:anti-govt attitude by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but if I have to pick between freedom and safety I will usually pick safety then you don't deserve either.

  14. our right to privacy by plbg32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    info on us can be collected on us under many precepts by our goverment and accessed by any in goverment. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 enough said....

  15. CDC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the Cult of the Dead Cow has gone from crackers to trackers.
    Yes, it all makes perfect sense!

  16. Unfortunately.... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mr. Bush has already made his intentions clear .

    He has publicly stated if a pandemic strikes there will be martial law, and
    the national guard, state police, local police, and "other" authorities will
    block "all" travel .

    My quetion to this is , who is gonna stop the birds from flying around ???

    Want to take that to a WHOLE new level ???

    http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8788

    Remember the civet cat and Sars ???? Oh my, guess what .

    This virus is changing, and it is not done changing .

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8372

    If this thing becomes transmitible to the common house cat, killing and eating birds in
    every city that has alley cats . We got ourselves a recipe for a bad situation .

    Another point of this strain that is being missed is the mortality rate so far .

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=5596

    If this thing kicks off at anywhere near this supposed 75%, it will be worse than the plague .

    Some current numbers put it under 50% and lets hope it becomes less deadly as it mutates .

    Keep in mind the 1918 pandemic was 2 - 5%, and not with modern medicine .

    This has the potential for a major catastrophe .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

    20 - 50 million world wide died in a time before widespread food shipment and travel .

    A pandemic has reoccured with regularity every few decades, but this is shaping up to be
    the deadliest in modern times if the mortality rates are anywhere near what they are now .

    I hope all countries around the world take this VERY seriously .

    Ex-MislTech

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    1. Re:Unfortunately.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Funny

      If this thing becomes transmitible to the common house cat, killing and eating birds in
      every city that has alley cats . We got ourselves a recipe for a bad situation .


      We'll be safe. When (if ever) do you think was the last time a slashdotter got any pussy?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  17. Is any of this stuff *that* private? by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm having trouble seeing how this is such a terrible thing... take a look at what they're proposing to collect, FTFA [numbered items, below... italics are my comments]
    1. First, last and middle names, in addition to suffixes.
      You already have to provide your name due to security regulations. So I don't see how there's any change there, really.
    2. Current home address, including street, apartment number, city, state/province and ZIP code
      If you want to book travel, chances are you already provided this, in the form of a billing address, or a shipping address... so I don't see why this would be a big deal.
    3. Mobile, home or pager phone numbers
      Not too hard to give a fake one, and really, if you want to take the risk of being out-of-contact when the CDC is trying to contact you to tell you you have just been exposed to some sort of new strain of Hemorrhagic Fever... hey, it's your ass that's bleeding, not mine. :)
    4. E-mail address
      Okay, perhaps a stretch. But again, not too hard to set up a hotmail account, "mikes_garbage_email@hotmail.com", and provide that. You never even have to check it, if you don't want to.
    5. Passport or travel document, including the issuing country or organization
      I'm not sure of the regs on this, but it would seem to me that using your passport when you travel would get tracked somewhere in some government database already.
    6. Traveling companions or group
      And if you don't want to say who you're traveling with? Say you're traveling alone... not so hard, is it? What are they, going to deny you access to the airplane because you talked to someone while waiting in line?
    7. Flight information, including date, airline, flight number and return flight details
      Well, seems to me the airline would already know this, since you booked yourself on the flight and purchased tickets... so I think this falls in the "already tracked" category.
    8. Name, address and phone number of an emergency contact
      Again, not a particularly unreasonable request... but not hard to give bogus info if you really wanted to, either.


    I guess I'm just having a lot of trouble seeing this as any sort of risk or violation of privacy, as I think most of this stuff would either be: a) already tracked, or b) easy to look up given that you HAVE to give your name to get on the plane... with a name and a credit card number, I'd imagine it would be pretty straightforward to track down pretty much anybody. (And let's be honest... sure, you could probably pay cash to buy the ticket... but how many people are REALLY going to do that?) It seems to me that this would simply allow the CDC to speed up the data collection... which means that it would take them 3 days to notify me I've been exposed to the new Ultra-death-killer SARS strain on my return flight from Singapore... rather than 2 weeks later, when I've already developed a strange cough . . . :)
  18. Nothing to see here, move along... by core+plexus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the "Don't Panic" machines are running on double overdrive.

    There this piece from the Alaska HSS: "Although the recent spread of avian influenza to Europe is a major agricultural and economic threat, it is not a pandemic.

    Scientists and public health experts agree that we cannot stop an influenza pandemic, but we can control and limit disease and death through early detection and a well-planned response. In Alaska, disease-monitoring systems are in place for detection of influenza.

    Call me paranoid, but it looks like a multi-pronged approach. "See, there's no chance of a pandemic, it's an economic crises. But just in case, we'd like to get your information, and here a small chip we would like to plant just under your skin, temporarily. Thanks."

    I live in the air crossroads (Alaska), for birds and people, and I'm not taking any chances, but I'm not going to panic, either.

    I see that Alaska has been monitoring the Avian Flu since at least 2000.

  19. Re:anti-govt attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If that means that I sacrifice some of my freedom for the safety of the general public, so be it.

    Then on that premise, I demand the government install cameras in everyones homes to stop drug abuse, to stop domestic violence, to stop bomb making, to stop religious cults, to stop all manner of evil deeds that are plotted and conducted in the privacy of peoples homes.

    You see where that reasoning gets you? It's a huge slippery slope. You need to decide where to draw the line in the sand. I would recommend you get yourself a history book and start reading. What I know of history tells me that you draw the line in the sand as far away from your home and personal life as possible, or you'll end up with no home and personal life.

    Freedom is dangerous. That's the way it is. Maybe you're happy with a big brother watching over you, but I don't want that.

    And I thought the basis of the civil rights movement was that everyone was equal.

    This is MY life. I don't owe you or anyone else anything. You don't pay my bills. You don't bear my burdens. You don't fight my demons. You don't share my triumphs.

    Your "equal rights" do not extend to MY life. Equal rights mean that we are dealt with equally according to the law. It does not mean that you get an equal cut of my labor, or of my freedom. I don't want your freedom, why they hell do you want mine? I'll tell you this, you'll have a great chance of survival against an infectious disease, than against your fellow citizens rising up against you when you try to take away their rights.

  20. Big brother is your friend by Belseth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All they seem to have to do anymore is claim something will make us safer and most americans will offer up their Bic lighters to help burn the Constitution. Just how much information about everything we do does the government really need? Several thousand people die in the 9/11 attack and they offer up the constitution on a platter. 20X that many die from the flu every year in this country and there's no out cry. It was tragic but isn't heading down the police state road and making tin foil hats mandatory a bit of an over reaction? This flu may be as bad as claimed but I still remember the swine flu scare in the 70s and SARS just happened. It's important to take these threats seriously but over reaction gives the bad guys in the government more power and threatens to make people suspect the next time around, cry wolf anyone? The threat is real but until it manifests the over reaction can do more harm than good. We've all but been promised it'll happen within the year yet the truth is no one knows if a human strain will show up next month, next year or ten years from now. Can we mantain DEFCON 2 for that long? The irony is over use of antivirals before it hits could leave it immune and kill far more people. Let's not start implanting tracking chips and sending people to leper colonies for a head cold just yet. Wait till there's at least one confirmed human to human transmition before we torch that abused document that protects us when we let it. Give up your privacy rights if you want but bloody well leave mine alone.

    1. Re:Big brother is your friend by RexRhino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The trouble is, that everyone has their own pet facist policy that they like. Even if someone is against the War on Terror on the basis that it restricts freedom, or is unconstitutional... nearly all people support some blatently restrictive or unconstitutional policy.

      For example, do you support one of the following?

      1. Gun Control
      2. "Hate Speech" Censorship Laws
      3. IRS Auditing (forcing people to PROVE they are innocent of tax violations, instead of the other way around)
      4. Forced Public Education
      5. Eminent Domain
      6. "War on Drugs" and Drug control
      7. "Campaign Finance Reform" (political censorship laws)
      8. Copyrights
      9. Banning "Dangerous" animals
      10. Public "Decentcy" Laws (anti-pornography cencorship)
      11. Manditory Enviornmental Inspections (forcing people to PROVE they are innocent of enviornmental violations, instead of the other way around)
      12. Sobriety Checkpoints
      13. Laws against polyigamy.
      14. Restricting people from promoting religion in public. (street corner preachers and such)
      15. Restricting protests around abortion clinics.

      That is just a few. Nearly everyone I know who rails against "The Patriot Act" or some other policy that is fashionable to hate, supports nearly all the restrictive, unconstitutional policies mentioned above. Even if you don't support most of them, it is almost garanteed that you support at least some of them.

      The first part of realizing what happened in America (and what is happening elsewhere), is to realize you are part of the problem. You may not support the "Patriot Act", but that doesn't mean you are for freedom. Hardcore totalitarian Marxists are against the Patriot Act... people are against the Patriot Act because it is politicly unfashionable, or because it is promoted by a party that is considered "right wing". But lets focus on the restrictions of freedom, of exceptions to the constitution that you support.

      If you are a leftist, and you speak out against citizen disarmament (gun control), or you speak out against feminists wanting to ban the Miss Universe pagent, or speak out against throwing people in jail for expressing controversial political beliefs on campus, you are going to be much more effective in promoting freedom that you would protesting the Patriot Act, or emergency powers to prevent bird flu, or whatever.

      You need to eliminate the hatred of freedom from your own political ideology before you can work on someone elses hatred of freedom.

  21. But it won't help *you* by manarth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if *you* are said traveller, handing over all this information won't help you. So you go to Singapore, fly back, and suddenly Singapore has a SARS outbreak. You won't need the CDC to phone you - it'll be all over the news.

    The information will be used so that they can track the disease's spread across the country. It's not Patient Zero (that's P0 for the USA, not P0 for the disease) they'll be helping...given the speed of bureaucracy they'll never reach P0 before symptoms set in.

    Being able to examine an outbreak - and trace it back to a P0 - will allow them to work back up the tree via P1, P2, P3...and predict further outbreaks based on their behaviour.

    --
  22. Yes, on a bus by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Informative
    I believe Greyhound/Trailways are still completely anonymous. And I believe Amtrak was anonymous until just a few months ago. I can understand the desire for requiring ID for airline travel, but I don't like it (and would vote against it given the opportunity, which, of course, we never are). But requiring ID for train travel definitely crosses the line, as it is much more difficult (nothing is impossible :-) to turn a train into a missile capable of broad destruction beyond the train itself.

    (Trivia digression: when did ID for airlines start? Answer: after the 1996 TWA "non-terrorism" crash. Wow, that ID stuff was really effective, wasn't it?)

    TFA/CDC may have mentioned only airlines, but of course it would be extended to all forms of travel. Pretty clever, actually -- it's easier to sell the idea of ID'ing on buses for the bird flu than it is for terrorism.

    And I didn't see a link for it in any of the +5 comments, so here is Gilmore v. Gonzales, John Gilmore's attempt to challenge the practice of ID'ing at airports.