Slashdot Mirror


Identity Theft From Tossed Airline Boarding Pass?

crush writes "The Guardian newspaper has a great story about how the gathering of information for 'anti-terrorist' passenger screening databases allowed a reporter and security guru Adam Laurie to lay the groundwork for stealing the identity of a business traveller by using his discarded boarding-pass stub." From the article: "We logged on to the BA website, bought a ticket in Broer's name and then, using the frequent flyer number on his boarding pass stub, without typing in a password, were given full access to all his personal details - including his passport number, the date it expired, his nationality (he is Dutch, living in the UK) and his date of birth. The system even allowed us to change the information."

297 comments

  1. Boycott by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ever since 9/11, I refuse to travel by air. Not because of the scary terrorists, but because of my scary government. While the article talks about a UK program with bad security, the author is clear that this is all because of pressure from the United States.

    I sent an email to the TSA a while ago telling them that I despise their spying programs and I am boycotting the airline industry. I don't want to be treated like a second-class citizen, spyed on, and my rights violated. Sure, the majority of airline passengers don't have a problem, but there are a significant quantity that do hit security snags on a daily basis. What has this increased illusion of security bought us? Pork. We haven't caught terrorists because of spending on ineffective security programs. Each alleged terrorist since 9/11 was caught because of people. People who thought something was wrong -- the shoe bomber who had trouble with his bomb, and passengers and flight attendants handled the situation. Not computers, not databases. People.

    As far as I'm concerned, the airline industry can rot in hell for giving in to government pressure. They know these security programs do nothing more than waste money on pork and make certain politicians feel smug, earning brownie points with their constituents. Until the government gets a clue, I will not fly. If the airlines suffer, so be it. Money is what drives this country. Maybe when the government realizes that the airlines aren't making money, someone, somewhere, will get a clue and start implementing good security that does not violate our privacy.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    1. Re:Boycott by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. Dutch citiczen. UK government. Still US's fault.

      No, I am not a fan on the war on freedom^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorism. But get over it. Both countries are capable of putting together a more secure system. Quit blaming the US for all the world's problems.

      This assumes the guardian is reporting a true story. They have been know to be free with the truth.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Boycott by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Wow. Dutch citiczen. UK government. Still US's fault.

      Maybe you should have read the article before commenting:
      [the boarding pass] would also serve as the perfect tool for demonstrating the chaotic collection, storage and security of personal information gathered as a result of America's near-fanatical desire to collect data on travellers flying to the US....
      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    3. Re:Boycott by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you shouldn't automatically suck down everything a news article tells you. I did RTFA. However, the US is allowed to make lawas about who can come into their country. Other countries have to respect those rules. If those countries choose to allow insecure systems like this to come into place, then that is THEIR problem, not ours.

      Our problem is that we have elected people who put moronic rules into place.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Guardian's a respectable broadsheet. It's left leaning (not extreme) and doesn't hide this but the only method of being free with the truth they've generally used is to report in a left leaning way (in other words, they don't have the reputation of lying, just being a little bias). That said, it's also a left wing government they're critisising (new labour) so go figure.

    5. Re:Boycott by Guilly · · Score: 1

      Those countries have nothing to do with this. Its foreign, private companies who have to comply with the US rules and they have absolutly no incentive to do so. Then they develop cheap solutions to those requirements.

    6. Re:Boycott by chiskop · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This assumes the guardian is reporting a true story. They have been know to be free with the truth.

      Reference, please.

    7. Re:Boycott by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      British Airlines, to my knowledge, has to comply with the laws of the U.K. If I am incorrect in this, please let me know. I am always willing to admit I'm wrong (I'm married after all).

      By the same logic, I blame the US for lax identity theft laws when I hear about ABC company divulging information about tens of thousands of their customers. A company will do what is profitable. It is their job. When governments let companies get away with murder, I place the blame on the gov't for not having a tight enough leash.

      British Airlines has a crap system. The U.K. apparently is not doing enough to ensure their companies take this stuff seriously.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:Boycott by iago · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm just happy Richard Reid wasn't the underwear bomber.

      --
      Worst Sig Ever
    9. Re:Boycott by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, the US is allowed to make lawas about who can come into their country.

      Indeed they are. Good thing the rest of us are allowed to take a hint and decide we're not welcome. Guess we'll just go somewhere else with our business.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    10. Re:Boycott by JamieKitson · · Score: 0
      > This assumes the guardian is reporting a true story. They have been know to be free with the truth.

      Right, damned liberal press!!!111ONE

    11. Re:Boycott by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your reply is the only logical response I have seen yet :) I agree with you wholeheartedly, though it is very disheartening as well. The US's success has been based on freedoms, and welcoming anyone who wants to be a part of that freedom. With the laws we have passed, we have pissed on that legacy.

      I voted for Bush in the first term. And for that, I am very sorry. Sadly, the other party isn't any better. I don't see things improving.

      So while your reply makes me sad, it is the logical response to what we have told the world.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    12. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This assumes the guardian is reporting a true story. They have been know to be free with the truth.

      I recently flew on BA. You log in to manage your bookings with your "reference number" and last name. It seems entirely possible that their frequent flier data is equally secure. (But I love BA...)

    13. Re:Boycott by aug24 · · Score: 1
      I suggest you RTFA. There's a pretty short line between US border requirements and this problem - and it doesn't help catch terrorists whatsoever.

      Perhaps your 'Don't blame the US' line is every bit as much a knee-jerk reaction as you think the 'Blame the US' line is?

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    14. Re:Boycott by mgblst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I flew from Sydney to Vancouver, and the plane happened to stop in Honolulu for refueling. Since Honolulu is in the US, every single person had to get off the plane, have their picture taken, and be finger printed. Then we all got back on, and flew the rest of the way to Canada. It took 2 hours, for nothing. Nobody was staying in Honolulu, we only wanted some fuel. Thanks US.

      And surprisingly, they didn't catch any terrorists that day, either.

    15. Re:Boycott by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I read the article, and it appears more like the BA.com website is the one at fault here for not verifying his frequent flier code and details.

      They went online and ordered a ticket in his name, presumably using someone elses credit card (who can obviously be traced), then after confirming the ticket entered his frequent flier code.
      This is where it went wrong, and it would be the same if John Smith (a real person) managed to get hold of another John Smith's frequent flier code.

      This isn't ID theft in so much as lax security and checking on the BA website.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    16. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British Airways has to comply with the rules of the UK for any flights which begin and terminate entirely inside the UK. But when they fly to the US, they must obey the rules set by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration, the US' highest civil aviation authority) and the TSA (Transportation Security Administration, which has no real purpose). It is so much easier to fly through the EU than it is to fly to the US because the US is still so new at this 'security' game.

    17. Re:Boycott by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      "As far as I'm concerned, the airline industry can rot in hell for giving in to government pressure."

      Government pressure? Not really. More like Government Ownage. And I think that happened a long time ago. Think about it.

      You're right, though, on the people=security thing. The caliber of people recruited for the TSA positions really don't give a rat's hiney whether the planes make it there or not. The policies are created and implemented by the same caliber of people over the DMV's.

      You get real results on a project by people who have a stake in the success of the project - in this case, by the people climbing onto the airplanes.

      You wouldn't have an X-ray machine operator falling asleep at his station if he was going to be on the plane sitting next to that bag he just scanned...

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    18. Re:Boycott by Shellbear · · Score: 0

      The laws were put into effect to keep those who would like to destroy our freedoms out. This isn't about keeping out immigrants, it's about security. The fact that we have freedoms doesn't mean that we don't have the right to make regulations on who does and doesn't enter our country. There's nothing that says they have the *right* to come here: it's a privilege, not a right.

      I'm not saying the rules are effective, just clarifying why they were put in place....

    19. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reference, please.

      This is the Guardian. It's not far removed from a tabloid. Google is your friend.

    20. Re:Boycott by Zanthor · · Score: 1

      My question would be how much of an impact is your boycot having?

      Did you fly regularly before? If so, how are you now traveling?

      Keep in mind the guy who flies twice a year isn't going to impact the airlines. The guy who flies twice a week will. But hows he going to suppliment his travel?

      --

      Zanthor

    21. Re:Boycott by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 1

      I can't boycott flying. If I don't fly, I don't work.

      That doesn't mean I put up with the TSA silently. I got so tired of getting groped by them without warning (twice on the same trip!) that I now wear nothing but spandex when going through security. Haven't been patted down since.

      Of course, my bags still get X-rayed, and every time my carryon goes through security at MSP it gets hand searched because, they claim, any bag with a CPAP (machine for treating sleep apnea) must be hand-searched. Of course, that's only at MSP.

      The TSA's job is not aviation security. That's a guy on board with a gun and the willingness to use it to defend others. The TSA's job is airline passenger harassment. The more people are harassed in the name of aviation security, the safer they feel, and the more likely they are to keep flying. It's in the TSA's best interest to hassle passengers as much as they will stand for while still continuing to fly. That's how they decide what security measures to use.

      --
      Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    22. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like you could do with anonet!

    23. Re:Boycott by azhrei_fje · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They know these security programs do nothing more than waste money on pork and make certain politicians feel smug, earning brownie points with their constituents.

      This is right on.

      The next time you visit an airport, ask yourself what would happen if a terrorist didn't wait until they got all the way to the metal detectors and X-ray machines before detonating an explosive device. As a business traveler, I've logged a million miles on one airline and hundreds of thousands on other airlines. Any idiot who wanted to wreak havoc could tell that the place to detonate such a device would be while standing in front of the security machines: you'd take out a bunch of people and render that section of the airport unusable.

      So what do you do to fix it? Obvious: move the screening center further up. (And before you hit Reply, I know that wouldn't work. I'm j/k.)

      I'm not posting as an AC. Maybe that's risky -- we all know that the U.S. government snoops on its citizens -- and I really can't afford to defend myself against the likes of Gonzales. But I can trust in my country's Constitution and hope that those in power won't abuse it. (That's naive. But maybe with enough press coverage I wouldn't get shafted too bad.) But without open discussion that provokes thoughtful responses, how will anything get any better?

    24. Re:Boycott by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That's not why the rules are in place, that's why the rules are claimed to be in place.

      The rules are actually in place for two different reasons:

      One, because security theatre is the sole thing our current Administration has ever been efficent at. The actual stopping of threats, or responding to disasters after the fact, or acting in the political stage to put pressure on said threats, it doesn't quite understand that yet. Nor does it, apparently, understand how to invade a county.(1) But it sure has 'running around looking like it's doing something' down pat.

      The UK, sad to say, appears to be one of the few countries to actually either fall for this, or be willing to play along. (I don't know UK politics well enough to know which.) I've lost almost as much respect for the UK as for the US for putting up with their government.

      Two, because the airline industry is a confusopoly, and hence is threatened by the large amount of information available online. If this keeps up, it won't be able to sell some tickets for six times as much as other tickets in the same class on the same flight. A large part of fighting this is assuring that tickets cannot be resold under any circumstances, which is what many of these 'security' measures are designed to prevent.

      1) I say 'apparently' because, hey, I don't either. But, then again, I haven't tried to invade two of them, and I'm not gearing up to do it a third time.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    25. Re:Boycott by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      presumably using someone elses credit card (who can obviously be traced)

      Yes, because people commiting identity theft would never stoop so low as to use stolen credit cards!

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    26. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What bothers me is while I am forced to strip off my shoes, belt, hat, etc from my person before being allowed into the gate area of an airport, the U.S. border is a leaking sieve for Russians, Mexicans, Arabs, Hondurans, etc to just run across, leading to a giant underground network of illegal aliens, all with various often-nefarious agendas.

      Yep, hundreds of thousands of lawnmowers, cooks, janitors, etc are crossing the border every month along with gangsters, terrorists, and smugglers of drugs / people. But the US government is much more concerned about what's in my Sketchers as I walk into an airport.

      Makes lots of sense, don't it?

    27. Re:Boycott by samkass · · Score: 1

      You would have a good point if it were true.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    28. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is, our security agencies should only attempt to identify people entering our country only if we alredy know they're a terrorist? How the hell are they supposed to do that?

    29. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I flew from Sydney to Vancouver, and the plane happened to stop in Honolulu for refueling. Since Honolulu is in the US, every single person had to get off the plane, have their picture taken, and be finger printed.

      Not everyone. USians and Canadians are exempt.

      Then we all got back on, and flew the rest of the way to Canada. It took 2 hours, for nothing. Nobody was staying in Honolulu, we only wanted some fuel. Thanks US.

      Having been on the Vancouver-Sydney flight more than once, I assure you that many people get on & off in Honolulu on their way to/from Oz. I did.

    30. Re:Boycott by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The laws were put into effect to keep those who would like to destroy our freedoms out."

      Nonsense. This will do nothing to prevent terrorism.

      "it's about security."

      No. It's about creating an illusion of security, to mask a power grab.

      "it's a privilege, not a right."

      You seem to think that the founding documents of the United States are a list of things humans are allowed to do. You need to read them again.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    31. Re:Boycott by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm so glad you said the same thing I've been saying for a long time re: someone wanting to do harm not waiting to get on the plane. The line of people waiting to get screened is just as viable a target as an entire plane.

      Want to really cause panic in the air traffic system and probably get it shut down? Get you and four of your friends to do the same thing at five different airports at the same time on the same day. Say 12 noon eastern time the day before Thansksgiving.

      If anyone from any three letter agency is going through an apoplectic fit because I just said this, get a clue. If this isn't in your contingency plans then what the hell are you doing with my money?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    32. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I flew from Sydney to Vancouver, and the plane happened to stop in Honolulu for refueling. Since Honolulu is in the US, every single person had to get off the plane, have their picture taken, and be finger printed. Then we all got back on, and flew the rest of the way to Canada. It took 2 hours, for nothing. Nobody was staying in Honolulu, we only wanted some fuel. Thanks US.

      That didn't have anything to do with security... We just like to torment people who speak with funny accents.

    33. Re:Boycott by Bill+Kilgore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I fully expect that will be the next "terrorist" attack. Coordinated bombings of TSA checkpoints. It's a hilarious concept, until someone actually does it.

      As others here have implied, TSA is for show. So the masses of sheeple "feel safe". It also provides the government with a great tool to build up the citizenry's tolerance for unconstitional searches, seizures, and assorted other indignities.

      --
      Rediculous: A word indicating the writer is ridiculously ignorant.
    34. Re:Boycott by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I voted for Bush in the first term. And for that, I am very sorry.

      I've never been a Bush fan, but pre-9/11 he was really more of an isolationist than anything else, and was tolerable if still undesirable.

      It's just been everything since that's royally sucked about him.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    35. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you don't like it, you can presently sneak across the US border via Mexico or Canada.

    36. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFL - New Labour left wing, now that is being free with the truth!!! New Labour is the result of infiltration of the Labour part by right wingers. They don't call the PM Tory Bliar for no reason at all.

    37. Re:Boycott by firl · · Score: 1

      I refuse to be fingerprinted.

      I haven't been yet, and will not, and if the goverment has mine somewhere on the database its without my permission. I probably would have refused it and tell them they could have exported me all they wanted and talked to a customer service represenative of the airline.

    38. Re:Boycott by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --By the same logic, I blame the US for lax identity theft laws when I hear about ABC company divulging information about tens of thousands of their customers. A company will do what is profitable. It is their job. When governments let companies get away with murder, I place the blame on the gov't for not having a tight enough leash.--

      Or, when companies manipulate the market to make $9+ billion in profit.

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    39. Re:Boycott by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --The laws were put into effect to keep those who would like to destroy our freedoms out.--

      It's very hard to get at our 'freedoms' when they've put them in these nice shiny lead-lined combination-locked safes huh? I mean, sure... we can't use them, but at least the boogyme...err....terrorists can't get them. Sorry, I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists, at least I know they have a point to what they're doing.

      Disclaimer because it's slashdot:
      No, I don't agree with the terrorists. I just think that having a point to what your doing instead of giving your friends jobs is a much more honorable thing to do. At least it means something to you.

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    40. Re:Boycott by Shellbear · · Score: 0

      "Nonsense. This will do nothing to prevent terrorism."
      Like I said, I didn't say they were effective...

      "No. It's about creating an illusion of security, to mask a power grab."
      I was commenting on the above poster's focus on immigration which is irrelevant to this argument.

      You seem to think that the founding documents of the United States are a list of things humans are allowed to do. You need to read them again."
      I was actually saying exactly that: the documents of the United States do not apply to all people and all "things humans are allowed to do." Maybe you need to read my post again...too many misconceptions! :-P

    41. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Sorry, but that website sounds like a whackjob conspiracy theorist's ranting. And it's not even near as good as that whackjob website claiming that no plane actually hit the pentagon.

    42. Re:Boycott by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --Into archives that will never be used or looked at until hell freezes over--

      You're new here aren't you?

      Don't you know, we're looking for tewawists. That means we *have* to compile information on every man, woman, and child that even THINKS about coming into the US.

      P.S.

      Lots of good that will do when someone HERE bombs a gas station because he is sick of being fucked in the ass by the Oil Co.

      My 2 cents

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    43. Re:Boycott by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      If you grew up in the 70-80's they have this little program called "safe kids" or some such. You can get your child fingerprinted for FREE!!! That way, if some bad person steals them, we can find them! (Not sure exactly how that works if the kid is say... locked in a closet somewhere...but *shrugs* guess the Illusion of Security started long before 9/11.)

      So, if you grew up then, or maybe before or since because I'm not sure if that still goes on, the G does have your fingerprints.

      My 2 cents

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    44. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Every one of the facts listed on that website is a matter of public record. If you wish to dispute the assertion that the 'shoe bomber' affair was a red flag operation, be so kind as to provide some facts. Just attempting to dismiss the assertion as a 'whackjob conspiracy theorist's ranting' doesn't work anymore...too many people are starting to think for themselves and question the official version of events.

      As for that 'whackjob website claiming that no plane actually hit the pentagon', have you actually read the arguments? A Boeing 757 weighs 60 tons when empty...where were all the debris? The engines should have been found at the very least, but the only part found at the crash site that could possibly belong to an aircraft engine was far too small.

      I could go on and on here, but if you're not willing to read the arguments on the 'whackjob website', you're probably not going to read them here either. Pity.

    45. Re:Boycott by Trix606 · · Score: 1

      Please mod this up as it was the first post to cut through the sensationalism and get to the crux of the problem:
        The information was returned with the simple use of the frequent flier number with no further credential check. If the site had better password protection, the author of this article would have had no story (Not to imply that this is an actual story :)). External information requirements have nothing to do with this gaffe. BA needs to take better care of their sensitive information. Even without the post 9/11 requirements they have had to deal with personal information such as credit card numbers. They should know better.

      --
      "Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology" -- Search and Destroy -- Iggy Pop
    46. Re:Boycott by carlos92 · · Score: 1
      Problem is, there will always be a risk as long as there is some freedom. And I don't think cutting freedom by half will cut risk by half or more, but it may cut business by more than half. I mean, restricting freedom will have a greater impact on legal business than on terrorism. And those restrictions can be imposed on foreign travelers, but will ultimately affect US citizens in one way or another.

      In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, I remember I thought that the greatest victory for Al-Qaeda lied not in the fact that they had conducted a successful attack on the center of economic power in the capitalist world, or that they had killed thousands of civilian "enemies". Their victory was that the greatest damage to the US would be inflicted by their own government: because of an extreme aversion to risk, the government would hurt their own society, taking away their very strength by restricting their freedoms in a futile attempt to prevent future attacks.

      It's not that the US doesn't have the right to regulate who and why enters the US. The problem is that, in the hurry, the US will throw the baby with the bathwater.

    47. Re:Boycott by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      That way, if some bad person steals them, we can find them! (Not sure exactly how that works if the kid is say... locked in a closet somewhere...but *shrugs* guess the Illusion of Security started long before 9/11.)

      You hit the nail on the head there, any thinking person with a kid old enough to know their own name should question the purpose of the fingerprints. The sad, morbid reality is - besides having them on record for future criminal searches - that it's to help identify the body and notify the parents. When a child is recovered/found and is alive but is unable to respond they go and search the missing person's reports for children of that age, since no parent* loses a kid and doesn't file a missing persons report.

      [*within reason, criminals and crackpots notwithstanding]

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    48. Re:Boycott by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

      Or the Colon Bomber!

      "It's just a security measure, sir. Please take this powerful laxative and put on this hospital gown. What, this? This is my colonoscopy camera. Yes sir. Yes, it is very big. What's that? You don't want to submit to the procedure? You must be a terrorist... or un-American."

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
    49. Re:Boycott by houghi · · Score: 1

      That is the samedefence Microsoft uses. Telling people and countries they have a choice while in reality they have not.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    50. Re:Boycott by firl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they had that and they had a cool fingerprinting class field trip to the county jailhouse. I said no when i was like 7, was one of the only ones to do so.

    51. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have new socks on!

    52. Re:Boycott by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Don't people have any memory any more?

      This is the fault of the US. The US, post-911, brought out new guidelines for foreign carriers, similar to the ones for US-based carriers. They then told the foreign carriers - and the governments of the carriers - that they would be refused landing permissions in the US if they did not collect the data as listed under the guidelines and make it available to the US. To add insult to injury, they also insisted this data be available for _all_ international flights, not just those inbound to the US. (The rationale for this is to detect people taking indirect routes)

      The French government and carriers fought this for a while and caved - it made the news because a whole heap of flights got cancelled from France, stranding a lot of tourists (mostly American tourists). The rest of the world caved without the fight - the US is too important a destination for most international airlines to ignore.

      (You can feel free to blame British Airways for the insecure system, though)

      So it's perfectly fair to blame the US for this - the US practices economic warfare on its supposed allies to force these sort of regulations down their throats. Another example would be how the US keeps lobbying Europe for stricter anti-copying legislation, ala the wonderful effective DCMA.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    53. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, to the first poster, I applaud your mis-guided attempt to make a difference... but would like to point out that it is truly mis-guided to boycott the airline industry.

      In reading my post - please keep in mind the following DISCLAIMER: I was born and raised for the first few years of my life in an Eastern-European nation, under martial law in the late 70's early 80's.

      First, when we talk of eroding freedoms, let's take just a second to understand, contextually, what this means. We as Americans see our current 'freedoms' as the baseline for what we think Free means, and we take this for granted. Have we looked at other places in the world? Doubt it. Let me give an example, to bring this point home. Let's look at Israel. Sure, their security is insane, and let's name the last time they had an incident on a plane... go ahead, google, it...Freedom is something we take for granted folks - we need to weigh it against our safety and the ability of the established government to protect us from harm.

      If you're still reading this, then there may still be hope. Let's move on to my next point, the fact all the 'security enhancements' since 9/11 haven't really accomplished much. In this fact, I will agree with most of you out there - it's barely harder today to get through security or checkpoints than it was before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. Here's the key - the *perception* is that things are much tighter. Is perception a deterrent? Maybe, maybe not. Now, I will fault our government (and not specifically this administration) for being terrible on execution. Why are they terrible on execution? Excellent question - it's _our_ fault. Why? Because every time the government tries to establish a control which would safe-guard our freedoms, we bring in the 'our freedoms are being taken away' wackos, and the solution is watered down. You know what I'd like to see? Sure, RFID tags embedded in passports, along with retinal scan matching to a passport database, encoded and encrypted on a microchip inside a national ID card or passport (or both?) Sure there would be ways to circumvent that - and I'm sure lots of you would throw things at me for taking away your ability to be invisible... but keep in mind what happens when YOU are invisible... so is the enemy.

      As a final word, you know what I think we should do with people trying to illegally sneak into our borders? No, not give them amnesty and jobs, free healthcare and schooling - but SHOOT THEM - on sight. One warning shot, then the second one to the skull, end of story. If you're trying to cross my border without legal right, you're an enemy invader and we shoot you where you stand. What do you suppose that would do to immigration violations? I would say it would be one hell of a deterrent, and people would think twice before trying it.

      Anyway - you get my point. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a conservative thinker, but I see things differently. Stand in line for bread for 3 hours, or have to "request permission" from the government to move your residence, then come talk to me about having your freedoms limited, you whiny bastards.

    54. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shit has hit the roof. It's time something is done about it...

    55. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your in the US you don't have to show any form of ID, but they will hassle you to and if you don't they will do a pat down. I know someone who did show ID and brought a pocket knife on a plane. So much for knowing who you are is preventing you from attacting someone on bord a plane.

  2. Shenanigans by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny
    The system even allowed us to change the information....
    That's right, (*snicker*) Broer is now a 38 year old pregnant mother of four from Belgrade with a passport that expired in 1983. Let's see how long it takes him to figure out he's the victim of identity mod!

    I doubt "Mrs." Broer will ever throw away her airplane ticket stub again!
    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Halal == potential terrorist? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "The problem is that if the system doesn't have a lot of information on you, or you have ordered a halal meal, or have a name similar to a known terrorist, or even if you are a foreigner, you'll most likely be flagged amber and held back to be asked for further details" [emph mine]
    WTF? I didn't think the US did racial profiling - this is quite sad for Muslims (as well as people like me, who just order different 'special' [I like kosher] meals at random). Not only that, it's not going to help fight terrorists, just irritate the law-abiding.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by pboulang · · Score: 1

      Kosher? nope, that's ok.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    2. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by DerGeist · · Score: 1
      Not only that, it's not going to help fight terrorists, just irritate the law-abiding.

      You act like you've never heard of the TSA. Basically all they do is confiscate plastic bullets off of keychains and let people onboard with a pocket full of sharp metallic pens. As much as they try, their entire purpose is to be a purely psychological barrier to entry -- to scare away potential terrorists, and to appease the masses. If they think airline security is good (which it is not, it's pitiful) they will fly more.

      Just recently, (sorry, can't find a link to the story) a man accidentally smuggled a pistol on board an aircraft. He didn't realize he had left it in his bag, and gave it to a flight attendant when he found it (which, to me, was stupid...I mean just keep quiet and no one will know, right?)

      Basically you can sneak just about anything past the TSA if you're clever. And they know it, too.

    3. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by AgentPaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To add insult to injury, if your name even remotely resembles the name of a known or suspected "evildoer," you get flagged. My entire family now suffers an extra 45 minutes of screening at the airport, every single time we fly, because my dad's name matches that of some IRA gunman who was last active in the early 80's. (Before you go thinking this might be a valid concern, consider that we're talking about an extremely common name. "John Murphy" isn't exactly "Zaccarias Moussaoui.") And of course, all this color-coded rigmarole does not make us one bit safer, just more vulnerable to the constant fear-mongering coming out of Washington.

      --
      First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
    4. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "which, to me, was stupid...I mean just keep quiet and no one will know, right?"

      He was probably thinking about the consequences of getting caught with it. What would you prefer, some possible questioning about why you had the gun on the plane after you had handed it in to the flight attendant or get arrested as a terrorist?

      In all likelyhood he'd have gotten away with it but I wouldn't want to take my chances :/

    5. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Phisbut · · Score: 3, Funny
      I didn't think the US did racial profiling - this is quite sad for Muslims

      Sometimes it's not on purpose, they just freak out when they hear or see certain things... a guy over here started taking the required action to have his name legally changed a couple of years ago... his first name being Jihad, you can guess the reaction he gets in airports when they ask his name.

      So yeah, some people are flagged just based on their name.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    6. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? I didn't think the US did racial profiling - this is quite sad for Muslims

      Muslims are not a race. They follow a particular religion.

    7. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      WTF? I didn't think the US did racial profiling - this is quite sad for Muslims.

      It's not racial profiling. Eating halal food doesn't make one a Muslim. Some unorthodox Muslims will eat non-Halal food. And regardless, it'd be religious profiling, not racial.

    8. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the most accurate term would be dietary profiling.

      Please keep in mind, you're fighting a losing battle. The desire for accuracy in these discussions is always trumped by the desire to demonstrate the most offense to action of the government.

      It doesn't matter that it's not racism, people like the GP rely on other's intellectual laziness (while also deonstrating their own) and see no reason to accurately decribe what is really happening. That would take too much insight and considered thought. Better to rely on gross exaggerations and hyperbole.

    9. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      OK, so racial profiling unfairly targets the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs who aren't terrorists. But this begs the question: How many planes have been hijacked by non-Muslims?

      Yeah, I know, they are recruiting women and non-Arabs, but the fact of the matter is that targetting young, male Muslims is more effective than not. You're inconvenienced because your Muslim? Well guess what, I was inconvenienced for many years because I am male. I had to pay significantly higher insurance rates despite having a near perfect driving record and having never been in an accident. How comes people aren't protesting that kind of profiling?

      Sorry, but paying thousands of dollars is a little more inconveniencing than being wanded a few times by some grouchy Federal transportation safety inspector.

      p.s. It never occurred to me, but I bet the halal meals are probably better than the regular stuff... and I'm Catholic.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    10. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Andrew+Clegg · · Score: 0

      And here was I thinking that America considered the IRA the good guys...

      --
      Andrew.

      mailto:myfirstname.mylastname at Google's mail site
    11. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by rograndom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To add insult to injury, if your name even remotely resembles the name of a known or suspected "evildoer," you get flagged. My entire family now suffers an extra 45 minutes of screening at the airport, every single time we fly, because my dad's name matches that of some IRA gunman who was last active in the early 80's. (Before you go thinking this might be a valid concern, consider that we're talking about an extremely common name. "John Murphy" isn't exactly "Zaccarias Moussaoui.") And of course, all this color-coded rigmarole does not make us one bit safer, just more vulnerable to the constant fear-mongering coming out of Washington.

      Try having your father include his middle initial and/or name when ordering plane tickets next time. I used to have the same problem, it because a running joke between myself and my girlfriend, who has a foreign issued passport from an "axis of evil" country which doesn't match her green card due to marriage, yet she goes through with out a second glance while I get my shoes taken away for closer inspection and patted down three times on my way to the gate. Finally, after being told that I had to leave the airport and comeback in through security after I missed a connection due to flight delays I asked about how to get my damn name off the list. The ticket lady said that it probably wouldn't happen since I had a very common name, but if I started using my middle initial that wouldn't raise any flags. And sure enough, it works. I just breeze through security now. Of course the last trip I took they raised the terror alert level after I was in the air and there was more security when we landed, obviously because I was able to slip by security, so homeland security provided more amusement to my girlfriend.

    12. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by William+Robinson · · Score: 1
      Can't agree with u more.

      Reminds me of Kamalhaasan (The one whose face is like lotus), who is one of the most talented actor from India, was ill treated and refused entry because his name resembles Hasan. The authorities thought he was muslim.

    13. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I challenge this Administration to a contest. Random fake guns, made of the same material as real guns but without any insides, and painted bright orange, will be sold in stores. As will fake knifes, colored the same.

      Anyone can buy them, and the government is not allowed to track who does.

      Now, we have a contest. At any point in any flight, these items can be handed over to the airplane staff, or dropped in one-way boxes in the bathrooms.

      To make it somewhat realistic, penalty-wise, anyone caught smuggling one on the plane before the plane takes off will miss the flight, and have to spend a day in a holding cell at the airport. It won't be 'illegal', and it won't go on their record at all. It's like being dead in paintball. We got you, terrorist!

      All collected guns and knifes are counted, and the weekly collection numbers must be reported.

      We'll see how good airline security is then.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    14. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      I always order the Kosher meal if my plane has "lunch" listed. What would you rather have, a giant hot pastrami on rye (seriously, the airlines heap it on, and that's *always* what they serve for kosher lunch) or a cold ham with american cheese sandwich? I haven't flown in quite a few years now, though, so I haven't yet been subjected to these sorts of civil rights violations.

    15. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Which is just sad, because 'jihad' means 'struggle', from what I understand. It can even mean 'interal struggle'. It's not really any weirder than people named 'Chastity'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    16. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      And here was I thinking that America considered the IRA the good guys...

      Not so long as Tony Blair can describe the smell of Bush's colon.

    17. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      About 15 years back, in California, even before the current round of rabid security paranoia, I recall a plane that was hijacked by a AIRPORT EMPLOYEE who had the proper security pass to open one of those uber locked doors in the boarding area and walk out on the tarmac.

      Personally I think security would be better served by the FAA only being concerned with certifying passengers ammo as being approved as pre-fragmented and not capable of piercing the airplane skin. In the 1970s there was a terrorist who tried to do dirty in a restaurant in Tel Aviv. When he whipped out some weapon and cried "God is Great" in Arabic, he was nailed from four or five directions by law abiding citizens who saw a civic duty and performed it. Security only exists when individuals take personal responsibility. That is what freedom is all about.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    18. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Any sort of specially prepared meal is better than the other stuff.

      And you grasp the 'They could recruit others' concept, so I don't understand why you still think profiling Arabs is worthwhile.(Incidentally, we can't magically tell Muslim Arabs from Christian or Jewish Arabs. More to the point, we can't tell black Muslims from other black people, or white Muslims from other white people. And sometimes, we can't even tell hispanics from Arabs.)

      If we spend time on Arab-looking people, we must scan less other people. If terrorist know this, and there is no logical reason why they shouldn't, and can recruit non-Arab people, and there is no logical reason they cannot, then they can use those people to carry the weapons, and thanks to what you suggest, have better odds of getting them on the plane.

      Trying to figure out who the terrorist are using easily evadable rules, and spending more time on those people and less time on others, only works if terrorists are morons. It helps any non-moron. The only rules we should be using are those that are very hard to evade, like their network of contacts, or if they're known to study under someone who's a radical, or appear to be doing inexplicably things with money that doesn't appear to be theirs.

      And I haven't even gotten into the concept of a 'red herring'. You've got two or three people who are practically a known terrorist? Let's send them through security under a fake name...while we slip the poor black youth we recruited from Niger, dressed like a typical American teen, who's 'a student here, returning home to visit his sick mother.'. With a bomb.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

      To add insult to injury, if your name even remotely resembles the name of a known or suspected "evildoer," you get flagged. My entire family now suffers an extra 45 minutes of screening at the airport, every single time we fly, because my dad's name matches that of some IRA gunman who was last active in the early 80's.

      I have the same problem when I fly, but I didn't think until now that my name might be similar to someone on an IRA watchlist.

      The best example is when I flew to the UK last year around Christmastime. When I tried to do express check-in at the NorthWest counter, the computer told me I had to see an agent in person. The guy taps my passport number into his terminal, says "Oh!" (never a good sign) and makes a phone call. I can only hear his side of the conversation, but I'm not really paying attention until ten minutes later when I hear the phrase "... he's attempting to use an American passport." Not something you want to hear in an airport. That's when I moved the poinsettia out of the way so I could see and hear him better. I'm thinking, "Hey, maybe I'll spend Christmas in a 6'x6' chain link cell in Guantanamo ... at least it's warm!" Five minutes after that, he says I've been cleared (?) and gives me my passport and ticket. The only comment he gave me was "I imagine this happens to you all the time." Never found out why I was flagged.

      Yes, this stuff really does happen.

    20. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by srite · · Score: 1

      I have been randomly chosen at the security gate 39/40 flights that I took in the last 5 years. Some people can argue that it is coincidence but I think that it is due to my brown skin and a unusally long name.

    21. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That worked out so well that no terrorist ever tried to cause trouble in Tel Aviv again... /sarcasm.

    22. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --It's not really any weirder than people named 'Chastity'.--

      It is when you've spent the past 5 years or so having 9/11 shit rammed down your throat, and being told that "anyone could be a terrorist!". Propaganda and a new reason for discrimination.

      Bah.

      My 2 cents

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    23. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      To add insult to injury, if your name even remotely resembles the name of a known or suspected "evildoer," you get flagged. My entire family now suffers an extra 45 minutes of screening at the airport, every single time we fly, because my dad's name matches that of some IRA gunman who was last active in the early 80's. (Before you go thinking this might be a valid concern, consider that we're talking about an extremely common name. "John Murphy" isn't exactly "Zaccarias Moussaoui.") And of course, all this color-coded rigmarole does not make us one bit safer, just more vulnerable to the constant fear-mongering coming out of Washington.

      No kidding. I'm lucky enough to be given a similarly common name which apparently matches the name of some international money-launderer. (I found this out at a bank - the teller was nice enough to tell me why I had to go through all the extra identification crap, unlike the bored-looking clerks at the airport)

      What gets me is that money-laundering is criminal behavior, not terrorism. And, notice that the onus is on me to prove I am *NOT* a criminal, instead of on them to prove that I AM a criminal.

      Something in there seems very, very wrong, indeed. If it's the terrorist's goal to take away our freedoms, then it seems that our very government has taken the next step for them. I can only hope we can turn around this modern-day McCarthyism quickly.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    24. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 2 cents

      A.A


      Could A.A. by chance stand for... Anonymous Terrorist? Food for thought...

    25. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by AgentPaper · · Score: 1
      Try having your father include his middle initial and/or name when ordering plane tickets next time. I used to have the same problem...

      He's been flying under his full name since I started booking all his tickets for him three years ago. "John William Murphy, M.D." gets flagged just as often as "John Murphy" does.

      Apparently that mad IRA gunman must have gone to medical school in his spare time...

      --
      First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
    26. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the tip. I don't fly often, but I will be flying a few long trips in the coming year. I'll try asking for a kosher meal on my next flight to Boston, and see if I get anything tasty. I sure would rather have the pastrami sandwich than the cold ham!

    27. Re:Halal == potential terrorist? by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      You need to ask when you buy your ticket. By the time you get on the plane its too late.

  4. BA could be liable for damages... by The+Dodger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..under the UK's Data Protection Act. See http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/ for details...

    1. Re:BA could be liable for damages... by blowdart · · Score: 2, Informative
      Not really, the circumstances in which you can claim are pretty limited (media summary);
      The right to compensation

      An individual can claim compensation from a data controller for damage and distress caused by any breach of the act. Compensation for distress alone can only be claimed in limited circumstances.

      You, of course, must be able to demonstrate and document the damage and distress too.

    2. Re:BA could be liable for damages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how can they be held accountable when according to the story it seems to be the US that is at fault?

  5. No piece of paper is safe by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the artice: Using this information and surfing publicly available databases, we were able - within 15 minutes - to find out where Broer lived, who lived there with him, where he worked, which universities he had attended and even how much his house was worth when he bought it two years ago. (This was particularly easy given his unusual name, but it would have been possible even if his name had been John Smith. We now had his date of birth and passport number, so we would have known exactly which John Smith.)

    Laurie was anything but smug.

    "This is terrible," he said. "It just shows what happens when governments begin demanding more and more of our personal information and then entrust it to companies simply not geared up for collecting or securing it as it gets shared around more and more people. It doesn't enhance our security; it undermines it.

    Anything that has even one piece of critical information on it (name, address, account numer of any sort, etc.) is vulnerable. That's why my shredder works overtime. I don't throw boarding passes away; I have quite a collection of them from my trips to Europe and the ones I don't want get consigned to the shredder. You can't take for granted that once you toss away a piece of paper, it will be on its way to the landfill soon enough. Trash may sit unattended for hours, even at a busy airport, and is a ripe picking ground. Mind you, I think airport security might look at you funny if you were poking around in all the trash cans, but you never know.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:No piece of paper is safe by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Actually I have quite a few reciepts from Germany that have my entire credit card number on them. That would never fly in America I believe.

      And before you say whatever, I'm looking right now at a reciept from a company selling Die Bahn tickets, that has my full credit card number. I don't even throw away reciepts that have just 4 digits of my credit card number on it.

      I don't even trust standard shredders most of the time. If it doesn't cross shred, then what are the chances that some piece of information might slip through without getting shred? And what are the chances that someone who's determined enough would actually be able to piece the parts together and gather that information about you?

      At least with a cross shredder, you increase the number of elements by a significant multiple. If your shredder produces anything larger than confetti, then it's too cutting too big. I personally incinerate all important documents.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    2. Re:No piece of paper is safe by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      At least with a cross shredder, you increase the number of elements by a significant multiple. If your shredder produces anything larger than confetti, then it's too cutting too big. I personally incinerate all important documents.

      I shred then incinerate important stuff; shredded paper can make very good firestarting fuel on those cold winter nights. A but tough in the summer, but that's where the barbecue comes in.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    3. Re:No piece of paper is safe by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      I shred then incinerate important stuff; shredded paper can make very good firestarting fuel on those cold winter nights. A but tough in the summer, but that's where the barbecue comes in.

      I've actually thought of that myself, since regular paper tends to be quite compacted and have insufficient airflow properties, so the fire tends to burn out when there are still bits of paper left unconsumed.

      I figured if you shred it, then kind of toss it around like a salad, that the nature of the small strips will lead it to have a better air supply than just flat sheets. Of course crumpling tends to accomplish the same goal, but it's just too much work... I'd rather automate the process.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  6. Modern Living Lesson One: Shred Everything by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Funny

    I even shred my scratch pad, sticky notes and code written on napkins.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Modern Living Lesson One: Shred Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, of course, you made sure your shredder doesn't have a secret scanner that scans all documents fed into it just before it shreds them and then sends copies back "home"

    2. Re:Modern Living Lesson One: Shred Everything by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      I shred my used toilet paper, so that they can't use my biological ID info.
      I take it one roll at the time, naturally, since the shredder will keep going till all the bio-data is destroyed, without having to hand-feed it and attract unwanted attention.

    3. Re:Modern Living Lesson One: Shred Everything by deuist · · Score: 1
      I don't know why this comment was modded as funny when it gives good advice. You should shred everything that has some kind of identifying information, including junk mail addressed to "occupant." The rule is "If it can be read, it must be shred." You should invest in a good cross-cut shredder that turns everything into confetti and then proceed to destroy everything: receipts for gasoline and the ATM, any mail that comes your way, and even (as the parent mentioned) notes that contain information that might be linked to you. All a thief has to do is go through your trash and get your address and account number from an old bill, your birth date from a greeting card, and possibly your SSN from a company that uses it as your membership number.

      You should also avoid situations that get your name into a database. For example, don't sign up for supermarket savings cards. If you really feel as if you have to, at least use a fake name. For the telephone company, ask that a pseudo-name be used in the phone book or ask that your name be removed entirely. For your outgoing mail, send everything directly through a U.S. postal service drop box. For your incoming mail, get a locking mailbox so that thieves won't have access to your information.

      There's a book called How to be Invisible that gives plenty of extra (yet extreme) pointers such as starting an LLC and using the company to purchase all of your high-value assets such as your house and car. That way, public records will never link those items to you.

  7. Anyone ever heard of a by dedeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shredder? I really don't know if this is common knowledge/thought/attitude, but keep everything with your name and and identifying number on it until you have access to a shredder.

    Shred anything with more then one piece of identifying information on it. Examples: Name and address (junk mail), Name andSSN (should know this by now), Name and phone# (yeah, it's in phone book, but don't let it float around). There are tons of combinations. I'd go so far as to shred directions from and to a destination, or even ATM receipts.

    You'd be suprised how much seemingly worthless information can be compiled to gain terrific insight into people.

    At the expense of sounding paranoid, I even shred my baggage check tickets (Name+flight#+someID#).

    1. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 1

      At the expense of sounding paranoid, I even shred my baggage check tickets (Name+flight#+someID#).

      I chew and eat them lol!

    2. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by morie · · Score: 1

      You don't sound paranoid, you just make choices in life

      You obviously are a very rational being who spends his time doing things that do not give you pleasure but that you believe are important.

      There is another option however: enjoy life and see what it brings. It is quite a relaxed way of living. sure, it may get me killed someday. Until now, it hasn't. Sure, it brings spam and telemarketeers in some form. The inconvenience does not outweigh the hassle of preventing them at this moment. Also, it gives me a lot of time to go around enjoying myself. I take my chances that things will turn out alright, and so far, they have.

      Take your pick, I prefer the latter.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    3. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, you can enjoy an interesting, enriching life and shred your ATM receipts.

    4. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Actually, you should be shredding everything. If you only shred stuff with one bit of personally identifiable information, then one dumpster diving individual will have all the information they need as your life is spread over many individual items you may chose not to shred (think 1+1=2).

      In the case of identity theft, your address + annual income is a great way for thieves to narrow down their marks or potential homes to rob, and these are pretty typical questions on surveys too. Keep in mind that this is only an example, but it illustrates how seemingly harmless information can be used against you. Bottom line, there are so many vectors of identity theft that it is critical to protect every shred of information (pun intended).

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    5. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you burn all your shredded papers, and spread the ashes in the ocean once weekly. Otherwise, you really aren't being very paranoid (http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/creditcard/applic ation.shtml)

    6. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by dedeman · · Score: 1

      Hey, OP here. Are you still at Ft Meade? Send me an email, I work on base at the 902nd. I tried to go to your webpage, but it didn't work.

    7. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Adam+Hazzlebank · · Score: 1

      Shred!?!? Dude don't you know that shredded paper is trivial to reconstruct with a scanner and the right software. No, home incinerator is the way to go.

    8. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1
      Shred!?!? Dude don't you know that shredded paper is trivial to reconstruct with a scanner and the right software. No, home incinerator is the way to go.

      We call that "the fireplace."

    9. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the ninja turtles broke my shredder. Damn that Leonardo......

    10. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by duffstone · · Score: 1

      Haha, I was waiting for that response. My Ex-Girlfriend used to come over to my house once a week and burn her shreadings... I thought she was paranoid and wierd until I got some odd charges on a Credit Card. Now I do the same. Plus fire is kewl.

      Best investment people can make now days is an industrial shreader that can handle a full envelope of junk mail, and a fireplace to reduce it down to ash...

      -Duff

    11. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Moofie · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy. You lose.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Skater · · Score: 1

      The post wasn't talking about shredding ATM receipts - everyone with a shredder probably does that.

      The post was talking about shredding every piece of junk mail because it has your NAME AND ADDRESS on it. Putting a name with an address (or vice versa) is probably the easiest thing in the world for anyone that's interested to do, so the time spent shredding it is probably wasted and could be spent relaxing and enjoying life.

    13. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

      Yes, I meant to imply shread all those sort of material, but it didn't sound pithy enough.

      The point still stands; it's not going to take you much longer to shread that stuff than it normally does to just throw it in the trash. Shredding documents with identifying information is one reasonable step to take that won't have a major effect on your social life or personal development.

    14. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      www.fmga.us is still active, but Dreamhost has been experiencing outages lately. Expect an email in the evening.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    15. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Skater · · Score: 1

      You must not get much junk mail. :)

    16. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother shredding if you're going to burn it? Seems like a waste of time.

    17. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shred it, burn it, then have it nuked from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

    18. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by slmdmd · · Score: 1

      Shred your baggage too.. it may get lost..

    19. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree on shredding/destroying all paper with any personal info on it. When I get directions to/from somewhere from the Internet, I use an address in the nearest town for the start or finish destination.

    20. Re:Anyone ever heard of a by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

      If you're that paranoid, I don't suppose you would get much junk mail. :)

  8. Passport Required!!!! by hughk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I am curious as to how the person got so far through the BA website without a password or PIN. Last time I looked, you needed this. Perhaps Mr Broer hadn't registered one. Otherwise did they compromise BA's website?

    The important thing is that you will not be allowed on an international flight without showing a valid passport. BA boarding procedures mandate a check of the passport against the ticket at the gate. This is kind of necessary now that outbound passengers from the UK are very rarely checked by immigration. True, an airline is unlikely to even have a UV light let alone a scanner there so it may be possible to get through with a forged passport.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
    1. Re:Passport Required!!!! by TehHustler · · Score: 1

      I want to know how they managed to purchase a ticket in his name. The article doesnt seem to mention anything about bank details. Unless I missed it...

      --

      TheHustler
      http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
      http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
    2. Re:Passport Required!!!! by jd3nn1s · · Score: 1

      I think the key might be that they purchased a ticket using his frequent flyer number. While AFAIK you have always needed a PIN to log into your account, perhaps if you ordered a ticket with the Executive Club number it would allow you access.

    3. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. Curious why and how they were able to log on to the website without PIN or password.

      Or did BA mess up the notion of "identification" and "authentication"?

      Identification = Tell someone who you are. Your name, frequent flyer number, social security number, whatever. This information should be assumed to be public, but it helps to keep it semi-secret.
      Authentication = Prove that you are who you say you are. Usually through something that is only known to you. A password, PIN or something. Or through something that you are (biometrics) or through something that you have (a token, credit card, USB key, RFID chip implanted, whatever).

      Most identity theft occurs through lousy security, where you can circumvent authentication by entering a 2nd piece of identification. (Your name and SSN for instance) And the worst thing is that once a site subsitutes a proper authentication token by something that really should be used for identification, fixing the thing after an identity theft becomes nearly impossible. Ever tried changing your SSN or frequent flyer number? Compared to changing a password or PIN? Whatever is used for authentication should be changeable easily by the rightful owner in case it got stolen.

    4. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Tx · · Score: 1

      "In his name" != "with his money"

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    5. Re:Passport Required!!!! by hughk · · Score: 1

      The web site doesn't retain credit card details. Otoh as a "Gold" frequent flyer holder, he would probably have accumulated a lot of air-miles.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    6. Re:Passport Required!!!! by hughk · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you book with my FF number, the web site demands my PIN. If you try to book without my Pin, you won't have my personal data, although you could theoretically add an FF number to a normal online booking.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    7. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know how they managed to purchase a ticket in his name. The article doesnt seem to mention anything about bank details. Unless I missed it...

      Not too bright, are you? Purchasing a ticket in someone's name is not the same thing as charging a ticket to their credit card.

      How does a parent buy a ticket for their child? How does a company buy tickets for their employees? The name on a ticket and who pays for a ticket are often different.

    8. Re:Passport Required!!!! by terjeber · · Score: 1

      You can buy a ticket in any name you wish, using your credit card or anything else. The name on the ticket is checked vs a picture ID at the airport.

    9. Re:Passport Required!!!! by kevinbr · · Score: 1

      The system was updated before the article came out to require a PIN. At the time ( stupidly ) it did not ask for a PIN.

    10. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Catullus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article states that they informed BA about the security hole in March, and BA fixed their website, so that may explain what you noticed.

    11. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, whenever I want to access my FF data on the BA website I need a Password/PIN and that is the case since years

    12. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      The important thing is that you will not be allowed on an international flight without showing a valid passport. BA boarding procedures mandate a check of the passport against the ticket at the gate.

      I think you missed the point a bit on this one. The important thing is not that they could buy a ticket in his name, it's that they got all the information they needed to do ANYTHING with his name. Identity theft is the goal here. Once you get all the information they had access to you can open a bank account, get new credit cards, get checks printed, etc. then it's spend spend spend till someone catches on and the thief is long gone but this guy's credit is ruined for life.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    13. Re:Passport Required!!!! by kevinbr · · Score: 1

      OK. Perhaps the flaw was that once a ticket was purchased it circumvented the PIN requirement. I only read the article. I was never a FF of BA.

    14. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Clovert+Agent · · Score: 1

      I am curious as to how the person got so far through the BA website without a password or PIN. Last time I looked, you needed this. Perhaps Mr Broer hadn't registered one. Otherwise did they compromise BA's website?

      It sounds like they bought a ticket in his name, supplying his frequent flyer number. Then logged in to that new passenger record, and followed the link to the associated frequent flyer record.

      Sounds like BA had skipped on an authentication step, either at the point of linking, or in allowing a ticket purchase to be associated with a frequent flyer.

    15. Re:Passport Required!!!! by hughk · · Score: 1

      The point is that they could do some things, but not all. To open a bank account, for example, would need a lot of additional documentation. Some of it much harder to forge. Admittedly, not impossible but a different level of difficulty.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    16. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Mark+Hood · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not about getting on to a flight with false ID, it's about getting identifying information from nothing more than a boarding pass.

      As I understand it, the chain of events is this...

      If you're a member of the BA loyalty club, you didn't used to have to go through the web site... probably still don't have to.

      You could sign up by one of the handouts at airports, get your card and give the number (along with all the stuff the USA wants) to your travel agent, and never visit BA's website.

      BA print the loyalty card number on your boarding pass, each time you check in.

      So they took a discarded boarding pass stub, with the name and number on it, went to the BA site and said 'sign me up for online check in' - provided the identifying details and pretended to be him (incidentally buying a ticket with his name on). This should not have been possible without, say, confirming his address, or some other security measure. This is the 'hole' in BA's security that the article says is now fixed. From memory (and I am a little hazy on the details) when I signed up online they populated all the fields they could with the information from my loyalty card record.

      I know this is the case, because I got a card without signing up online, many years ago - and then went to tie that number to an online account.

      Once they were online, they could see all the stuff he'd previously told BA - address, passport number, etc - from there, they went to get his house price, phone number and a lot more information.

      The moral of the story is (as many have said) - if it's information you wouldn't print on a t-shirt or tell a random stranger, don't throw it away.

      Mark

      --
      Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
    17. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if they've increased their scrutiny since 9/11, but pre-9/11 passports were really easy to get with fake/phony information. In high school, my friends and I got passports instead of fake IDs. All we had to do was write the second 7 in 1977 so that it looked more like a two than a 7. In not one of our cases did the passport we were issued have our correct birth date. In one case, rather than get two sets of pictures taken, two of my friends used copies of the same photo for each of their applications (they had a somewhat similar look, but were easily differentiated). The one who used the others photo never had any problems travelling under that passport, let alone purchasing beer.

      I guess the point is that "needing a passport" isn't necessarily the barrier that most people assume it is.

    18. Re:Passport Required!!!! by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      The point is that they could do some things, but not all. To open a bank account, for example, would need a lot of additional documentation. Some of it much harder to forge. Admittedly, not impossible but a different level of difficulty.

      Unfortunately that may not be true in all situations. In the US, for example, once you have a passport number a bit of social engineering or more searching can yield the social security number, which is the key to everything - including getting a copy of a birth certificate (I have ordered a copy of my birth certificate over the phone with only my SSN), which here can be used to open a bank account. Many credit card companies don't require nearly as much information as a bank, and suddenly the crook can get two or three lines of credit up to tens of thousands of dollars in a matter of a week or so.

      Admittedly, I'm not sure how easy this is to do outside the US, as our SSN system is a huge weakness being a central access point for most financial institution interactions. However I should think that any ID theif worth their salt that is now armed with your name, address, passport number, and perhaps a few more details - should be totally able to at least get a credit card in just about any country. A lot of this type of theft is supplemented with good old fashioned social engineering. All it takes is one customer service rep who feels bad for a made-up sob story abotu how they were robbed and don't have anything to verify with but their passport number and next thing you know they have the final piece of information they DO need to get into a bank account etc. When the payoff is tens of thousands of dollars per victim these people are going to put more than bare minimal effort into it.

      Anyway, I think we're both in agreement that this is a bad thing regardless of the level of immediate damage that can be caused. Thanks for the reply!

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    19. Re:Passport Required!!!! by hughk · · Score: 1
      I have just been involved with a KYC/AML project with a large bank. Openinmg an account requires multiple docs. If you can get me a genuine SSN card or drivers license that would be the key to opening the rest. We would still need other sources of evidence to support this.

      Once you have the account then if you want to do anything involving cross border transfers, major encashment or deposits, we would again ask for official photo-id. Some banks are tougher on this than others and some have already been fined. Go from the US to the UK and you will find an even higher level of paranoia as their regulators are even tougher.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  9. Real ID act by guisar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yesterday I was stopped by a cop in the Concord, MA national park because the muffler on my old vw bus was a bit loud. I handed him my Vermont driver's license, which is a bit of paper with no SSN, only a coded address and no photo. His response- "What's this". "My driver's license" I replied. "Well how do they hope to stop terrorists with this?"

    Being an opponent of the current craze for every more comprehensive and intrusive IDs and ID checks here in the US, I hope some proponents of the Real ID act will pay heed to unintended consequences of this absurdity.

    1. Re:Real ID act by CortoMaltese · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A friend told me she'd tried to buy some beer at a liquor store, and when asked for an ID, she'd used her passport. "Don't you have a driver's license?" the person behind the counter had asked, "Anyone can get a passport." So I guess the driver's license is the "real" ID in the US...

    2. Re:Real ID act by Se7enLC · · Score: 1

      You should post a photo of your license so we can see what you mean...

    3. Re:Real ID act by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      I've actually used other photo ID besides a driver's license (passport, military ID, etc) and had the cashier/bouncer/etc tell me they need a state-issued ID, not a federal one. In many cases, a state ID or driver's license really is the "real" ID. I think it's more because of ignorance on the part of the people requesting the ID than anything.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    4. Re:Real ID act by More+Trouble · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Well how do they hope to stop terrorists with this?"

      So paper is not sufficient to stop terrorists. But if it's laminated...!

      :w

    5. Re:Real ID act by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      "Well how do they hope to stop terrorists with this?"

      Well, if you held it tightly and used it with a slashing motion..?

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    6. Re:Real ID act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It depends on the state's alcoholic regulating body. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission specifically states a passport is not a sufficient ID. An operator of an establishment has the right to refuse you service if you do you not have a state issued ID. Texas offers, for a fee, a driving license and an ID card to all residents. As far as I know, it has been this way since TABC used to be known as the Liquor Control Board (pre-70's?). When they were known as the LCB, they were known to be a no bullshit organization and had no problems beating you into compliance.

    7. Re:Real ID act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the same issue with my NJ driver's license. I was one of the last group of people who was able to do the paper-renewal-by-mail method, where your new license is just a flimsy piece of paper with your name and address. No photo, nothing.

      I've started carrying around my expired license (with the photo), but even that is slightly problematic since I only have the 3/4 shot (I was under 21 when I got my first NJ license).

    8. Re:Real ID act by BlackHorse · · Score: 1

      From my experience, there is not nearly as much knowledge about passports, non-DL forms of ID, or international travelers/visitors/aliens in the US as abroad. If you whipped out a passport in most bars in the US outside of an airport, they would probably give you a funny look and send you on your way drinkless.

    9. Re:Real ID act by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      So non-residents can't buy alcohol in Texas? If not, that's crazy.

    10. Re:Real ID act by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Death by a thousand paper cuts?

    11. Re:Real ID act by guisar · · Score: 1

      Didn't seem to stop Jenna W. from purchasing alcohol. Either way, it seems like their ID requirement is yet another reason NOT to visit Texas.

    12. Re:Real ID act by bjb · · Score: 1
      A friend told me she'd tried to buy some beer at a liquor store, and when asked for an ID, she'd used her passport. "Don't you have a driver's license?" the person behind the counter had asked, "Anyone can get a passport." So I guess the driver's license is the "real" ID in the US...

      Hmm, that's interesting because in New Jersey, you need to provide a Passport AND your birth certificate when getting a license now - even if you're just renewing a previous license!

      The passport? OK, fine. The birth certificate? C'mon, thats got to be easier to forge! But the worst part is the attitude that the information people are giving you when they inform you that you don't have the right documents with you, though the website indicates one or the other is fine. Hmmm, maybe its this privitization of the department.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
  10. BA website fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You shouldn't be able to use frequent flyer miles without typing a password. I have never been able to buy a ticket at Northwest or Hawaiian Air without my password.

    BA needs to oupdate their security.

    1. Re:BA website fault by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 1
      funny you should mention northwest... you can do EXACTLY this on their website, you only need confirmation # and last name, fairly easy to obtain.

      https://www.nwa.com/cgi-bin/res_info.pro

    2. Re:BA website fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NWA: Straight Outta Cockpit!

  11. Run that one by me again. by Don_dumb · · Score: 2, Informative
    As far as I'm concerned, the airline industry can rot in hell for giving in to government pressure.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the 9/11 bombers use US internal airlines because the security was so poor? A situation caused by the airline companies not agreeing to previous government calls for tighter security due to concerns that people might be put off flying.

    I dont like all the pointless security either but some of it is defintely neccessary, and that wasn't the case on US internal airlines pre-September 2001. And anyway people need to see security at airports/on planes, in order to allievate fear of flying, which many people had after 9/11 and which would of course impact on the number of passengers.
    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
    1. Re:Run that one by me again. by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the 9/11 bombers use US internal airlines because the security was so poor?

      By internal I take it you mean using U.S. airlines to attack the U.S. Duh? This place isn't like Europe with a bunch of little countries next to each other. If they didn't use U.S. airlines taking off from U.S. airports, what would they have used?

      Anyway, the problem wasn't security. The hijackers had clean records, were in this country legally, and had authentic identification. There was no way we would have caught them because they blended in so well with the surroundings. We (airlines, TSA, and regular people on those flights) had no suspicions.

      The real fault was the FBI who was sitting on documented evidence of a plot, including some of the names. If they had connected the dots instead of being lazy, they would have had enough evidence to demand the FAA ground all airplanes that day while they went after the hijackers. Yes, we'd still have knee-jerk reactions to security, but at least the specific events of that day would not have happened. It would have been a success overall, because the system (law enforcement) would have worked.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    2. Re:Run that one by me again. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      I dont like all the pointless security either but some of it is defintely neccessary, and that wasn't the case on US internal airlines pre-September 2001.

      Could you please elaborate on which parts are necessary and which parts aren't if, as you claim, the security is pointless. If the security is pointless then by definition there are no necessary parts of it.

      And anyway people need to see security at airports/on planes, in order to allievate fear of flying, which many people had after 9/11 and which would of course impact on the number of passengers.

      Except security has always been visible at airports. I remember flying out of BWI in July of 2001 and having to have my bag x-rayed and my camera case wiped* before I was allowed to enter the plane.

      Besides, visible security didn't stop Atta et al from getting on the planes even when the metal detector when off twice at Dulles yet the guard on duty didn't bother to find out why the detector went off. The folks who boarded the Dulles plane were pulled aside and checked but were allowed to proceed.

      So despite visible security, despite two warnings from the metal detector, despite secondary checks of the people themselves, the hijackers still got on the plane and went about their business.

      So tell me again why visible security is so great?

      *I never put my camera equipment and film through the x-ray machines despite assurances that nothing would happen. I voluntarily request a hand check of my equipment. They ran a cotton cloth over my bags and put it in the sniffer to check for explosives. Only one time of the few times I have flown did anyone physically examine my lenses and equipment to be sure they were real. Everyone else simply looked around in the case and/or wiped the outside.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Run that one by me again. by AGMW · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Could you please elaborate on which parts are necessary and which parts aren't if, as you claim, the security is pointless.

      I'd suggest that if someone really wanted to hijack another plane in the US, or wherever, it would still be possible, even with the extra security. A number of scenarios spring to mind, but forgive me if I don't suggest them out loud! You're all clever people and I don't doubt for a second you could all come up with a number of feasible plans. The current security might make some of them fail, but if you kept trying (ie the scumbags who send out the suicide jockeys "keep trying"!) you will inevitably succeed.

      So, if it is still possible, the extra security is perhaps pointless. I'd suggest a level of security that makes it "difficult" for potential bad guys, but doesn't piss off the general public too much.

      I'd say the biggest problem any hijacker would have now is the bit where they stand up and say "do as you are told and you won't get hurt". Since the World Trade Center was hit, there aren't many passengers who are going to calmly sit back and let anyone hijack a 'plane, and probably even fewer crew. This could be the lasting legacy of the 9/11 bombers - they made hijacking a plane more difficult, because the passengers and crew are unlikely to give up so easily!

      So security just has to make it difficult to get "serious" weapons on the plane, and let the passengers and crew do the rest!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    4. Re:Run that one by me again. by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      You're joking, right? I've flown many times pre-9/11. Every time I went through a metal detector, every time my bags were screened, sometimes even opened. Every time I had to show ID and boarding pass before being allowed to board the plane. Sure it wasn't spread-your-cheeks level of security, and definitely more casual, but to say there was no security is a joke.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    5. Re:Run that one by me again. by ender- · · Score: 1

      There were no metal detectors, no security personnell on the lookout, nothing.

      What hole-in-the-wall airport have you been hanging out in? I have been flying since I was six years old [around 1980ish] and I have NEVER been able to get on a plane without going through a metal detector, having my bags go through an x-ray machine, and having security guards watch as I do this.

      What has changed since 9/11? I have to take off my shoes now, and occasionally [about 40% of the time] get pulled aside for a more thorough search. I'm not happy about it as now I get a strong vibe of feeling like a suspected terrorist. We were particularly hassled this last time we flew with our newborn baby. I was not happy.

      But don't even suggest that there was no metal detectors, x-ray machines or security guards for domestic flights before 9/11. About the only pre-9/11 change I remember is when they stopped letting non-flying people past the security checkpoints, and when they started requiring ID to get a boarding pass [sometime in the 90's].

    6. Re:Run that one by me again. by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --So security just has to make it difficult to get "serious" weapons on the plane...--

      A boxcutter isn't that serious. A KNITTING NEEDLE (which you can't take on the plane anymore afaik) isn't really that serious. You don't need a gun or a bomb to hijack a plane.

      As for the "people won't just sit by and let that happen again!" How about the fact that it's now ingrained into people's heads? Do you really think that the majority reaction to a hijack attempt is going to be to rush the hijackers? Um....no. It's going to be to do as you are told, in order that you *MIGHT* save your life.

      Muggers being stopped by heroic actions certainly hasn't stopped muggings has it?Take some psychology sometime and realize that people are frightened animals, and they act as such.

      My 2 cents.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    7. Re:Run that one by me again. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      About the only pre-9/11 change I remember is when they stopped letting non-flying people past the security checkpoints, and when they started requiring ID to get a boarding pass [sometime in the 90's].


      They stopped letting non-flying people past security after 9/11. They started requiring ID for a boarding pass in 95 -- post OK City.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:Run that one by me again. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt 9/11 was the largest failure of intelligence in the history of the US. I am including Pearl Harbor in that because back in those days we just didn't have the capability gather intelilgence like we do today.

      Lucky for us the Bush administration has given out very large rewards for the heads of the FBI, CIA and everybody else who was involved in this failure and the failure of the planning and execution of the Iraq war.

      Nothing breeds personal responsibility and comptence like rewarding failure.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    9. Re:Run that one by me again. by rossifer · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest that if someone really wanted to hijack another plane in the US, or wherever, it would still be possible, even with the extra security.

      Bull. They could hand out guns to suspicious looking passengers on the jetway and you won't have another successful hijacking in the US. The people on Flight 93 already established that hijackers hold the airplane at the discretion of the passengers. People who don't feel they have anything to lose (passengers after 9/11) don't let the hijackers have the airplane.

      Those planes were hijacked with pathetic little weapons because Americans had been repeatedly told that the best way out of a hijacking was to let the government deal with the hijackers. Not any more.

      This could be the lasting legacy of the 9/11 bombers - they made hijacking a plane more difficult, because the passengers and crew are unlikely to give up so easily!

      Exactly. So can you come up with one strategy for successfully hijacking a commercial flight in the US? You say that any smart person should be able to come up with plenty. If you can come up with one, you'll be helping the TSA to plug the hole (and not helping the terrorists in the slightest).

      Regards,
      Ross

      Hell, I regularly carried a razor sharp 3" folding knife with me on airplane trips before 9/11 and even had it swiped down for explosives residue a few times. Once, the security guard asked me about it, I shrugged and said I used it for eating (true), he handed it back, I boarded the plane.

    10. Re:Run that one by me again. by ender- · · Score: 1

      They stopped letting non-flying people past security after 9/11. They started requiring ID for a boarding pass in 95 -- post OK City.

      In the airports I have flown to before 9/11 [San Jose, Midland/Odessa, Newark, La Guardia, LAX, SFO, Oakland, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, DFW, Dallas Love, Houston, Pittsburgh and many many more], they haven't allowed non-flying people past security since at LEAST the early 90's. I'm pretty sure Newark stopped allowing it sometime in the 80's.

    11. Re:Run that one by me again. by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Do you really think that the majority reaction to a hijack attempt is going to be to rush the hijackers? Um....no. It's going to be to do as you are told, in order that you *MIGHT* save your life.

      I pretty much agree with everything you said, apart from where you say people would capitulate, and I may agree with that if the purps had firearms. IF all the baddies can get on the plane is a nitting needle or a box cutter I think there would be a sufficiently large proportion of the passengers and crew who would take action. Hell, I'd say even if they did have guns there'd be some who would want to take action.

      Your mugging analogy doesn't really stack up, as whilst some people have successfull fought off muggers in a heroic fashion (a friend of mine hospitalised 4 muggers a few years ago!), there hasn't been a change in how muggers operate where they are more likely to kill you afterwards.

      I'd suggest that the "frightened animals" concept is correct, and in the case of being on a plane when it is hijacked, is likely to work in the animal's favour, as they KNOW if they do nothing they are likely to die! You only need a few in the crowd to act as leaders and many of the frightened ones will join them. Remember, it's "flight or fight". That's the reaction, and it's not always "flight".

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    12. Re:Run that one by me again. by AGMW · · Score: 1
      So can you come up with one strategy for successfully hijacking a commercial flight in the US?

      I was hoping my point was exactly that, though perhaps it wasn't clear. If we can keep "serious" weapons (ie guns!) off planes, there's a much higher chance that the passengers and crew will fight back, hell, even with guns there's be a proportion in the crew/passengers who'd be will to take them on.

      As for ideas as to how to hold the passengers and crew to ransom where they won't rush you ... OK ... but don't blame me if someone tries it! How about board the plane unarmed, and find the smallest, youngest, child/baby on board. Once airborne, snatch the child/baby and threaten to break it's neck.

      If the people rush you, they have to know that their action will cause the death of the child/baby. That _may_ be enough to keep them back. If that's enough to get you or an accomplice into the flightdeck then the door can be locked behind and the passengers and crew can't get into the flightdeck anymore.

      Perhaps it's unlikely. I'd suggest it would sufficiently polarise the crowd that action would be at least more difficult.

      On the hole, I agree with you. The 9/11 hijackers might actually end up saving more lives than they took, because hijacking is so much more difficult now. Returning to the original point though, it is so much more difficult because the passengers and crew will fight, not because of extra security!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    13. Re:Run that one by me again. by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      Point Taken and fair enough ;-)

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
  12. Not Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not funny. My employer expects me to do this.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Security scans by RafaelGCPP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On 2004 I travelled a lot to USA.

    This don't seem to be much, but I was "selected" for manual scanning of my handbag in almost every USA airport.

    Common sense and good diplomatics told me to accept that and never question authorities when you are a foreign citizen, but on the last scan, at MIA airport, though I created the guts to ask the nice TSA security agent why I was being scanned over and over. The answer shocked me: "It is all that electronics you carry. Makes very difficult to see what you have". I always carried my cellphone, myPDA, my digital camera and my CD player with me, on the same bag, and it really looked a mess.

    The funny thing: I felt safer, because they were really looking at the x-ray. The only time I got stopped by airport security where I live, was because I told the guys my cellphone never made those portals beep... THAT DAY, it beeped!!!

    --
    "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."
    H. L. Mencken
    1. Re:Security scans by bhima · · Score: 1

      I am a US citizen and I don't live in the US. It seems every time I go back to the US the security becomes slower, more intrusive, & dumber. I don't really have any compunction telling security agent how stupid they are being and I've even showed them the bill of rights (which they don't know) and the airports security regulations (which they don't either). I routinely wear clothing anti-Bush slogans... this has the effect of rocketing me though EU security (and giving people a little smile) and slowing me down in the South East US (like Atlanta) where I really get hassled... but having lived in Atlanta for quite some time they can't really intimidate me any more.

      But in the end harassing an underpaid blue collar worker, who has a job that he doesn't really like and also causes other people to actively start to dislike him, only serves to slow the process down and make it even more unpleasant.

      About the only positive thing I can say about US airport security screening is that I'm glad there hasn't been an "underwear bomber".

      I do remember once going to the US and the Germans were putting Americans through the full security kit and the rest of EU members through the standard security screening and then putting them on the same plane. Someone whined about it and was told that the Americans required it and the EU didn't... fortunately I had had a long enough layover to have enough beer to find the whole thing amusing as hell.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Security scans by RafaelGCPP · · Score: 1

      Brasil did that too. They created an immigration line exclusively for the USA citizens, were they would have a long questioning and identification process.

      I know I shouldn't say that to an USA citizen, but it was really amusing!!

      Specially because in Brasil we didn't have that nice fingerprint scanners and they would finish the trip with black ink all over their fingers

      --
      "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."
      H. L. Mencken
    3. Re:Security scans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the only positive thing I can say about US airport security screening is that I'm glad there hasn't been an "underwear bomber".

      I don't know, I think I would go to work for the TSA. Mmmm... "panty inspector"....

    4. Re:Security scans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Heh. At least they're security-oriented (or so they say). In my stupid country (I won't name names but know that one national drink is the caipirinha) the government scans the carry on luggage of every one, but gives special care to those who are citizens of the said country so that they can levy taxes on undeclared electronic equipment.

      I bet that if the US had this insane tax-collection hunger, charged hefty taxes on explosives and performance of the scanning personnel were measured in monetary terms, the whole scanning process would be much, much more effective.

    5. Re:Security scans by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      It's not just the electronics, it's also your status as a foreign citizen.

      I've made several flights from Arizona to Silicon Valley with a carry-on bag *packed* with various electronics and I don't think they've even stopped the conveyer belt as it went under the x-ray machine. Normally I'd check it, but they seem to be more paranoid about electronics that sit in the cargo hold. And no matter what they say, that TSA inspection slip is not worth the stuff that disappeared from my bag when I made that mistake.

      They did scan it a little more carefully when I went to Florida with the same electronics as well as a large homemade LiPoly battery in my carry-on(can we say firebomb?) but they have never hand searched any of my carry-on bags.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    6. Re:Security scans by deuist · · Score: 1

      I get pulled over quite a bit whenever I'm carrying medical equipment. I got stopped because because of my stethoscope. The guard seemed shocked that someone would actually carry it onto a plane... Well, I'm not going to let the baggage people destroy it when they throw my luggage around.

  15. Re:profiling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should not do racial or religious profiling at all, since 80 year old mexican catholic ladies and white agnostic american hippies are just as likely to be terrorists as are middle-eastern muslim young adult males. Right? Right? Guys?

  16. And you don't know half of the absurdity of it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First about the BP stubs. Info on the BP stubs, is in plain sight for the TRAVELER information. If the traveller then drop it it is a stupidity concern, not a security concern. For example, Would you throw out a bank receipt with your account sold, bank account, bank name, signature and all the tralala out ? This is the same problem here.

    Now the fact they could buy a document in the name of the pax on an unsecurised web site IS a concern.

    As for APIS, having worked on the implementation on a main frame for a big airline, we used to joke a LOT about US version of security.

    Pay Cash ? You automatically get flagged as suspectful. Pay with CC ? This is seen as OK. Be a frequent traveller ? You are automatically flagged as safe. Take only a one way ticket ? Be preparred for the "glove" search... Knowing the rule it would be blantantly easy to bypass this check (take a round trip, on a frequent flyer, using a CC, do it 10 times, then afterward you are a "safe" traveller...). We always laughed at the stupidity of that. I left shortly afterward so I dunno if the US kept that security concept today.

    1. Re:And you don't know half of the absurdity of it! by raehl · · Score: 1

      Pay Cash ? You automatically get flagged as suspectful. Pay with CC ? This is seen as OK. Be a frequent traveller ? You are automatically flagged as safe. Take only a one way ticket ? Be preparred for the "glove" search... Knowing the rule it would be blantantly easy to bypass this check (take a round trip, on a frequent flyer, using a CC, do it 10 times, then afterward you are a "safe" traveller...). We always laughed at the stupidity of that. I left shortly afterward so I dunno if the US kept that security concept today.

      Cash is flagged as more suspicious because cash *IS* suspicious. Most poeple don't lug around $200-$700 to an actual airline counter for an airline ticket. It's more work and more risk, and if someone is doing more work for more risk so they possibly don't need to use a credit card, it makes sense to find out why.

      Of course, some people up to nefarious things will be willing to pay with a credit card. Especially if they're about to fly into a building. But many people up to nefarious things will not be willing to pay with a credit card, and it's something to watch out for.

      I'm all for privacy and freedom. But you have to understand that if you want to be treated anonymously, you are going to be treated anonymously! Unknown persons will always be, and should be, treated with more caution than known persons. This is common sense. Nobody should make you be known if you don't want to be, but that doesn't mean you should be treated the same as a known person too.

    2. Re:And you don't know half of the absurdity of it! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      There is no "anonymity" in airlines unless you want to find out why your luggage was confiscated or if items are missing from it. Then it's a matter of national security. They have your name when you buy a ticket, regardless how you paid. Using neither cash nor credit card changes your status as a "known person." All a credit card tells you is that you may be the victim of fraud. The only way paying with cash should be considered more suspect is if the bills were counterfeit. Anything else is bullshit and should not be accepted. If I were a terrorist on an airline, I'd get a brand new credit card to buy my ticket with. Might as well spend the rest of your cash on planning, etc. and let the CC company take the tiny monetary hit from not paying the card off.

    3. Re:And you don't know half of the absurdity of it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing the rule it would be blantantly easy to bypass this check... We always laughed at the stupidity of that.

      See, the thing is, they know damned well none of this nonsense will make anyone a bit safer. The corruptable are attracted to power, the absolutely corruptable are attracted to absolute power.

      The authoritarians have declared war on freedom (ironically in the name of freedom) and they're winning. As one noted authoritarian said, "you have no privacy. Get over it."

      (MRC="infamous")

    4. Re:And you don't know half of the absurdity of it! by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      For the non-francophones "soldE" is FR for (account) "balance".

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    5. Re:And you don't know half of the absurdity of it! by eUdudx · · Score: 1

      "Would you throw out a bank receipt with your account sold <sic>,
      bank account, bank name, signature and all the tralala out ?"

          Hello, anybody who sees your paper check/cheque sees all that plus
      the routing number ready to intiate an "electronic check" with no further
      info.

      If used boarding passes were really that useful, I think the unlimited stash of them commonly found in the seatback pockets to this day as unretrieved trash would be reduced.....

      /agrees that this FA is 80% FUD

  17. That story scares me. by Don_dumb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to admit I am shocked, I didin't think they had any right to do so.

    I thought that runways were a kind-of international territory? Thereby allowing people to get transferring flights without going through passport control (which acts as the the offical border) and be a passenger on a plane that refuels without getting visas for the land in which they are only sitting on a runway. Does the US government really have the right to do this? I mean they couldn't stop a plane flying from Canada to Mexico because the people inside dont have entry visas for the US or havent taken US mandated security procedures, could they?

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
    1. Re:That story scares me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was true pre-911. Now the actual policy is more like "Drop trou and bend over for the USA."

    2. Re:That story scares me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that runways were a kind-of international territory? Thereby allowing people to get transferring flights without going through passport control (which acts as the the offical border) and be a passenger on a plane that refuels without getting visas for the land in which they are only sitting on a runway.

      Depends. Some airports have an international transit area, but many countries require you to get a transit visa even if you are flying through without getting off the plane.

      Does the US government really have the right to do this?

      Absolutely. Every sovereign nation can decide who to allow in to their country and the visa requirements, if any.

      I mean they couldn't stop a plane flying from Canada to Mexico because the people inside dont have entry visas for the US or havent taken US mandated security procedures, could they?

      If you're going to overfly US airspace (or that of any other nation), that nation can apply certain rules. You don't need US visas to overfly US airspace.

    3. Re:That story scares me. by aonaran · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't need US visas to overfly US airspace.

      Slight amendment...

      You CURRENTLY don't need US visas to overfly US airspace. ...there's no telling what the policy will be next week though.

    4. Re:That story scares me. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Given the relative sizes of the US, Canada, and Mexico armed forces, I am sure the US could do whatever it wanted to a plane flying from Canada to Mexico. I sure hope it never does such a thing, and it would hopefully be illegal under international law, but none of that means that they US couldn't blow that shit out of the sky.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:That story scares me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine they have the right to not allow the airline to fly through their airspace.

      Back in '95, I was on a flight that needed to go over Saudia Arabia and we were held up several days waiting to get permission. The request to fly over had been put in plenty of time in advance and we were only transiting - no stops or landings.

      I guess the US isn't the only country that thinks it has a right to control its air space.

    6. Re:That story scares me. by innot · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, an airport is national territory. And by convention an airplane becomes part of the national territory the moments the doors open (with doors closed different regulations apply (Warsaw Convention, Montreal Convention))

      Most International Airports have designated transit area for passengers transiting a country to save them from the hassle of immigration and emigration - Except for the US, where most international airports do not have real transit areas, thus requiring all transiting passengers to enter the US and leave it a few minutes later (wasting 2-3 hours for the whole process, no to mention the humiliating finger-printing and picture taking)

      It seems to me, that the US officals think that everyone setting foot on US soil only wants to enter the country (as a potential terrorist).

      I work at an airline and we used to have flights to the US with continuing services to other destinations in middle america and the caribbean.
      We had to stop this because of the enourmous hassles our transit passengers had to endure on transit (including sometimes refusal of transit). We now go via Havanna, which has its own problems, but at least the passengers have no problems on the transit.

      --
      X IMPRIMITE "SALVE TERRA!"
      XX ITE AD X
    7. Re:That story scares me. by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info innot. So then if the doors stay closed, then the plane is still in international territory? Do you need to open the doors to refuel a plane?

      I can't help thinking that it must be a truely awful procedure for the grandparent to think of spending time in Hawaii as a bad experience. But then as I have never been, perhaps it is just all hype.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    8. Re:That story scares me. by innot · · Score: 1

      No, an aircraft is never "international territory". Either the laws of the country of registration or the laws of the country overflown or the laws of the country where it is sitting on the ground apply. Often all apply at the same time

      To make live a bit easier for those involved, the international Conventions by the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) have been established. But they are just that - conventions, not laws.


      Fueling without opening the doors: possible in theory but usually at minimum an outside check by the pilot is reguired. Also some airports as well as some airlines do not allow fueling with passengers on board for safety reasons. Besides, on long distance flights with a fuel stop you want to give the passengers some time to stretch their legs (but not by standing in line at immigration)

      I have had the same experience transiting the US as the GP, e.g. flying from Montego Bay, Jamaica to Cancun, Mexico - unfortunatly via Miami. Took minimum of 3 hours standing in many lines (immigration, check-in, security, passport control etc.)
      Unpleasant and IMHO completly unnecessary.

      --
      X IMPRIMITE "SALVE TERRA!"
      XX ITE AD X
    9. Re:That story scares me. by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      That was true pre-911. Now the actual policy is more like "Drop trou and bend over for the USA."

      Sorry, but your information is outdated. The official term is now "lean forward". Please update your sigs, stationery, and blogs.

      Thank You.

      Sincerely,
      UID #157373
      Spokesman, Ministry of Truth
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    10. Re:That story scares me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I know is that (a) it happens (well, happened once, but never again (see b)) and (b) when I have a choice between two routes I will *always* choose the (usually more expensive) route that doesn't go through the US.

    11. Re:That story scares me. by Jetson · · Score: 1
      No, an airport is national territory. And by convention an airplane becomes part of the national territory the moments the doors open (with doors closed different regulations apply (Warsaw Convention, Montreal Convention))

      That may be true in theory, but the USA has passed a law requiring all overflights to submit a passenger list prior to the flight. So yes, that would mean Uncle Sam knows which Canadians are flying to Cuba for their winter vacation.

      Most International Airports have designated transit area for passengers transiting a country to save them from the hassle of immigration and emigration - Except for the US

      Many airports (including those in the USA) have a configurable wall/door system that can be used to isolate areas from each other. Last time I was in Honolulu they *did* have a holding area for transit passengers, however it was simply a room in the departures area that was temporarily isolated and would normally be used as another generic waiting room. The issue isn't that the USA *can't* handle transit passengers easily, but that they have a great incentive NOT to.

      Incidentally, the USA isn't the only country that has heavy security. I took a NWA flight from Seattle->Tokyo->Shanghai in 2002, and when we got into Tokyo the Japanese authorities had the entire airplane emptied and searched, and every passenger had to go through X-ray screening again even though we never passed through customs in either direction. It's just the way they do business.

  18. Shouldn't come as a surprise by slusich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact that the information was on the stub and was easily retreivable shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Companies are way too free with where they put such information. Companies need to be held accountable for such things. Casinos actually do things the right way in this case. Loyalty cards and cash out tickets are usually encoded only with an ID number and no more. PINs, address information and such are almost never included.

  19. What is halal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have never heard of halal before, what is it? some sort of Arab or Muslim diet, similar to Kosher for the Jews? I have always believed that Arabs and Jews eat about the same things, they belong to the same race (semitic) are original from the same part of the World, their eating habits must be similar.

    1. Re:What is halal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Halal means basically the same as kosher. In fact I was told once that at least some Muslims consider kosher food to be an acceptable substitute if halal food is not available. I've never heard of the opposite, probably because Judaism predates Islam so the traditions flow in one direction only.

    2. Re:What is halal? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      When your diet is dictated by your religion, there's no reason for two religions to follow the same diets. Even if they are from the same area. They are remarkably similar, though. And it's not just regional, there are plenty of foods available in the area that pose no health risk, yet Jews are not allowed to eat them anyway. It's rather arbitrary at times... outside of religious context, of course: they consider their reasons "good").

    3. Re:What is halal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Halal is very similar to kashrut (the jewish dietary law.) In fact, Halal is generally more permissive with the exception that alcohol is completely forbidden, and the Dhabia, which is the permissible method to slaughtering animals. Basically, this requires that animals be pointed towards Mecca and slaughtered in the name of Allah. Many more liberal muslims will simply take kashrut as good enough, and some further simply do not eat pork and ignore the Dhabia. However, conservative Muslims will not break strict halal unless doing otherwise will cause starvation. One can assume that an extremely conservative Muslim who is on his way to perform what he considers to be a holy act will not break halal. Although for some reason It seems that fasting would be a more appropriate course of action. But then not eating your meal would probably be considered suspicious by the airlines.

    4. Re:What is halal? by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative
      Muslims just find it harder to find halal food than Jews finding kosker food, so 'fake it' more often. In reality, neither of them is 'acceptable' to the orthadox followers, in that they aren't certified as following the correct preparation. I know kosker is supposed to have a rabbi check out the process, and halal has much the same thing, although I forget the exact rule.

      However, neither has pork, or shellfish, or a few other things. And hence if someone doesn't care about having their food 'certified', they just don't want to take a big bite of pork, the 'other' kind of food is fine.

      And the GP is right, Jewish and Arab traditions are very very close in many ways, because they originally were the same, and because they have always lived in the same part of the world. Any similarities between Islam and Judism is almost always because Islam was almost entirely an Arab religion at the start. I.e., Semitic to Arab to Muslim, and Semitic to Jewish people to Jewish religion.

      Whereas Christianity wandered off to Europe, and the European 'pagan' people within 100 years, so sucked up all those traditions. While Islam and Judism are single religions that came out of the same sets of people, Christianity is almost that same thing, out of the same people, applied to an entirely different set of people.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:What is halal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When your diet is dictated by your religion, there's no reason for two religions to follow the same diets.

      Many new religions copy things from older religions. Christmas trees and easter bunnies have nothing to do with the new testament.

      there are plenty of foods available in the area that pose no health risk, yet Jews are not allowed to eat them anyway. It's rather arbitrary at times... outside of religious context, of course: they consider their reasons "good").

      Non-kosher foods aren't prohibited due to a health risk (kosher hamburger with e.coli can kill you just the same as non-kosher hamburger, and you can get food poisoning from vegetables). They are prohibited because Jews believe that God said so.

      Arbitrary? Absolutely, but so are most other religious requirements. Why do some Christian denominations have confessions, and others don't? It's arbitrary.

    6. Re:What is halal? by kbahey · · Score: 1

      Kosher is similar to Halal, but far more restrictive.

      They both forbid eating of dead animals (road kill is out!), or those killed by suffocation or any other means than that is prescribed, animals killed in the name of other Gods, pork, and blood.

      Given the shared heritage, they both share some exotic food, such as locusts, which is only practiced today in the heartlands of Arabia.

      Kosher forbids mixing of dairy and meat, and orthodox Jews would keep separate fridges and china sets for each of those. Halal does not have this restriction (so cheesburgers are OK, hold the bacon though).

      Kosher calls for a qualified butcher (Schohet?) to use one pass of the knife across the animal's neck to kill it, while halal does not prescribe a number.

      Kosher forbids any seafood that does not have scales and fins, so basically shrimp, lobster, clams, mussels, squid, ...etc are out. Halal allows basically anything from the sea.

      Kosher prescribes a certain method to extract the sciatic nerve from the hindquarters of the animal, which is a very labor intestive process, as well as certain fat in certain areas. Halal does not have these restrictions.

      Kosher allows alcoholic beverages, Halal forbids them.

      The short form of the rule is that Kosher is a subset of halal, with the exception of alcohol.

      As a side note, neither Kosher nor Halal are proper names for the dietary laws and rules. Halal simply means 'permissible' in Arabic, and is not used in the context of dietary law in the Arabic speaking countries. It became a special term in non-Arabic speaking countries (mainly Indian subcontinent), and spread into the West. Also, Muslims from India/Pakistan and more restrictive than Arab Muslims in certain aspects of halal (e.g. a Pakistani would never eat a burger in the USA at McDonalds but an Egyptian would most likely do so).

    7. Re:What is halal? by kbahey · · Score: 1

      Kosher is acceptable to the vast majority of Muslims, with the exception of alcohol. This is from a verse in the Quran allowing meat from "people of the book" to be consumed by Muslims.

      Kosher forbids shellfish, but halal does not. See more details in this comment.

      As for your analysis of Christianity vs. other semitic religions, and the role of Europe, this is correct, although it started earlier than that in the Council of Jerusalem, where the debate was : "Are Christians supposed to keep Jewish laws, or not?".

      Europe had a profound effect on the development of Christianity, and even Judaism. As an example, all semitic traditions allowed polygamy, and it was practiced by Jews up to the 11th century. Ashkenazi Jews forbid the practice at that time (Rabbi Gershom). Jews living in Muslim lands continued to practice it (e.g. in Yemen and Iran).

      Christianity on the other hand kept with Roman customs in marriage and forbade polygamy (St. Augustine mentioned that keeping with Roman custom was one reason not to continue the otherwise biblical practice).

      Of the Abrahamic Faiths, the amount of similarities Jews and Muslims share is astounding. Too bad that the political situation in the past decades have clouded this. Christianity was supposed to be close too, but took its own theological path that is different from the faith that preceded and followed it, as well as relaxing the Jewish laws as well (not only food, but polygamy, divorce, ...etc.)

  20. Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the author is clear that this is all because of pressure from the United States.

    I am a Norwegian, and I am saddened by the new religion that has Europe in it's grips. There are various sects in this religion, but they all have one thing in common, the big "Satan" is the US of effing A. Anything bad that goes on in the world is the fault of the US. This article, and the response to it, is an example of how fanatics suffering from this religion think.

    The system they hacked was the BA frequent flyer system. This system has nothing to do with passenger security or US national security. This is a convenience system made so that BA passengers easily can buy tickets, earn miles, buy upgrades etc. This system shouldn't have information such as the passport number. The fact that it does is an internal matter for BA and has absolutely nothing to do with the USA.

    I travel a lot for business and I am a member of most of the frequent flyer systems in Europe and the US, but not BA since I am already a member of one of their co-shares. None of the airlines have my passport number stored on the frequent flyer site. Not one of them.

    This is an internal BA problem, BA should never have had the passport number stored on the FF site, they should never allow this to be accessed without a password etc.

    Blaming the US for this is ridiculous in the extreme. The US has nothing to do with how an airline designs its Frequent Flyer website, and no, the US does not require that your passport number of other personal information is stored on the FF site or anywhere else for that matter. They only require the information be sent before you board the plane.

    Sadly, the new European religion requires full frontal lobotomy prior to joining, something that has not reduced the number of Europeans who sign on.

    1. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by m50d · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      This system shouldn't have information such as the passport number. The fact that it does is an internal matter for BA and has absolutely nothing to do with the USA.

      No, the reason it has them is the new US law that requires them to have them.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      I am a Norwegian, and I am saddened by the new religion that has Europe in it's grips. There are various sects in this religion, but they all have one thing in common, the big "Satan" is the US of effing A.

      That's funny, I'm an American and I subscribe to that religion (and I know many other Americans who do). Stupid government.

    3. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by iceperson · · Score: 1

      "No, the reason it has them is the new US law that requires them to have them."

      could you please cite where US law states that 1) it has to be on the boarding pass and 2) it has to be on an unsecure system.

    4. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by etienne_169 · · Score: 1

      "That's funny, I'm an American and I subscribe to that religion (and I know many other Americans who do). " I'm french and it doesn't look that funny to me. Do you take into account the fact that most europeans don't make the difference betwen US authorities and Americans...?

    5. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by lotd · · Score: 1
      "This is a convenience system made so that BA passengers easily can buy tickets, earn miles, buy upgrades etc. This system shouldn't have information such as the passport number. The fact that it does is an internal matter for BA and has absolutely nothing to do with the USA."

      I have no idea when you last travelled to the US but all airlines flying to the US are required by *law* to provide advance passenger information. This information must include the passport number. Therefore it has everything to do with the USA.

      http://www.britishairways.com/travel/ba6.jsp/immin fo/public/en_gb/

      lotd

    6. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by m50d · · Score: 1
      could you please cite where US law states that 1) it has to be on the boarding pass

      No, I can't. You can't talk about the anti-terror laws, and I don't actually know the law is there, but it seems a reasonable deduction as AFAICT every airline flying into the US has suddenly introduced them.

      and 2) it has to be on an unsecure system.

      The fact that the system is unsecure is BA's fault, sure. But the information wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for the US.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. The US requires that the passport number be sent to the appropriate US authorities before you board the plane, but it doesn't require it be available on the freaking Frequent Flyer website, or any other website for that matter.

      Thank you for proving my point about the full frontal lobotomy though.

    8. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1

      I have no idea when you last travelled to the US but all airlines flying to the US are required by *law* to provide advance passenger information. This information must include the passport number. Therefore it has everything to do with the USA.

      I travel to the US many, many times each year, and I also travel a lot inside the US. Every time I do so, whatever airline I use send my passport number to the US authorities, which I really don't have a problem with. Not a single one of the airlines I travel with have my passport number stored on their Frequent Flyer website though. Not one of them. Storing my passport number or any other identification number, on the Frequent Flyer website is insane.

      Thanks for proving my point about the full frontal lobotomy though.

    9. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1
      I am a Norwegian, and I am saddened by the new religion that has Europe in it's grips. There are various sects in this religion, but they all have one thing in common, the big "Satan" is the US of effing A.

      That's funny, I'm an American and I subscribe to that religion... Stupid government.

      That the current US administration is among the disturbing administrations the US has ever had is beyond doubt. The massive amounts of lies and deceit that underlies a lot of what they do is scary beyond measure. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that everything in the world is the fault of the US. The Bird Flu is not a US product, and isn't spread by the US government. AIDS wasn't created in US laboratories to wipe out the african population. The next killer asteroid to come zooming our way isn't a US weapon to kill communism in North Korea.

      While there are things that are disturbing about the US government, and many other governments for that matter, blaming the US for a British Airways foul-up is still amazingly irrational.

    10. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the information wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for the US.

      Rubbish! You are clearly not reading what the article states. The US doesn't require that BA stores the passport number on the Frequent Flyer site. In fact, the US doesn't require that BA stores the information anywhere as long as they ship it to the US before you board the plane, in other words, they could have you supply the information when you buy the ticket, ship it accross, and promptly remove it.

      The only reason BA had the passport number on their Frequent Flyer site is so that they could make it convenient for the traveller. The US doesn't require this, and if you ask anyone in the US government, they would probably strongly recommend against it. Having your identification number accessible through a website, in any manner, is a huge security issue.

      This is BA messing up, not thinking about what they should and should not store on their Frequent Flyer website, and completely making an arse out of them selves by allowing access to this information with no password.

      This problem is not related to the US government at all, in any way, except inside the head of a lobotomized journalist.

    11. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by crush · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're flying off half-cocked in an expression of your own "religion". It would seem that one of the central tenets of that religion is that any criticism of policies which are implemented as a result of US pressure is wrong because the US can do no harm. You're right that this shouldn't be focused on the USA though, and I don't think it is, it's just your sensitivities that are playing you up. It's pretty clear that EU and other governments are going along with these cockamamie intrusions into our private data and are not standing up for their own citizens security, convenience and safety.

      This article is only incidentally about the USA. If it wasn't the US it'd be some other powerful state in the hot seat. The USA gets criticised a lot because it's the most powerful state on earth and so it does a lot more stuff. In this case it was due to Clinton that the airlines were pushed to start collecting this information (which is of no possible use against real terrorists) for the US government. They asked for it, so they caused the problem.

      Some of what the USA does is good and some of it is dumb, this article is about one of the dumb parts: insisting on airline companies collecting data for a near useless passenger screening program. Instead of protecting us from terrorists it exposes us to fraud. It's dumb bureaucrats trying to solve a problem and fucking it up and they know it and they've been told about it (read any of Bruce Schneier's commentary on this stuff for years or even slashdot FFS and it's obvious with only a tiny bit of research that this is a dumb thing to be doing).

      British Airway's own disgusting part in this involved leaving their website vulnerable for months after they'd been alerted the vulnerability, but even if they'd closed it there'd probably be some other way of getting the information.

      Storing information in a way that is usable to meet the requirements of widespread screening and not have that data vulnerable to being leaked is damn hard (if at all possible) and should only be done when there's an demonstrated benefit. In this case the costs outweigh the benefits.

    12. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're flying off half-cocked in an expression of your own "religion". It would seem that one of the central tenets of that religion is that any criticism of policies which are implemented as a result of US pressure is wrong because the US can do no harm.

      Eh, no. That is why I, in another posting wrote: That the current US administration is among the disturbing administrations the US has ever had is beyond doubt.. The original idea was that a BA foul-up, magically was the fault of the US, don't confuse that with a general support for anything the US does. I do not harbor such notions. Please stick to what I actually say rather than your own ideas about what you think I think.

      ou're right that this shouldn't be focused on the USA though, and I don't think it is

      It isn't? The article, and the original poster, both blamed the US for something that has nothing at all to do with the US, it's citizens or it's laws. This was 100% a BA foul-up, and has nothing to do with US law.

      In this case it was due to Clinton that the airlines were pushed to start collecting this information ... They asked for it, so they caused the problem.

      No, they didn't, which is evident by the fact that, as far as I know, only BA is so incredibly stupid that they make this information available through a website. The US government has never asked BA, or any other airline, to store our identidy information on a website. Please explain to me how the US can be blamed for something they had absolutely nothing do do with.

      this article is about one of the dumb parts: insisting on airline companies collecting data for a near useless passenger screening program.

      No, in fact it isn't. It is about making this information available through a low-security (or any for that matter) website. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the airline should store such information anywhere outside of their corporate network. Making it available on a website is not nessessary, or even smart. In fact it ia amazingly dumb, and it is a dumb move by the airline, not related at all to the US. Please explain to me how the fact that the US wants this information collected is related to the fact that BA puts it up on a publically available website? Why would they? They did it to add a "feature" to their Frequent Flyer Program, and only for that reason. The idiot who came up with the idea in BA should be fired.

      Instead of protecting us from terrorists it exposes us to fraud

      Collecting such information doesn't expose us to fraud, putting it on a website does. I don't know of any company that is that stupid. Even when I log in to my bank online, it doesn't show me the freaking account number.

      it's obvious with only a tiny bit of research that this is a dumb thing to be doing

      What is dumb, collecting the information or putting it on a website?

      British Airway's own disgusting part in this involved leaving their website vulnerable for months after they'd been alerted the vulnerability

      No it isn't, it is the fact that they even considered collecting this information through the web and and displaying it for anyone logging in. Tell me, when you log into your banks website, is your bank dumb enough to actually show the account numbers of your accounts?

      Storing information in a way that is usable to meet the requirements of widespread screening and not have that data vulnerable to being leaked is damn hard

      It is hard to secure information like this, but there are a few things you can do if you have to collect it.

      • If you do not need to store the information, discard it as soon as possible: BA failed, they do not have to store the information, why are they sitting on it?
      • If you have to store the information, only keep it inside your corporate network or transport it over trusted communication channels: BA Fai
    13. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by crush · · Score: 1

      British Airways (and you can bet a lot of other companies besides them) wouldn't be given the opportunity to collect this information if it wasn't as a result of the US pressure to collect the information. Once you start collecting this stuff it's going to be stored all over the place and is going to be leaked. It's also of no use for it's proposed function: screening out terrorists (see the Carney algorithm paper for details).

      The USA pushed for the collection of it, ergo it's the USA's fault. The rest of your long apologia is irrelevant and is merely an hysterical reaction against criticism of this action by the USA.

      This leak is an inevitable consequence of the attempt to collect enough information to determine whether or not an individual is a terrorist. The original article points out that UK citizens can expect similar problems once the UK government introduces their proposed national ID cards.

    14. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by m50d · · Score: 1
      in other words, they could have you supply the information when you buy the ticket, ship it accross, and promptly remove it.

      The whole point of the online service is not having to queue up, you can simply collect your tickets from the machine and go. If your passport had to be checked at the airport, that would make the service essentially useless. So the new US policy gave them a choice between removing a popular service that paying customers liked and storing that information on those servers. Really it's no surprise what they chose, and I can't say I blame them.

      --
      I am trolling
    15. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1

      British Airways ... wouldn't be given the opportunity to collect this information if it wasn't as a result of the US pressure to collect the information.

      What do you mean by "given the opportunity". What type of information BA asks for on their website is entirely up to BA. The US government has never asked BA to collect this information in this manner. This is not something the US government has requested, it is a "fetaure" BA has added for BA travellers "convenience".

      The USA pushed for the collection of it, ergo it's the USA's fault.

      No, it didn't. It never did. BA is the only airline I know of that collects information like this in this manner. If the US government required BA collect this information through their website then all airlines flying into the US had to do it. I'll let you in on a little secret, I fly into the US 3, maybe four times a year. I last flew to the US on American Airlines, they do not have my passport number on their website, in January I flew KLM, a dutch airline, tell you a secret, they don't have it on their site either. In October I flew from Copenhagen to New York on SAS, want me to go on? I just bought tickets that will take me on Air Canada from Calgary to Los Angeles on Friday of next week. Do you think they have my passport information on their website? NO THEY DO NOT!

      I don't like the US government more than the next European, but you know what, I don't blame them for me losing a hand in poker, the ebola virus or the bird flu. I blame them for things they caused, not for BAs f.ck ups.

    16. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the online service is not having to queue up, you can simply collect your tickets from the machine and go. If your passport had to be checked at the airport, that would make the service essentially useless

      Just out of curiosity, when did BA stop checking passports at the airport for US flights? Last time I went we all queued up to have our passports checked, and that has been the case every time I have flown from Heathrow to the US the last 10 years. For the record, they also check my passport when I fly from London to Norway.

      So the new US policy gave them a choice between removing a popular service that paying customers liked and storing that information on those servers.

      Now, if BA had to collect the information through the web, why on earth would they have to make it accessible and easily changable? Now, they didn't have to store it, but who on earth would make this information visible? Does your bank show your account number on the website when you log in? If they do, change your bank

    17. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by crush · · Score: 1

      ...in this manner ... through their website That's not what I'm arguing and it's not what you're denying either. What I'm arguing is that airlines had no interest in collecting and storing this information before the US government said that they wouldn't allow passengers to fly to the US unless the airlines collected it and passed it on to them. That's a US created situation. This particular fuck-up in implementation is just one way in which the system can go wrong. I'm sure there's plenty others. After all we've seen massive losses of information from credit card companies who have more of an incentive than the government to keep the data secret. You're just ranting and raving at this stage.

      This type of data loss, through either the specific faulty mechanism highlighted above, or some other yet-to-be-revealed shocker, is an inevitable consequence of the data collection.

      You can keep screaming, but it's just noise and is ignoring reality. No governments or corporations should be collecting this type of data unless there's a pressing need for it and there isn't, because it's no effing use in finding terrorists

    18. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by m50d · · Score: 1
      Just out of curiosity, when did BA stop checking passports at the airport for US flights?

      I'm pretty sure they didn't when I flew in 2003 and after that. You get generic passport control on the way to the plane but you've already got your boarding pass at this point.

      Now, if BA had to collect the information through the web, why on earth would they have to make it accessible and easily changable?

      So you can see if you've entered it wrong, and change it if it changes.

      Does your bank show your account number on the website when you log in? If they do, change your bank

      Yeah, they show it, and so did the last one. How else would I identify my different accounts?

      --
      I am trolling
    19. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1

      What I'm arguing is that airlines had no interest in collecting and storing this information before the US government said that they wouldn't allow passengers to fly to the US unless the airlines collected it and passed it on to them.

      BZZZ! WRONG! Again. I have been doing business travel sine the late 1980s. Most of the companies I have worked for have used various travel agents for booking tickets, so I have filled in a large number of travel profiles. Until the late '90s, they were all on paper, and you know what, they have all asked me to fill in my passport number (optional). This is not information BA collects because the US wants it, it has always been a standard part of a travel profile. The hare-brained idea of collecting it and storing it on the Frequent Flyer site comes from BA though.

    20. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1
      Just out of curiosity, when did BA stop checking passports at the airport for US flights?

      I'm pretty sure they didn't when I flew in 2003 and after that.

      Well, I know for sure they have done it every time I have gone through Heathrow to go to the US, Canada, Colombia, Australia, Hong Kong etc. They did it in 1991 and they did it in January.

      Does your bank show your account number on the website when you log in? If they do, change your bank

      Yeah, they show it, and so did the last one. How else would I identify my different accounts

      As I said, get a new bank. They are obviously not particularly security concious. I am willing to bet that the last few digits of all of your bank accounts are different. Why would the bank show anything more than they need? Do their ATMs print the account number on the receipt?

    21. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by m50d · · Score: 1
      As I said, get a new bank. They are obviously not particularly security concious. I am willing to bet that the last few digits of all of your bank accounts are different. Why would the bank show anything more than they need? Do their ATMs print the account number on the receipt?

      Well, yeah. If they didn't, I can't see it being that useful as a receipt - proof that money came out of or went into that account.

      --
      I am trolling
    22. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by crush · · Score: 1
      and you know what, they have all asked me to fill in my passport number (optional)

      Bzzz yourself. What are you, a child? Your personal experience conflicts with mine where I have NEVER been asked for my passport number and I have NEVER been told that the airline is under an obligation to as a matter of routine share my confidential information with any government. I also note your "(optional)" there. It's now non optional. At this stage it's painfully obvious that you have an obsessive-compulsive desire to deny that large-scale monitoring and collection of personal data instituted by the USA is a threat to everyone. Yes, BA is culpable of an egregious leak of this info, but the ultimate cause is the dumb legislation passed in the USA.

      B.t.w more fool you if you've been handing out your passport # to travel agents for decades.

    23. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Your personal experience conflicts with mine where I have NEVER been asked for my passport number and I have NEVER been told that the airline is under an obligation to as a matter of routine share my confidential information with any government.

      As I have stated, I have also never been asked for my passport number, how do our experiences conflict?

      It's now non optional

      Sigh. On the Frequent Flyer website? Please.

      Yesterday I purchased, online, a ticket from Calgary, Canada, to Los Angeles, USA. I used the online reservation system of Air Canada. Air Canada does not have my passport number, this is the first time I fly with them. They did not ask for my passport number when I booked the ticket, and I did not enter it.

      If this is, as you claim, something Air Canada has to collect prior to me showing up at the airport, how come I was able to purchase this ticket?

    24. Re:Dumbest thing I've ever read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, although I have to say we're spoiled by how well Norwegian banks think through the services they offer. (Wells Fargo of yore coming to mind as an example of how crap-tacular American banks can be.)

      The issues presented by the journalist are anything but trivial. Personally, I'm of the belief that on-the-ground intelligence is vastly superior to this hodge-podge of data mining that seems the trend of the day.

      The primary issue is that BA didn't have the systems in place when the US government demanded the passport info and would deny travel if somebody had an invalid/red alert passport #. Facing liability concerns if passport numbers were entered incorrectly by BA agents, they decided to let their frequent fliers enter it themselves - thereby shoving the responsibility onto the traveller. Combined with a web site obviously not up to snuff on verification of their users, this farce became possible.

      If I'm supposed to sit here and feel sorry for BA and angry at the US, it's not quite what's happening. I'd guess somebody underestimated the issue in BA's budgetting process, although IT is the second most likely culprit. What I do object to is this enormous amount of analysis the US government does on each and every one of its travellers. I fail to see how the bogeymen that orchestrated 9/11 would allow themselves to be detected by mere statistical analysis aided by graph theory. Viewing the issue from this perspective, I consider the whole practice of holding back people for wrong passport numbers an unnecessary burden and cost on airline and traveller alike. That is, of course, still no excuse for BA's lack of rigour in keeping sensitive data from third parties.

      To somehow conclude my random rambling - I agree with you that a number of our fellow Europeans seem to have adopted an unfounded anti-American stance. I consider these people mostly to do that for the low-risk rewards they may reap in taking some moral 'high ground' against a powerful state. Much like any number of Norwegian SV supporters sitting around in coffee houses and telling each other how morally great they are - since they're against big business and oil dependancy and for green energy without having any perspective on neither the economics nor the science involved.

      Of course, they fail to consider they'd most likely have to get their coffee imported on sailing vessels if they had all their political 'objectives' come through.

  21. I was not fingerprinted at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...on my trip to the US (I was actually staying IN the USA for two weeks).
    I met with the customs officer, he scanned my passport, asked me some questions and then said something like: "hrm, it doesn't usually do that", and send me off without any fingerprints or photographs being made.
     
    Later I asked the person I was travelling with whether he had his fingerprints taken, and he said he did.
    So it's not that important after all it seems - at least when computer breakdowns are concerned.

  22. Re:profiling? by Elm+Tree · · Score: 1

    Well, in that case I say we start nabbing the mexican grannies and the hippies too. Sounds fair to me. ;)

  23. Shredders arn't that great by hey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I was looking for sensitive info on a street on garbage day I'd look for the shredded stuff. Also, of course, you can put it back together.

    1. Re:Shredders arn't that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck trying that at my place. After I've shredded I eat the paper.

    2. Re:Shredders arn't that great by LizzyDragon · · Score: 1

      Not so easy if the shredded page is mixed up with lots of other shredded pages. Besides, if you're going to prowl the neighborhood for sensitive info, it would be easier to go to Joe Schmoe's can and go through that if Joe doesn't shred his stuff. Now you don't even have to bother with the jigsaw puzzle (the rotten bananas from last week might be a nastier problem though. :P).

    3. Re:Shredders arn't that great by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Guess I should upgrade to woodstove.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    4. Re:Shredders arn't that great by Peyna · · Score: 1

      A lot of tape and a little patience make all the difference.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Shredders arn't that great by scumbaguk · · Score: 1

      Yep you are right. I shred and burn.
      The paper they use for statements dosn't burn properly and sometimes still leaves readable ink so a combintation of the two seems to do the trick.

    6. Re:Shredders arn't that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I don't have one. I out discardable paper with inentifying information in a paper bag in my kitchen, and when It's full I burn it.

      Good luck putting THAT back together!

    7. Re:Shredders arn't that great by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      That's why you get a cross-cut shredder that not only cuts the paper vertically in little strips, but cuts those strips horizontally every inch or so. Those are virtually un-re-assemble-able.

  24. All talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These security experts are all talk. The big scoup is that he changes his own account details. Big whoppie! I bet the airline website just saved a login cookie. Try changing the personal info for another person. It does not work...

  25. Shredder by pkluss · · Score: 2, Funny

    I haven't seen him in forever. All he does is hang out with Krang in Dimension X anymore...

  26. Shredders are your friends by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 1

    I knew there was a reason my boarding passes went into the shredder when I got home...

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  27. I call bullshit by corbettw · · Score: 2, Informative

    This whole article sounds like complete and utter bullshit.

    First, the writer said he logged into BA's site, using only the supposed victim's frequent flyer number. But if you go to http://www.britishairways.com/travel/home/public/e n_gb and look on the right side of the screen, you'll see you need a password along with your ID to access the site. So either 1) the person had no password (doubtful, most sites won't permit a blank password), or 2) he's lying. I'll go with #2 and assume he's lying. Since he's lying about how he got the information, it can be safely assume he made up everything else in the article.

    As for the rest of the article, it might be accurate, but somehow I doubt that. The whole thing just utterly fails to pass the smell-o-scope test, pegging right between 'horse manure' and 'grade A Kentucky bullshit'.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:I call bullshit by Knightfall · · Score: 1

      Absolute agreement. I belong to 4-5 airline FF programs, 7-8 rental car programs, and several hotel programs. The get ANYTHING on ANY of them requires a userid AND password. Every time, without exception. None allow a blank password. This is total fear-mongering B.S.

      --


      Knightfall
    2. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try
      http://www.britishairways.com/travel/managebooking /public/en_gb?prim=manabook
      or
      http://www.britishairways.com/travel/loghlp/public /en_gb
      "Forgotten your password?
      Enter your username in both the Login ID and the PIN/Password boxes to receive your password prompt."

    3. Re:I call bullshit by ISoldMyLowIdOnEbay · · Score: 3, Informative

      From TFA

      "BA has now closed its security loophole after being contacted by the Guardian in March"

      So I wouldn't expect it to work now...

    4. Re:I call bullshit by rfunches · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay, I'll bite.

      From TFA, the guy is a business traveller. Now look what happens if you "need help" logging in to BA's website:

      As a member of the British Airways Executive Club, On Business or as a registered customer with britishairways.com, you can now log in to manage your account and access our exclusive online services. You log in by entering your details in the boxes at the top right hand corner of the screen.

      Login ID Your login ID is either your: > Executive Club membership number or > On Business membership number or > Username

      PIN/Password When logging in with the following: > Executive Club membership number, use your 4-digit PIN or > On Business use your login id and password or > username, use your password

      Executive Club members If you need a PIN or have forgotten your PIN, then please click here to apply for one >>

      On Business members If you have forgotten your password or login id click here for more information >>

      Forgotten your password? Enter your username in both the Login ID and the PIN/Password boxes to receive your password prompt.

      From what I can tell, if the reporter is in fact not lying, if the "victim" was an Executive Club member, you need the following if you need a PIN, or have forgotten your PIN:

      • Membership number
      • First name
      • Family/Last name

      Hmm. This is printed on the boarding pass already. Oh, and if he's an On Business member, you only need the username to retrieve the password, and the website tells you that it's "2 characters 6 digits"; what's the chance of that being the membership number printed on the boarding pass?

      I wouldn't call this complete and utter bullshit yet. There are reasonable explanations for how this was accomplished.

    5. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do as the article mentions which is buy a ticket using his details (I didn't actual buy a ticket but followed right through to payment to see what was there) it looks like it was entirely possible to get into the profile part of the site that way rather than logging in with password on the front page.

      Remember they already had a great deal of data on him which is required when purchasing the ticket. I figure BA just thought with that much detail (mobile phone, email address etc etc) including the freq flyer number that you could be left in the system (without password) to do what you want with your profile once the ticket was bought.

      Again as said in the article, the loophole of getting in by buying a ticket was finally closed in March.

    6. Re:I call bullshit by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, I didn't see that. That's pretty scary! You'd think they'd want something that wasn't printed together in the same place.

      Guess you're right, maybe this did happen! If so, that Dutch traveler should sue the bejesus out of BA for not following common sense security standards on their site.

      Good catch.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since it says that if you enter your username in both boxes you'll receive your password PROMPT, I'd expect what you get is the "hint" you often are asked to create when defining a password.

      You know, like if your password is "rover", and you create a hint like "What is my dogs name?". Obviously, if your prompt is something that allows your password to be easily guessed, you're hosed.

      Of course, perhaps they meant that you'll receive your password PROMPTLY... in which case, all bets are off.

    8. Re:I call bullshit by Arkaic · · Score: 0

      Also from the article: "BA has now closed its security loophole after being contacted by the Guardian in March, but that particular lapse is beside the point."

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. "nothing to see here" by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

    Ah, but when other people hear about and see this, they'll nod, saying: Our government is doing something with it. and instantly believe that there's more going on. That this is just the surface and so on.

    Alas! The government has succeded in their mission; creating a distraction to hide their incompetence. The truth, which anyone with common sense would see, is that nobody has any good idea as to how to stop a would-be illdoer.
    Why? Since he's not wearing his Terrorist badge, obviously.
    You cannot bind a creative mind.

    BTW, the WTC 9/11 was not as original as I first thought. A B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building back in 1945.

  30. Re:profiling? by compro01 · · Score: 1

    well, being as they tend to be recruiting people who you would never expect to be terrorists, i would say that would be semi-likely.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  31. Similar thing... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1
    Back in 2002 (I was 24), I was back in the US near Boston for my sister's wedding. (I live in Japan). After the wedding and reception were over, my other sister, her husband, and I went out to a bar for a few beers. The waitress asked me for ID, and I handed her my passport.

    She looked like she had never seen one before and told me she would have to check with her boss. She walked it over to him, he looked at it with a disbelieving look, looked at me, looked back at the passport, and then shook his head "no". She came back to me and asked if I had a driver's license or state ID or something.

    So, I pulled out my Japanese Alien Registration card (which has some English, but is primarily written in Japanese...still it has my DOB on it) and handed it to her while saying, "I don't live in the US."

    The waitress looked kind of shocked, and took it over to the manager. He looked shocked. My sister said, "Oh, give us a break. He works in Japan. He has just shown you two IDs. Let him have a beer."

    They finally served me, with a snarky comment from the manager saying, "Best fake ID I've ever seen."

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Similar thing... by scumbaguk · · Score: 1

      wow that is quite absurd.

  32. flying by Z3nN3rd · · Score: 1

    I just got back from Interop in Vegas (yeah, it rocked) and flying just sucks anymore. I was wearing flip flops and they insisted I take them off and send them through the xray machine! Another guy I was traveling with had to go to the counter because his name is "John White" and they thought it might be an alias for some Muslim suicide loser...the dude couldn't be any more gringo! Next time we are just going to drive, since I live in Arizona it shouldn't take much longer.

    1. Re:flying by DigitalWar · · Score: 1

      At least flipflops are easy to take off, I really need to stop wearing boots when I fly.

    2. Re:flying by couchslug · · Score: 1

      I could fit plastique (or a smokeless pistol powder packet) and a blasting cap into a homemade plaster sandal mold and cast a presentable plastic (urethane) "sandal" around the thing quite easily. Other than the explosives the components are cheap, common and their purchase wouldn't raise any eyebrows. Shucks, nitrate some rope and the thong portion becomes a dandy fuse!
      BTW, being a Gringo does not exclude being a Muslim, however uncommon the combo may be. John Lind was quite White.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  33. I'm not sure if that line is sarcastic. Any how: by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    Bleedin' liberals, always free with the truth.

  34. Newsflash. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    The only major shift in U.S. airline security practices as they directly affect passengers is that those measures previously ubiquitous in international travel are now used for domestic travel as well--and some of the gizmos have gotten a bit better. I've been travelling internationally for 25 years and save for updating the X-Rays and adding aerosol analyzers to the routine, I feel no more violated by U.S. security measures than I did twenty years ago going through, say, British customs who rifled through every panty and sock of every passenger on every plane...and why was that? Ta-dah, terrorists! Better known as "the Irish."

    Want to talk of government policy being _really_ personally invasive? Try Australia in the late 80's--when they mandated that all inbound planes be fumigated with pesticide...with the passengers still inside. I haven't been back, so I don't know if they still do that, but damn, talk about being violated, yet people bitch that the U.S. wants them to take off their shoes--and yes, I got flagged for extra screening twice this weekend, flying domestically and the worst offense I felt was when they confiscated my $0.99 cigarette lighter. Silly? Yeah, maybe, but not as silly as dumping out the entire contents of my luggage to separately send my toothbrush and razor through the X-Ray at Heathrow.

    1. Re:Newsflash. by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      --...and the worst offense I felt was when they confiscated my $0.99 cigarette lighter.---

      That reminds me, the last time I flew was probably about 3 years ago or so. I flew out of Portland, OR into Detroit. I was a cigarette smoker at the time and had just recently bought one of those 10-packs of lighters because they were cheap. I also had one of those butane torch-type lighters on me, but... *It was completely empty and had been for over a year and a half*. Mind you I didn't expect them to actually take all but *2* of my lighters (The guy said that's the limit...maybe you can build a bomb with 3?) Plus, when the guy found my butane lighter, he looked like he'd hit the jackpot! I told him it was empty and he looked at me like "We'll just SEE about THAT!" He took his pen and jammed it into the filling nozzle of the lighter. Nothing came out... and he broke my lighter. He looked up at me and said "Nasty things, you could like...uh...melt wiring or something." and handed it back to me. I swear it was like watching Cleetus A. Lump take a stab at being a security guard. If it wasn't my shit I would have chuckled.

      Sadly it was my lighter, and my money that went to pay that asshat. THAT is the real crime here....

      My 2 Cents

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
  35. Clue Stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you considered that maybe the reason that YOU are treated like shit at airport security is because the security guys sense your Bull Shit Level and are specifically fucking with YOU?

  36. [ot] Halal by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if Halal certification insists on anything more than the way the animal is killed (a neck slash and blood drained from the corpse). I don't think it would insist on non-battery or free-range chickens, for example, but may insist on cattle not fed foodstuffs derived from other animal material.

  37. the target group of the stupid scans by BACbKA · · Score: 1

    The target group of these seemingly stupid scans is IMHO the hypothetical "zombied" average grass-roots terrorist, i.e., somebody who isn't an actual operative of a terror cell, but, rather, someone indoctrinated by some extremist brainwash --- doesn't matter what ideology we're talking about. Such person will assumingly be stupid enough to be easily caught in the stupid checks. OTOH, seeking reason behind actions of huge government entities like the military is often stupid in itself, so maybe you should ignore my post altogether...

    --

    VKh

  38. Missing step by op12 · · Score: 1

    Once you do that, shred the shredder. You can't be too careful.

  39. Hmm, you're a bit of a turd. by RealityThreek · · Score: 1
    I fly all the time. It's not nearly as bad as people whine about. I can be through security and boarded within about 15mins in most cases. Of course, my name isn't Muhammad.

    I routinely wear clothing anti-Bush slogans... this has the effect of rocketing me though EU security (and giving people a little smile)
    If this is true, then I have alot less respect for the EU and their ability to effectively manage their own security.

    I do remember once going to the US and the Germans were putting Americans through the full security kit and the rest of EU members through the standard security screening and then putting them on the same plane.)
    A bit amusing, although I doubt this happens all the time.
    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Hmm, you're a bit of a turd. by bhima · · Score: 1

      No worries... the feeling is mutual. If you're ok with ineffectual intrusive security measures have fun.
      Myself I have no respect for the American's implementation of airport security.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  40. Re:profiling? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
    80 year old mexican catholic ladies and white agnostic american hippies

    They're certainly more likely to be carrying weapons right now. Hey, you're just got to recruit one of them. The six other guys, who are suspicious-looking Arab men, can just get their weapons from that person once they're on the plane.

    And how the hell do you know they're those things? I'm pretty certain there's a type of behavior called 'acting', where you pretend to be something you're not.

    And I think you're ignoring the 60, in which there were, indeed, 'terrorist hippies'. Have you ever heard of the Weather Underground? They considered themselves at war with the US, and started bombing it. Repeated. While they didn't delibrately target civilians, it's somewhat hard to miss them when you blow up police stations and courthouses. (And they also attacked Gulf Oil offices.)

    I can't think of any action in recent years by any 80 year old women, but it's not impossible for a 50 year old women to look and act like an 80 year old women, and assuming that Mexicans would never commit terrorist acts is to not watch the news, because a lot of them are getting rather pissed at the US over this illegal immigration thing. I'm sure there's at least one who could get unstable to the point of attacking the US. (Talk about the ultimate self-defeating action.)

    And, of course, this is ignoring one of the biggest risk groups: Americans who are pissed at their government. This can be someone at any end of the political spectrum, from the far-religious to the far-socialist to the far-libertarian. (Who, respectively, tend to be militant about the lack of religion, the government letting poor people die, and too much taxes.) And I'm sure I forgot at least one 'far' in there.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  41. Re:Shredders aren't that great by santiago · · Score: 2, Funny

    We hand the shredded paper to our pet rats to use as bedding. This imparts it with a certain ambience that discourages any further perusal, while simultaneously providing the little ones with nest-building fun.

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Gah, you just don't get it. by raehl · · Score: 1

    There are up to two people involved in an airline ticket purchase: The person taking the flight, and the person PAYING for the flight. Usually they are the same person but sometimes they are not, and if not, you want to know who both people are. It would be handy to know if the president of a terrorist-connected charity is buying airplane tickets for people, for example, so you can give those people an extra look.

    You think the system is "Pay with credit card, no suspicion." It's not. The system is "average person pays with credit card for tickets on a flight they are taking, little suspicion". If you pay for someone else's ticket who isn't a family member or employee, that adds scrutiny. If you paid for a ticket on a flight you are not taking, more scrutiny. If you're the president of a non-profit with terrorist ties and buy a ticket for someone else (even using your credit card), that gets even more scrutiny.

    Knowing who is paying for the ticket (especially when that person is not flying on that plane) is an important item that figures into assessing the risk posed by particular passengers. You don't know who is paying for the ticket when it is bought with cash, and lacking that information increases the risk posed by that passenger and thus reasonably increases the scrutiny you apply to that passenger.

    Tracking the flow of money is a very important part of tracking criminals.

    1. Re:Gah, you just don't get it. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Tracking the flow of money is a very important part of tracking criminals.

      It's far more useful for tracking innocents, which is why I object to it.

  44. But the wiping / gas chromatograph thing does...? by igb · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I got my laptop bag wiped down at SFO a few years ago, and the little tissue popped into the machine to test for explosives. Either it's incredibly selective, or it's bullshit. My bag had been under the counter at the late lamented National Shooting Club on Duane while I shot ~200 rounds of 9mm and a box of .38 S&W. It had had spent cartridges falling on it. I'd been handling both live and spent ammunition. When I arrived at the airport I stank of firing ranges.

    And yet the little wipe said all was well. Either it's sufficiently selective to spot the difference between propellant and explosives. Or it's nonsense.

    ian

  45. Define the issues by humphrm · · Score: 1
    First of all, shame on BA for letting anyone with a FF number access personal data without a password. That certainly is the root of the problem. AA requires a password. So does every other carrier I use.

    Second, and you can quote me on this,

    DUH.

    You've got a piece of paper with your name and potentially a receipt (some airlines print their receipts on the tickets, which sometimes also form the boarding pass). You should destroy any piece of paper with your name on it. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand how to protect yourself against identity theft. Smart people have been shredding their used boarding passes for years.

    --
    -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
  46. Question by tacokill · · Score: 1

    What happens if you refused to be photo'd and fingerprinted?

    And I presume that you did not have previous warning about the stop. If you did, then disregard my question. But if it was a surprise to the passengers, I am curious what happens if one of the passengers doesn't cooperate.

    1. Re:Question by mgblst · · Score: 1

      It was a surprise. It was also at 4am, so we all did what we had to do. I am assuming that they would deport you, if you didn't cooperate, which would be really weird.

    2. Re:Question by tacokill · · Score: 1

      Yea, that would be REALLY weird because, technically, you aren't "trying to enter the country" -- only passing through via an involuntary fuel stop. So as far as I know, customs does NOT apply.

      I am *REALLY* intrigued by this because I did not think all of this was required for passing through. I mean, if I fly from US to Australia and we stop in South Africa for fuel, I don't have to go through customs -- I simply wait on the plane or in their designated "non-customs" area for passers through and then go on with the rest of my journey as if I had never stopped there. No stamped passport, etc ----- unless I decide to go through customs and wander around the city for a while.

      This is the first time I've EVER heard of a transitional stop requiring ppl to go through customs. So another question (if you will indulge me): did you officially go through customs? (ie: get your passport checked, stamped, etc) or did they just photo and fingerprint you?

    3. Re:Question by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering the same thing. mgblst said you might be deported, but does that mean I can just get on the plane and continue on the trip? It makes no sense. Perhaps the worst they can do is detain you. But on what grounds? You're not trying to enter the country, you just want to continue on your flight. You haven't done anything wrong legally, they can't just detain you for no reason at all.

      What a crazy world we're living in.

    4. Re:Question by tacokill · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if his story is true....

    5. Re:Question by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

      It's not totally out of the question, since it's so fashionable to bash the US these days. However, I don't see how it would benefit him in any way to lie about this. Plus, I have heard stories about the US custom making everyone do fingerprints.

    6. Re:Question by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Officially went through customs, have the stamp in my passport to prove it. They even went to the trouble of stapling some little card to my passport, then removing it 10 minutes later.

  47. Shoe Carnival by Palal · · Score: 1

    On sites like FlyerTalk there are numerous threads about shoe carnival airports. Basically, if you do not take off your shoes and do not set of the alarm, all you have to get is a swab of your shoes to test for explosives residue. If they do anything more to you it's against TSA regulations and you should file a complaint form. Of course you always have a chance at a retaliatory screening. Some airports are better than others. Basically, if we stop taking off our shoes that do not set off the detector, we will teach the TSA that a full secondary screening is unnecessary.

    --
    -Palal
  48. What inforamtion needs to be private? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Recently, my wife got on my case because I left my mail in the back seat of my car "somebody can see and know your address!"

    So? What good does it do a burgler to know my address? Unless that burgler figures that somebody who drive a 1992 Ford Festiva has untold riches. Why would the burgler target my house instead of somebody elses?

    Then on the news, I hear that people are stealing cars to steal identies. They get the identity from the registration and insurance. WTF? What information does my registration and insurance card have that would allow somebody to steal my identity?

    1. Re:What inforamtion needs to be private? by Aexia · · Score: 1

      They're valuable support documentation for identity theft. The DMV will probably accept a photo ID and a car registration for a replacement driver's license, for instance.

      A better scam is too just copy the information on the insurance and registration forms (don't actually steal anything) for use in an insurance fraud scam.

      Then call up the insurance company and claim that you were hit by so and so and proceed to give all those details...

  49. Bring back swiss army knives for passengers by kencurry · · Score: 1

    Some of the changes since 9/11 are completely illogical.

    One that really annoys me is forbidding small knives/tools/nail clippers in carry-ons. I always keep a Swiss Army knife in my briefcase; just a geek thing to do I guess. However, on my last trip, I forgot to take it out of my bag; it got flagged in x-ray, big commotion etc. I was allowed to ship it home for $15 dollars.

    Here's my point. If something goes wrong, you NEED to have bystanders who can take some action, hence they could use the tools/knives etc.

    Look at the "United 93" (I hope I've got that right) scenario. The ONLY thing that saved the US Capitol is passengers who could take action. I really wonder what we've learned collectively after 9/11.

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  50. stopping terrorists by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    Well how do they hope to stop terrorists with this

    Here's how to answer that.

    "All the 9/11 terrorists had valid ID, and used those valid photo ID to get on airplanes. Imagine how different 9/11 would have been if they had shown up that day with non-photo Vermont driver's licenses. So the question really is...how can you stop terrorists with a photo ID?"

  51. Isn't it obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skin colour!

  52. Isn't Defamation of Character in License? by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    Greetings and blessings, holder of "JimBobJoe"!

    I'v always thought that defamation of one's character is self-evident in anyone holding a driver license. The question answered long ago, by implications, is: what crime or tresspass has a man committed by his order, to be indebted to hold and present a license to qualify to be offered a ticket for a service? And foremost, why all the regulation only applies to a trust/person in that license, and not the man; none is done to recognize a man is even partaking on a service, except by the qualified admittions coaxing one to board such Craft. Why does a aeroplane-ticket require a driver license to move about on the common ways? Is it the driver license that is flying on the plane, or the man flying on the plane, or are they both flying on the plane in confederation but only one is verifiable/STRAWMAN?

    Consider the fact that legislature created the form of name as First Middle Last, and then a State of the United States charters a corporation to incorporate the artificial person into FIRST MIDDLE LAST. The movement of words on paper, from prior art, is evidence that there are alter-ego involved in licensure.

    When someone says they ways to fly somewhere, the truth is: man can't fly...only the plane can fly. When someone says they want to drive, the truth is: man can't drive...only the drivetrain under the car can drive. What can a man do, that the legislatures has already monopolized silent with their Acts?

    --
    without prejudice
  53. It's better than that. by hotsauce · · Score: 1

    Apparently, all you have to do is present something that looks like an ID, and claim it is one. The officer shrugs, thinks "Oh, well, what do I know?", and waves you on. Fun.

  54. Fraud |= Theft by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Same as in the copyright discussions. 'Fraud' does NOT equal 'theft'!

    No one can STEAL your name or who you are! They can fraudulently use your name, SSN, etc, but you cannot have your name STOLEN! It is impossible.

    Can we PLEASE quit calling it "identity theft" and use a more accurate description of "identity fraud".

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  55. Tennis Racket VS Camera Tripod by SurfSlade · · Score: 1

    They don't allow Tennis Racket as Carry-on item because we could use it hit people in the plane. But they allow Camera Tripod, 3 long metal pole, because it's not on their list of dangerous item. Pretty Stupid