Slashdot Mirror


DHS Passenger Scoring Almost Certainly Illegal

Vicissidude writes "At the National Targeting Center, the Automated Targeting System program harvests up to 50 fields of passenger data from international flights, including names, e-mail addresses and phone numbers, and uses watchlists, criminal databases and other government systems to assign risk scores to every passenger. When passengers deplane, Customs and Border Protection personnel then target the high scorers for extra screening. Data and the scores can be kept for 40 years, shared widely, and be used in hiring decisions. Travelers may neither see nor contest their scores. The ATS program appears to fly in the face of legal requirements Congress has placed in the Homeland Security appropriations bills for the last three years." From the article: "Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said he was unaware of the language but that it clearly applies to the Automated Targeting System, not just Secure Flight, the delayed successor to CAPPS II. 'Bingo, that's it -- the program is unlawful,' Rotenberg said. 'I think 514(e) stands apart logically (from the other provisions) and 514 says the restrictions apply to any 'other follow-on or successor passenger prescreening program'. It would be very hard to argue that ATS as applied to travelers is not of the kind contemplated (by the lawmakers).'"

40 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Will congress simply legalize it? by gvc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope that the new Congress will put its foot down on yet another intrusion into American personal liberty. The old one -- even the Democratic members -- did not.

    1. Re:Will congress simply legalize it? by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to worry. Even if congress does act all the president has to do is issue yet another signing statement.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Will congress simply legalize it? by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I hope that the new Congress will put its foot down on yet another intrusion into American personal liberty. The old one -- even the Democratic members -- did not.

      Meet the new congress ... same as the old congress.

      The last part of your complaint really puts things in perspective, doesn't it? I could have voted for a republican candidate if he had been willing to shrink the powers of our government. I could have voted for a democrat who was willing to do that. Sadly, I've never seen a serious candidate for national office (except Ron Paul) who could plausibly claim that he was willing to reduce federal power in any practical way.

      I hope that over the next two years, we will all learn that, just as voting republican in 2000 didn't solve our problems with government, voting democrat in 2006 and 2008 won't either. I wish that we had a viable alternative, but I'm afraid that we won't see one until after we all see that we need one.

    3. Re:Will congress simply legalize it? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I'm sure that this particular set of power hungry control freak millionaires will prefer a type of intrusion different from that of the previous set of power hungry control freak millionaires, why look a gift horse in the mouth?

      The previous set did most of the dirty work, all that talk about frogmen plotting to poison our water supplies or how some guy somewhere might be thinking about trying to blow up or otherwise damage or hijack an aircraft using maybe a gel or liquid possibly concealed in some everyday container like a toothpaste tube or shaving cream or water bottle. Continuously thinking up increasingly frightening scenarios of how terrorists could bring us harm is tough work, especially if you have to do it one handed because your other hand is busying stuffing cash in your pockets as fast as possible before someone else gets it.

      So these guys will probably be content to just pile on yet more intrusion into our lives wihtout pruning any of the old, because you never know when some little tidbit of information you've collected might prove useful.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    4. Re:Will congress simply legalize it? by gvc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They need to stop all this security nonsense and just let people be. It would probably only cost us 1 or 2 hijackings and maybe a couple planes into a couple buildings every 6 months or a year or so. We can live with that, eh?

      Dripping sarcasm notwithstanding, there's a fundamental point here. Can the intrusions in liberty be justified by reduced risk of hijackings or whatever? Or, perhaps, do they increase the risk? Some evidence would be apropos.

      Suppose that the numbers above were true. The toll in deaths and ruined lives would still be lower than, say, the carnage on the highways. An orthogonal issue? I don't think so. Just think of what you could do with the billions of dollars wasted on building the police state. Highway safety is not even the most effective use to which these dollars could be put, but its orders of magnitude better than whatever DHS does with it.

      But don't let my digression distract you from the fundamental point: there is not one iota of evidence that wiretaps, no-fly lists, torture, profiling, etc. make us safer. There is plenty of evidence that they directly diminish our quality of life, and indirectly divert our resources from more worthy pursuits.

    5. Re:Will congress simply legalize it? by CaffeinieBaby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > They need to stop all this security nonsense and just let people be. It would probably only cost us
      > 1 or 2 hijackings and maybe a couple planes into a couple buildings every 6 months or a year or so.
      > We can live with that, eh?

      Free. Safe. Choose one.

    6. Re:Will congress simply legalize it? by morcheeba · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know you're trolling, but taxes do no concern me nearly as much as government spending. Taxes are a matter of when you pay, spending is how much you pay. Compare republican vs democrat spending.

    7. Re:Will congress simply legalize it? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Before you hope that people learn their lesson, why can't you hope that voting democrat might solve your problems?
      Umm.... because it never has before? Just like voting Republican never has before. Einstein's definition of insanity applies here. If you keep doing exactly the same thing, and keep expecting different results, that's insane. For people who really want change to occur, the only hope is to do something different. Vote for the candidate that actually comes closest to representing your views, not for the one you think most electable that you can barely stomach over the other guy. I don't care if you vote Libertarian, Green, or whatever, but until enough people are sick enough of the existing regime to actually vote for something different, you wont see any changes.

      People will respond with but.. but.. but.. throw away your vote... blah, blah, blah. The thing is, it is a chicken and egg problem. If you never take a stand for what you want to have happen, it will never happen. Yes, you may take your stand and lose, over and over again, but at the end of the day you know what? I can feel good about the choices I made. Most of my candidates over the years have lost, some have won, and every one of those has a voting record, so far, that I can agree with. In the last presidential election, I knew that I couldn't stand Bush. I knew that Kerry would do things that I would abhor. I knew that one of them was going to be in charge for the following four years. But I also knew that I would have a comfortable conscience, having voted for the person I thought would do the best job. And, If the person I voted for actually by some miracle won, I knew that I could look forward to things actually improving. If they didn't then I could at least say, in good conscience, that I had still done my best. How many people who voted Bush in actually agreed with most of the things he was promising to do and are happy and proud about it today? How many people who voted for Kerry, actually agreed with what he was promising to do, and would have been happy and proud with the results if he had won. Don't give me, "Well it would have been better than this." No! It still would have sucked to have Kerry extend the DCMA (a Clinton Era law). And if you think that Kerry would have been less of a **AA shill than Clinton was, you are sadly mistaken.

      Get out and vote people, but vote for who you believe in. Not which new bum can throw the old bum out.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  2. Won't be too long by balsy2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until they start sending people with a score that is too high to secret prisons without the right to know why they are being charged or the evidence that is being used to convict them. All of this crap is getting way out of control.

    --
    GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:Won't be too long by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All of this crap is getting way out of control.

      Getting? Please. It's been more than "way out of control" for longer than I can remember. There shouldn't even be any fucking discussion about this sort of shit. People who "may" be locked up currently shouldn't have to wait for the lopsided Supreme Court to overturn this.

      It's a sad time for our nation.

    2. Re:Won't be too long by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      dissent is unpatriotic and unamerican.

      Dissent is what founded our country.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Won't be too long by Pojut · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Long live Jong-Il and down with the freedom fighters in the White House!"

      If crime-fighters fight crime, and fire-fighters fight fire, what do freedom-fighters fight?

    4. Re:Won't be too long by trianglman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Judges only count as activists if they decide for civil rights and any constitutional amendment that isn't the second amendment... They are good, upstanding judges when they side with corporations and big government.

      --
      Clones are people two.
  3. Does this system still function.... by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Funny

    if you use a fake boarding pass :-)

  4. Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Nobody! by straponego · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Illegal?

    Where is it that you guys are getting the idea that the rule of law applies to this administration? That wouldn't be in their interests at all. And since they're in charge of enforcing the laws they break...

    And if you think that Congress, aside from a couple of freaks like Feingold and Leahy, are going to do anything about this at all... well, I hope you're right, but I'd bet against it.

    PS: I like those freaks. I wish they weren't the exception.

  5. I've seen this before by NaCh0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It sounds like a slightly modified spam-assassin with baysian filtering.

  6. positive matches by DreamerFi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:
     
      Paul Rosenzweig, a high-level Homeland Security official, told Congress in September that the system had "encountered 4801 positive matches for known or suspected terrorists." However, it is unclear how many of those were correct matches.
     
    No, it's very clear. Zero. Zilch, none, nada. If there were any correct matches, they would trot them out and use them to demonstrate the "success" of the program.

  7. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by Wee · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And if the law is changed (again) and this is made illegal (again?), how will we know the scores aren't being used for some other purpose? How will we know the databases have been purged? Says the gov't: "Ok, ok... our bad. We won't do it anymore, honest!" How exactly will we know they've stopped? All manner of rights can be swept under the table when it's "potential terrorists" who are involved. And what politician will vote against something that is ostensibly in place to prevent harm to the citizens of the US? One small bomb goes off and it's political murder for everyone in the "Nay" column on that vote.

    I think some sort of new check and balance needs to be put in place against the executive branch. We're supposed to have the Congress and the Supreme Court to protect us from potential abuses, but they haven't obviously served us very well in the past 6 years...

    What we need, I'm not sure. But we need something.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  8. Don't fly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't set foot in an airport since this insanity began, and I refuse to do so until this insanity ends.

    Traveling by bus, train, or car is not as fast or comfortable, but at least you can do it with some of your privacy intact.

    Just say no.

    1. Re:Don't fly. by Kagura · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The previous post was likely posted AC because the actual poster doesn't actually refuse to travel by plane. Rather, he hopes to convey a message that there are people that think this way, because he is not strong enough to send such a message himself.

  9. Re:Okay... How can this be used by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > Okay... How can this be used
    >
    >For Hiring?
    > Is it publicly available or is it only available to the government?

    It's a government database, much like the databases that hold criminal records, etc. Access to it is sold to data brokers such as Choicepoint.

    When Company X wants to hire you, they ask Choicepoint if you're "a good risk".

    Choicepoint crunches the numbers by means of a proprietary formula, one of the ingredients of which your credit rating (for sale by other data brokers), another of which is your criminal record and/or arrest history (for sale by other arms of the government), and another of which is now your Terrorist Score.

    Neither you (nor Company X!) ever finds out what your Terrorist Score is. Company X takes a look at Choicepoint's evaluation and combines it, with your resume, and how well you did on the job interview, and whatever else it wants... and decides whether or not to hire you.

    So if your Terrorist Score is too high, you might not get the job, because Choicepoint or the other background-checking firms have decided that it's important enough to make you a risk... or maybe not. You'll never know. That's both a feature (everyone has plausible deniability, so nobody can get sued), and a bug (you may be denied a job because of a bogus data point in your Terrorist Score, just as you can be denied a job due to bogus data on your credit history -- but you can at least fix the errors in your credit history.)

    Now that that's out of the way, can we stop calling it a Terrorist Score? If I keep using that term, your score goes up. Probably the only way to fix a bad Terrorist Score is to start calling it a Freedom Score. At the rate I'm going, I'm gonna have to donate at least $1000 to both the RNC and the DNC before I can get hired again, let alone fly anywhere.

  10. The one bright spot to all of this by cje · · Score: 4, Funny

    The one bright spot to all of this is that starting next year, you'll be able to log into www.FreeTerrorReport.com and get a free copy of your score from all three of the main terror bureaus.

    --
    We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    1. Re:The one bright spot to all of this by MECC · · Score: 2, Funny

      FreeTerrorReport.com isn't taken - who wants it?

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
  11. Re:Dupe...? by just_another_sean · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although similar this is not a dupe. The previous article announced the program. This article espouses the opinions of the EFF, specifically Mark Rotenberg.

    It's things like this that I like about slashdot. Posting multiple articles from different sources about the same subject allows for both a healthy debate by us and tends to provide more then one side to a story. Instead of just getting the bias of one publication we get to see the subtle shades of bias and decide for ourselves who makes sense, who we want to agree with or believe.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  12. pet peeve by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

    One of my pet peeves is the word "deplane". It is NOT deplane, it is DISEMBARK!!!

    Jesus, when did the airlines have such a low opinion of their passengers that they think that they don't know what disembark means?

    Seriously, deplane? Sound more like delouse. AAAAAHHHHH, get these planes off me!!!

    1. Re:pet peeve by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Funny

      They get their vocabulary from Herve Villechaize. "It's deplane, boss, deplane!"

      Chris Mattern

    2. Re:pet peeve by B.D.Mills · · Score: 3, Funny

      We don't need a word for entering and leaving different kinds of vehicles. "Disembark" should cover all forms of mass transit - ships, planes, trains, buses. We don't have words like "deship", "detrain" or "debus", so why must we have such nonsense as "deplane"?

      Deplane sounds like what I do to a piece of paper when I make it into a ball and throw it in the rubbish, or deform any other planar surface so it is no longer a plane.

      Or, as the parent poster suggested, it sounds like we are being cleansed of an infestation of tiny parasitic planes. Deice - remove ice, degauss - remove gauss, delouse - remove lice, deplane - remove planes. Makes more sense to me.

      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
  13. can't see it? by rolyatknarf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Data and the scores can be kept for 40 years, shared widely, and be used in hiring decisions but the traveler is not allowed to see it? Why would a prospective employer have access to this info but the prospective employee can't? They can say "we can't hire you because something showed up in your file but we can't tell you what it is". This has got to be bullshit if anything is.

    1. Re:can't see it? by durdur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to the new USA, where "rights" are things that the government and corporations have.

  14. Re:The Land of the free by EntropyXP · · Score: 3, Insightful
    George Bush is doing everything that he can do at the last moment to try and salvage his legacy. His presidency has been marked by the worst disasters ever to affect America; 9/11, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, the Broncos losing their home opener.

    Next thing you know, he'll have NASA purposely direct meteors at America so he can show how prepared for any disaster he is. Enormous clouds of dust will rise up out of the craters of midwest cities and George Bush will be flying over head in a helicopter touting his emergency preparedness plan and at the same time having congress sign over more power to him. He'll have congress give him an emergency 3rd term so that he can save America.

    I'm seriously done with the hype and the fear that controls this country. Ever since 9/11 our country has not rested in the fight against terrorism. That means, that we are fighting the fear of terror. So, we are afraid. We're afraid of the terrorists. The terrorists don't have to do one damned thing ever again and we'll remain afraid as long as we're fighting this war. What do the terrorists want? They want us to be afraid. Fear will keep us from doing anything. Fear is an inhibitor. As long as this country remains afraid then it will not accomplish anything great.

    Why were the Feds so slow to respond to the pain and suffering in New Orleans? Because we were paralyzed with fear. Why have gas prices gone through the roof? Because we're fear has robbed us of our ability to react. I am not afraid of the next disaster that will strike this country because there is a new one each day. Friends are dying in Iraq, friends died in New Orleans, and friends will be dying close to home as long as we live in fear.

    George Bush... give me my country back you bastard! I'm not afraid of you, of Osama bin Laden, IEDs, cancer, hurricanes, snow flakes, bunny rabbits, muslims, christians, Hummers, or anything elses for that matter. You have taught me what fear is and fear is evil! I will not be afraid. I will act. I will do what I have to do as a human, as an American and as a fighter. I AM NOT AFRAID AND I WILL NOT BE CONTROLLED BY FEAR!!!!!

    --
    "No one will really be free until nerd persecution ends."
  15. Domestic versus International Flights by DBett · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The purported expert quoted in the article appears unaware that CAPPS and SecureFlight applied to domestic US flights. Those programs are accordingly more restricted - and subject to things like the "Section 514" mentioned. This program relates only to International Flights and thus has a whole different set of rules (unless I missed the imposition of Customs checks on domestic flights).

    Once again ignorance is no bar to blanket assertions of illegal acts.

  16. Yes, but... by benhocking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but how many of the Oklahoma City terrorists were Muslims? How many of the abortion clinic bombing terrorists were Muslims? How many of the Columbine terrorists were Muslims?

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Yes, but... by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...how many of the Oklahoma City terrorists were Muslims?


      All of them - just check the database.

      How many of the abortion clinic bombing terrorists were Muslims?


      All of them - just check the database. And don't tell me you can't!

      How many of the Columbine terrorists were Muslims?


      All of them - just check the database. And don't whine about it being exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests. After all, we're protecting our country... or at least all except for the statistically insignificant number who are Muslims... oops, sorry, I meant "potential terrorists."

      <IRONY=0%>

      Oh, dammit, I forgot the <IRONY=100%> tag again!

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  17. DHS preserved the Constitution? by businessnerd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, so let me get this straight...

    The Department of Homeland Security actually wrote something that would PRESERVE our Constitutional rights?!?!

    Who are you and what have you done with our fascist overlords?

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
  18. link to comments and text of law by ehasbrouck · · Score: 3, Informative

    The link in the Wired New story is broken -- Regulations.gov doesn't use static URL's for individual documents.

    The Identity Project comments, including as an appendix the text of the relevant law, are at:

    http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-ATS-comments.pdf

    Those comments also expain how the "Automated Targeting System" would include information on domestic flights and travelers, in addition to international travel records.

    There's more background on my blog, and the Identity Project blog:

    http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001184.html

    http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/12/05/every-travel er-is-a-target/

  19. Lost in translation by ozbird · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not knowing what DHS is (I'm not an oppressed American), the headline read like:
    a) DHS is an airline (or similar),
    b) one of their passengers got lucky, but
    c) they got busted.

  20. Re:Denies rights based on secret laws by B.D.Mills · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This passenger scoring thing denies rights based on a secret law.
    This bit scares me the most. It is a common principle in law that ignorance of the law is not a defense against breaking that law. However, such a principle is founded on the assumption that the people can find out what the law is. When a state has secret laws, this is no longer possible. So we have a situation where citizens may break a secret law and have no plausible way to determine for themselves what they need to do to stay on the right side of the law, yet citizens who are charged with breaking such laws may not be able to use ignorance of the law as a defense in a court of law.

    Somehow I find that rather scary.
    --

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
  21. Re:Profiling is a good thing... by aalegado · · Score: 2, Funny

    Osama's won. Our society's changed for the worst and the current Administration has helped keep us in fear of ourselves. All Al Queda has to do now is threaten to hack the server of the kid selling lemonade on the corner and the TSA puts us on Orange alert and we all have to be on the look out for strange people doing strange things while holding 3.1oz. of fluid in hard to see-through bags. God help us if a TSA agent drives through North Hollywood, CA on his way to work one night. He'd lose his mind and we'd go to Red alert and DEFCON 1.

  22. Something everyone is forgetting here: by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every amendment in the Constitution deals with what Congress shall or Congress shall not do. Like it or not, but flying is not a right and the Constitution does not apply to airlines. Every citizen if free to vote with their pocket books and take the bus, boat or rail.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  23. Call me crazy... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When passengers deplane, Customs and Border Protection personnel then target the high scorers for extra screening.


    But wouldn't it make more sense to give those high scorers extra screening before they got on the plane?