American Airlines Is Third Company To Share Data 241
crem_d_genes writes "American Airlines has become the third U.S. airline to admit sharing passenger records with the government. They were proceeded in admissions by Northwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways. At the heart of the matter is the implementation of the of U.S. Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) use of the provisions known as CAPPS II. Some privacy advocates have expressed strong dissent with this plan. Some concerns have even been brought up in Congress, though for different reasons. The Department of Homeland Security has a site entitled CAPPS II: Myths and Facts."
Good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems. I hang my hat with the MBTA (Massachusetts subway system), and believe me when I say this: it would be trivial for someone to blow up a train. The collateral damage from an explosion going off at Park Street during rush hour would be devastating. But that's not really on-topic, I guess.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry--I'm sure Ashcroft and company are hard at work on a national database to be checked against a swipe of your National ID (a.k.a. "standardized driver's license or state ID") when you board any public transporation. At that point, known terrorist (or deadbeat dads, or those with unpaid parking tickets, or people with questionable political affiliations [geocities.com]) can be arrested and searched.
In about ten years, we'll have an internal passport system for air, land, and sea transport that would have made Soviet Russia proud.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)
Too bad that little story was entirely made up. There are 260 million Americans, what makes you think the Government cares where YOU go or why (barring anything illegal)?
It's total ego-strokage to think you're important enough for anyone to care about you. The world does not revolve around kiddy socialists.
Re:Good (Score:2)
BTW, can you *imagine* what would happen if the U.S. decided to implement this policy? All mighty hell would break loose! But if France does it, nobody notices...
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that subways are an easy target. The main difference,
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
ok, i'll play along... (Score:2)
Why would Marxists oppose hitting the White House? You can't get much higher up the ruling class than the man they elected to run the show...
Re:Good (Score:2)
Subways aren't glamorous. They carry
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for someone to say "if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear"..!
Re:Good (Score:2)
Terrorists leaders aren't stupid, just fanatical. They'll use their men and their weapons where they're most effective. And right now that
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The way it works is called the carnival booth attack, and it is described in much detail in this paper [mit.edu].
The basic idea is very simple. A person gets a score from the system, which is based on how likely they are to be a terrorist. Then, CAPPS II has most of the searches directed at people with high scores. So, a terrorist group needs only do a number of test runs, and see who does and doesn't get searched. The people who don't get searched obviously have low scores, and so they use them for the attacks. And in case you were wondering, yes, the terrorists are already using this scheme -- it was used in the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers did test runs, on the same exact flights to make sure everything worked as planned.
So, if there was an actual tradeoff to be made, then a rational debate could be had about the appropriate tradeoffs to make. But when they try to take away my privacy and as a result decrease the security, that I have a serious problem with.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Obviously, if we were to take this critique too seriously on its face it would support the conclusion that locks should not be used because locksmiths (or burglars with locksmithing knowledge) can defeat them.
I've got to disagree. True, the fact that measure X can be defeated does not make it un-worthwhile. But CAPPS determines the distribution of searches. This does make it possibly worse than the alternatives (e.g., random searching).
Suppose that out of 100 people, the airport has resources to searc
Re:Good (Score:2)
Privacy is a great thing, but all things can be abused and exploited. We whine and complain about how draconian the government is about trying to catch these guys, but don't forget about the two who didn't get away [humaneventsonline.com]. We won't
Re:Good (Score:2, Interesting)
1) it could come out that they get busted on the test run and reveal the whole plot.
2)the longer it takes for them to find a successfull canidate the better chances are that they get stopped and the longer it takes to put together an attack.
3) so lets say the get a guy who is the anti-sterotype of a terrorist - he may do other things that trigger the system.
in the end there is nothing you can do to stop a terrorist or any other criminal for that matter. but you can make it harder for them.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
So:
1) it could come out that they get busted on the test run and reveal the whole plot.
I don't think they'd be carrying explosives during CAPPS probes. Besides, the one guy who did get revealed is not the one they'd pick to perform the opera
Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking at stupid vs. 'smart' terrorists, it all really depends on how many stupid terrorists there are per smart terrorist. The smart ones shift the number of false negatives (passengers which are wrongfully not flagged) while the stupid terrorists increase the number of true positives. Obviously, to determine if this shifts the balance in favour of the terrorists (over purely random searches) or if it puts them at a disadvantage wou
Re:Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
The terrorists may be mindnumbingly stupid (not that terrorists have to be stupid), but as long as they follow directions from someone smart, it'll hardly matter. Or even a fucking "How-to" manual...
Kjella
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough - don't you think the parties concerned should be honest about it though? From what I've read so far AA and USTSA denied that there was any sharing of data - why?
If my GP (doctor) asks me if it's OK to share my medical history with a surgeon I'm unlikely to object. If she fails to ask my permission I will object strongly. If she lies, and claims that she didn't share my data - well, that's worthy of more than just an objection.
...Oh, and by the way, some schmuck will find a way to blow up planes with or without data sharing, internment, shoot-to-kill policies, bloody-great walls, compulsory ID cards, razing villages, etc.
NB. I'm not suggesting that all of the above are current tactics against terrorism: they have all been tried at some point in recent history.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and by the way, some schmuck will find a way to blow up planes with or without...
Exactly. In all these arguments it seems a forgon conclusion that a terrorist will try to blow people up. If the education and social interaction of the society where improved then the number of potential terrorists would be reduced. Hopefully to a level where the chances of a few of them meeting up were slim. The prevelance of extremist followers of all religions (Osama-Islam, Bush-Christianity, Sharon-Jewdehism) increa
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
One thing that annoys me is this apparent belief that "Omigod! There's this new threat, terrorism!
Terrorism isn't a new threat in the USA, and it certainly ain't a new threat in the rest of the World. Leaving aside the flippant, UK-centric, remark that the USA was founded out of terrorism ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", etc) the USA has had the Weathermen, the UNAbomber, various militias, etc. Even "Christian" terrorists have been murdering doctors and blowing up clinics.
(I was
Atheist Terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
"When was the last time you heard of an aethiest (sic) terrorist?"
The Bader-Mannhoff gang, the Shining Path Marxists in Peru... The list goes on and on. Until the fall of the Soviet Union, the world has been going through a c
Re:Atheist Terrorists - Offtopic - POTUS (Score:2)
Just out of curiousity, why does POTUS trip echelon more than "the President"? I thought POTUS would only tend to be used by "insiders", terrorists would tend to use phrases like "that running dog of Western Imperialism"/"that son of the Great Satan", etc.
Disclaimer: my knowledge of US politics largely comes from TV
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
there is only one way to effectively win a war the following is how it was done in Oman
22 SAS were sent to assist and an elaborate 5 front hearts and minds campaign, conceived by Watts, was rapidly instigated. The essence of the strategy was to eliminate Omani dissatisfaction; Quabus began a large works programme that would propel Oman into the twentieth Century. The problem now was how to get this message across to the rebels and to get them to understand the truth that there was no longer any need to fight. The commander felt that the original rebels did have right on their side because they simply wanted a better way of life. Part of Watt's plan was psychological; he made certain that the Sultan's far-reaching policies became common knowledge, along with the offer of amnesty to any surrendering rebels. From these defectors it was hoped that levies would be raised to fight the defectors, Watt's strategy was spot on and within month's defectors started to cross the lines. These men (furcats) trained and later became the backbone of fighting in Oman; by mid 1971 support from the local tribes was gradually being won. [bravepages.com]
This is the UK equivalent of Vietnam in that the fight was against communist insurgents, the difference in the tactics employed by US and UK and the results could not be more glaring. Time and time again it has been shown that firepower is not what wins wars (fights yes) but brain power which earns you the support of the population.
Terrorist Etc can only be defeated if you remove there support, not by killing the son/daughter mother/father of a potential terrorist recruit
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Coincidentally I was fortunate to spend most of the '80s living in Oman (north, round Muscat, though I did occasionally get to visit Dhofar and stare at a distant border with the then Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen).
I couldn't agree with you more. Creating martyrs never works; improving infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads) usually works. Within 10 years Communist insurgency in Oman was limited to geurillas crossing the border from Yemen: the local Dhofaris had no sympathies for the insurgents.
Fascinating link, by the way.
I Disagree, and I fly. (Score:2)
Had they asked, I'd have given it to them. I'm sick of fucking (in)security with arbitrary random acts of rudeness and stupidity.
I'm tired of standing in lines. I'm on an airplane a week it seems like and you'd think the'yd be able to go 'oh yeah, he flys with us all the time so lets not randomly search his ass because he's got a ticket that goes to one city but leaves fr
Re:I Disagree, and I fly. (Score:2)
I'm on an airplane a week it seems like and you'd think the'yd be able to go 'oh yeah, he flys with us all the time so lets not randomly search his ass because he's got a ticket that goes to one city but leaves from another' or things like that.
Uh.. that's kind of the premise and that's why it's a totally useless system. It directs searches toward people who are "more likely" to be terrorists. If you take 10 flights a month and never even so much as set off a metal detector, odds are you're not a terrors
Re:Good (Score:2)
This guy at the University of Idaho got arrested because some Islamic extremists posted pro-Hamas and whatnot comments on his website. So he got arrested based on comments posted by users of his website (and plus his being from Saudi Arabia doesn't help either). Granted
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm saddend that you are willing to allow our government to discount the sacrifices that I and my fellow service members made to secure your freedom. I'm saddned that you think that security comes from removal of your sacred freedoms by government fiat.
The fact that you and many like you choose not to practice
Re:Good (Score:2)
The airlines don't own the sky, the FAA does, so why wouldn't the FAA already know who's flying where and when?
And the only applicable Ben Franklin quote is, as always,
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Re:Good (Score:2)
I dont want some shmuck who got through to blow up my airplane.
How is this going to change that? Mohammed Atta was on an FBI watchlist when he boarded a plane on 9/11 under his own name. Seems that what we really need is for our intelligence agencies to share their data with the airlines.
EU better watch out (Score:5, Interesting)
Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed.
So all the passenger data that the EU is leeching to US is being permanently stored - i.e. US is building a database of all EU citizens who have ever travelled to US. scary.
I can't believe the EU sold us out.
Re:EU better watch out (Score:5, Interesting)
A European visitor to the US is now (along with nationals from many 'visa exemption' countries) being fingerprinted, photographed, and logged in numerous databases.
As the largest and most powerful nation on Earth, the US can do this. What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate. I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects.
We live in dangerous times: the State is seeking levels of control over our lives that would allow it to eliminate many hard-won liberties, such as the right to travel freely.
Re:EU better watch out (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got the right idea, as did Brazil, when it started doing this. Amazingly, when they did, US Lawmakers started an uproar about how unfair it was.
Sigh.....
Re:EU better watch out (Score:2)
Anything with a legislature generally doesn't do anything that reasonable or appropriate.
Game Over (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, but this stops at the end of September. Except Canadians every terr^H^H^H^Hforeigner will be fingerprinted upon entry to the US.
If I'd be the US tourist industry I'd be in the process of shitting my pants from fear.
From a personal perspective: I've travelled the US about 15 times and spent a significant amount of my tourist Euro there.
This change of procedure however has the stench of assuming that I'm a criminal and doesn't give me the warm fuzzy feeling that I'm welcome.
I might be a tad over sensitive here (given the rotten track record of privacy protections in the US I'm not sure though), but I don't believe that I'm the only ex-US visitor with that view..
Re:Game Over (Score:4, Interesting)
My mother was locked in a small room in the Paris airport, revisted several times, and she didn't speak a word of french or english for that matter. She didn't know what the hell was happening, my father that was there already in a work related trip did not know what was happening.
I have heard of people having to return home without so much as a reason from buth the US and the UK.
But remember that I am not talking about the reception after you actualy enter the country, I was very well received in both Paris and Madrid.
Re:Game Over (Score:5, Insightful)
In the words of the famous AOL subscriber, "Me too."
I've been to the USA at least twice a year for the last ten years. I was actually in NYC the Oct. after the WTC crash, because I wanted to support the NY hotel and tourist economy at that time. It was really peculiar and very moving to be in Greenwich Village at 10.00pm on a Thursday evening and see the streets deserted aside from a few homeless people and a handful of kids.
Last time I flew was November last year. Air tickets were cheap (around 200 return) so I paid cash. I also made the mistake of flying Air France because I couldn't get a BA flight.
On arrival, the immigration guy gave me the third degree. What was the purpose of my visit? What did I do for a living? Had I ever been arrested? (Answer: no.) What had I been arrested for?
It seems that my answers didn't satisfy him, because he escalated my case, sending me to the 'big room' in which mine was the only white face to be seen.
They kept me hanging around for about three hours, whereupon a senior official came along and asked me a more polite series of questions. (What was the purpose of my visit? Where was I staying? When would I be leaving, etc.) This lasted about two minutes and then they let me in.
Needless to say, I won't be going again. I love the USA and I have some very close friends who are Americans, but in future they can spend their dollars here in Europe, because I'll be fucked if I'm going back there without a significant regime change.
Re:Game Over (Score:2)
I am 6'3", Caucasian, blond hair, no criminal record. Maybe I look too normal - don't know.
They are always polite, but it is frustrating constantly being checked two, three times. I always get to the airport very early but I have have a lot of close calls. Needless to say, I only fly when I have to now.
Re:Game Over (Score:2)
I don't mind being stopped and questioned. That's fine. What bothered me was the attitude of the original immigration guy, and then what I saw in the room where I was forced to wait for three hours, accompanied almost exclusively by people with brown skin, presumably from Islamic countries.
There was one other white guy among us (and I'd guess there were forty or fifty people waiting in this room) and he was someone
Re:Game Over (Score:2)
Yeah. And American friends have suggested that if I pay by credit card and fly British Airways, I almost certainly wouldn't have had this trouble, but I don't care. I don't see that how I pay and who I choose to fly with are anyone's business but my own -- and they certainly aren't issues I feel I need to account for.
Specifically if the immigration officer is an avid Fox news viewer, or a worshipper of pea brained blonde annorexic chicks who like to spew hate.
Per
Re:EU better watch out (Score:5, Insightful)
No such thing that I ever heard of. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] says this:
Article 13.
These measures do not prevent anyone from doing that. They merely allow the government to take note when he does. I don't mean to say I like it, but your implication that people aren't allowed to watch you move around is not, in my reading, supported by the document.
~cHrisRe:EU better watch out (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, it really sucks how the US Govt. seems to think it can to to others
Re:EU better watch out (Score:3, Interesting)
Do I think it's cool that foreigners have to go through this added security? No! My wife is Mexican and on her last trip to the U.S. she had to be fingerprinted and photographed (to their credit she said the INS person was very friendly and the fingerprinting/photograph process was extremely quick). But the reality is that after 9/11 the U.S. has some serious justification for want
Re:EU better watch out (Score:2)
I think tourists around the world are concluding the same about travelling to the USA which only hurts the US economy and puts your countrymen out of work. America has raised the bar in these matters and Americans will be treated as they treat others. The European countries will eventually follow suit in these matters if only to defend them selves again
Re:EU better watch out (Score:2, Insightful)
Not exactly there is something called a safe harbour [export.gov]the information about EU citizens being in the system was something that was negotiated later.
What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate.
Considering the EU managed to force America's hand over data protection and the safe harbour (not to mention stee
Re:EU better watch out (Score:2)
Did I say terrorise? I meant liberate. How silly of me.
Re:EU better watch out (Score:2, Informative)
As a visitor to an EU country you are required to give your passport to hotels. The hotels then send all that is send to interpol where it is stored for unknown amounts of time.
In the US you are only tracked when you enter and certain forms of internal transportation; in the EU you get all of thoses in addition to every time you want to sleep indoors.
Re:EU better watch out (Score:4, Informative)
Ahhh... the joys of travelling (Score:3, Funny)
But then it was was only natural that the Big Brother will pry out our travel details from the cold hands of Airlines.
My only worry is my partner working as an agent in TSA and finding out that i travelled to New Mexico without telling her for a fling with my.... THAT would make me sue TSA.!!!
Don't Come Here (Score:5, Interesting)
From the Department of Homeland Security:
Sometime I hate my country. So, those of you who aren't from here: yet another reason to not come. Does the government not understand the manner in which science progresses? This is just going to destroy the US research community, which was once the greatest in the world. Goodbye, conferences.
Re:Don't Come Here (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are having a "research" conference and the mere fact that you will be logged as having traveled to the conference is a problem, then you have to wonder about what is being researched.
If the purpose of your conference is legit, then this should be not a problem at all.
Goodbye US research community, conferences (Score:5, Insightful)
People study where the best departments and research centers are. The US attracted many of the world's top students during the 70's, 80's and 90's, because in some fields, research was most advanced. Part of the reason was because not only was Europe devastated in WWII but many of its researchers emmigrated to the U.S. before and during the war as well as during the early phases of the Cold War. It became self-perpetuating. When the leading centers were in pre-war Europe, Europe was sought ought. When the leading centers were in post-war U.S., the U.S. was sought ought.
Now the have been two generations of post-war reconstruction and there is increasing incentive for them to stay home or return back home. The pull of good centers is augmented by the push provided by the Dept. Homespun Security, Patriot Act I-III, etc.
So the U.S. is losing the safe haven benefit and the dynamic equilibrium is changing. This will eventually stabilize even with things like CAPPS II and a general increasingly anti-research climate (many businesses have already cut their R&D, even Xerox PARC is gone).
However, a real tipping effect can be achieved by adding quality of life and economic issues to the equation. Many businesses have been cutting health coverage. And while there are still some good areas many cities are lacking in basic services like public transportation (could you commute if you wished?) and decent schools (where hard math and science is mastered). Furthermore, businesses have been downsizing and look to be doing so making it a hard climate. The climate is getting harder as the interest rates are at the bottom and both the national decificit and trade deficits are growing. Add the weak dollar to the mix, which might be hiding deflation behind the trade deficit, and it might be better to earn instead of $.
Then you have patents and litigation to deal with, if some corporation objects to your results -- e.g. Felton.
Behaviors like that are just going to ensure that a few more researchers choose to go home and build their centers in Europe, Aus/NZ, India or China.
Re:Goodbye US research community, conferences (Score:2)
Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed. The prescreening process will be conducted anew each time you fly.
I don't think this will be possible at all. Consider the fact that the information that they collect about a person will have to be backed up to other media to provide recovery options in case of system failures in the CAPPPS II system. Then it will be virtually impossible to permanently remove data.
This is the same situation that Google recognized when it said that their GMail service cannot be guarantee that emails will be permanently deleted.
Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all?? (Score:3, Informative)
They could have backups only going one month, or something like that. Then, they just shred/burn all the backups which are over a month old. They did say that the records would be kept for a short period. One month is fairly short.
Re:Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all?? (Score:3, Informative)
YRO? Seriously? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:YRO? Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue isn't as much the sharing of data with the gub'mint (although that _is_ a valid discussion, it's one for elsewhere); it's the fact that a contractor gave it to other companies at the government's bidding without AA's knowledge or consent.
And regarding your "conclusion", this poor schmuck's paranoia is not trumped by "the government" wanting to know that I'm travelling from point a to point b. What have CAPPS & friends (fingerprinting/photography at airports, massive visa lines at embassies, whatever) done besides terribly annoy a lot of possibly desirable immigrants and tourists, who'll now go vote with their wallets and go elsewhere? "Let 'em", you may say. "Fine, they will" I reply.
Re:YRO? Seriously? (Score:2)
Have we had any more terrorist attacks using airplanes? This may not be a good argument that things are *working*, but then you've supplied no evidence that these measures are *not* working.
The difficult thing is, whether these things work or not is very difficult to measure. If Bush had implemented such constr
Re:YRO? Seriously? (Score:2)
Regarding the bitching, I agree with you. However, I think that there are ways to seriously go about security, such as increased intelligence about financial flows between various groups, human intelligence, whatev
Re:YRO? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The watchlists are horribly broken, and include many people who are not actually suspicious (there's even been a lawsuit filed by several people for interference with their free movement over this). If the watchlists actually *worked*, you might have a point. But, they don't.
2) This system actually gives attackers an advantage by allowing them to test what we're looking for. It therefore allows them to be more confident that if they don't fall under our criteria, they will have more leeway as to what they can smuggle on board a plane.
Truly random searches are the only way to go, honestly. While that will piss people off, and leads to ridiculous searches of grannies & the like, it's also the only way to be sure that attackers can't game the system.
Of course, airline security is only rarely about actually securing the flight, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Why the surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict that within 20 years, USAmerican citizens will be ID'd even as they cross state borders. Adjust my prediction to 10 years, if there is another September-11-like attack in the near future.
Re:Why the surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
especially when using risky modes of transit, such as trains or airplanes.
Come on, traveling by train or airplane is an order of magnitude safer than driving a car. If safety were a concern, rather than just trying to "Do something, anything at all, to stop terrorists!" then there would be a crackdown on cars; any jackass over 16 with a pulse who can sign his name can get a driver's license, and there's absolutely nothing in place to stop somebody who got totally smashed at a bar from trying to drive sixty miles home.
In addition (Score:2)
And you don't have to go to Bagdhad, just remember Oklahoma.
Re:Why the surprise? (Score:2)
Currently, every state in the union is in a budget-crunch situation. The Federal government is likewise breaking its budget severely. State-by-state checkpoint simply aren't economically feasible, and won't be inside of twenty years. Even when it is feasible but expensive, no politician will be able to slip that kind of expense past the taxpayers.
Also, it would either need to be implemented by every state or by the federal government, and the states will really fight it if the feds
*sigh* What's next? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:*sigh* What's next? (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2003, there were 641 Million passengers [atca.org] on U.S. flights.
Zero of them actually attempted to destroy their flight. One of them would have been sufficient (the Shoe Bomber, for instance). The people tasked with finding this individual must thus be accurate to a level of one out of six hundred and forty one million.
By comparison, the odds of winning Powerball are approximately one out of one hundred and twenty million [lotterybuddy.com].
But people do win the lottery, quite regularly in fact. Lots of people have to lose, of course -- that's what funds the thing -- but it's not a particularly rare occurance.
That's sort of the idea here. Given enough "losing tickets", we'll beat the odds. And even if we don't -- at least we tried (which, ultimately, is what all the controversy is about right now -- not whether we succeeded in stopping the attacks, which we obviously didn't but whether "we tried".)
Hate to quote Scott McNealy, but like the man who sells the servers that store all our personal information says, "You have no privacy, get over it." Everyone gave up the flight info, because everyone was damn near thrown out of business. That's the bottom line.
More Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Our health as a nation should be the biggest concern. More people are going to die from health issues is one year then in probably twenty years of terrorism.
Re:More Perspective (Score:2)
So, in short, you're an idiot.
Re:More Perspective (Score:2)
At least where I live, penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising, the age limits on drivers liscenses have increased by a good margin, and the driving tests have gotten enormously harder. Also, safety standards in cars have been steadily increasing.
All these wonderful controls are just super-dee-duper, until you realize that you mention nothing about enforcing these mandates. Com
Re:More Perspective (Score:2)
Please quote where I said that. Go ahead. It's not a very long post, it should be easy to find. I'll wait.
.
.
Anyway, let's forget about that spectacular display of uselessness and discuss your points. They're pretty much irrelevant, but we can make some comparisons anyway.
penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising
Doesn't matter. Drunk people don't worry about jail when they decide whether they should call a taxi, and the punishment ha
Re:More Perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More Perspective (Score:2)
Re:More Perspective (Score:2)
If there had been 42,815 people first degree murders in traffic each year, you'd see a reaction. Planes crash from time to time due to technical malfunction or human error, it's clearly undesirable but it happens. You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's like comparing the number of people that die from sn
Thank you... (Score:3, Insightful)
We Americans have an exaggerated sense of danger - I don't know if it's because of all the violence in our media or we're just scared.
Another thing the nobody has stated yet is the fact that these databases are NOT completely accurate. We're going to be getting a lot of false positives. We've all read about what happens to the folks who are falsely fingered and what they have to go through.
Considering the inaccuracy of corporate data - that's right, that's where the TSA'
Re:Thank you... (Score:2)
Re:Thank you... (Score:2)
I'll only be happy if there's a legal recourse for those wrongfully fingered and can't get the information fixed.
Is the TSA exempt from the auspices of the Privacy Act?
Re:Perspective - and privacy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Within minutes, he's reading back to me recent payments, credit card balances, bank account info, etc... basically, my entire financial history. He knows that we were late on our electric bill in November, and comments on how nice it is that our car payments are so low.
Anyone who thinks that CAPPS II is a serious invasion of privacy is seriously naive. The average person no longer possesses any privacy to speak of. The sad fact of the matter is that you can be tracked no matter where you go:
Hate to say it, but your privacy is already gone. A person cannot function in today's society without consenting to monitoring of their every move. Why does CAPPS matter when the FBI already knows what you eat, which movies you watch, which books you read, how much you owe, and with whom you associate? CAPPS is more or less a "feel-good" government program - it's designed to assuage passengers' fear of flying while providing jobs to people who would otherwise be out of work.
Re:Perspective (Score:2)
Criminal background checks (Score:2, Interesting)
Myths and Facts (Score:2)
Security is a process (Score:3, Interesting)
Security is a process. Find a hole in the process and the pieces you have bypassed are meaningless. At airports the assumption is that your ticket was matched to your ID at the metal detectors before entering the "Secure Zone" where the gates are located.
Even the name "Secure Zone" implies that by virtue of being there, everyone near the gates is authorized and not a threat.
So all a terrrorist would have to do is buy/steal a ticket (or boarding pass for that matter) for a name that passes CAPPSII and then get into the secure zone.
Every pen test we read about shows how easy avoiding the checkpoints are. Once at the gate, you show your boarding pass and walk onto the plane. O'Hare and many other airports no longer check the ID again at the gate.
Alternately, you just avoid the gate completely and have your team access the plane directly from the tarmac or via the ramp by penetrating one of the lower, non-public levels of the terminal.
So 9/11 isn't behind us. Another one is possible just a soon as the assets are in place and the timing is right (like just before the next presidential election)
Flight 93 - The Only Security (Score:2)
The only reason 9/11 happened is that the Bush Administration refused to share a vital fact with the American people: planes were to be hijacked and used in terrorist attacks. The passengers in the first three flights to crash thought they were in an ordinary hijacking, and acted accordingly. Which got them, some of the people in the WTC, and some of the people in the Pentagon killed.
Flight 93 was different because it was last and passengers found out what was really going on - too late to save their p
Figures (Score:4, Interesting)
So all the people that have been laid off due to bush's bad economic policies and a war we did not want are now bad people becuase they've had to default on loans or worse.
I recently tried to see about better insurance rates than my current state farm insurance. I was quoted rates 2-3 times what I'm currently paying. This was with Progressive, Nationwide, and Geico. After some digging around and a credit alert from equifax about the inquiries (Paying for that credit watch finally pays off) I call Geico and ask for a manager and after asking them why I get a quote 3x my state farm premiums they said I dont have enough credit for lower rates. I'm ask him what my credit has to do with my driving habits and he said people with bad credit are usually bad drivers. Personally I think this is bull and I ask him if those studies are publically available and he said no.
So my point here is that there may be studies about this and maybe there's a point to the higher rates. However I've been in one wreck when I was 16 and 10 years later I've never had a ticket, accident, or even looked at funny by a cop for bad driving. But now they'll use the same lame excuses about how I'm a security risk becuase of low credit despite having never caused a problem for anyone.
Just remember if you like me have less than perfect credit wear shoes you can slip on and off easily and be prepared to find your luggage ruffled through and items missing on the other end.
Last time I flew my baggage was opened 3 times on it's way from Fargo International to Dallas Tx. Once when I arrived at the airport they opened it and when I got home and reopened it I found 3 seperate inspection notes in there. God knows why it was inspected all those times but I really dont like that many people leafing through my luggage.
I sure hope they liked smelling the dirty laundry in there
Re:Figures (Score:2)
Re:Figures (Score:2)
a solution sure to please everyone (Score:2)
we'll just have to reorganize ourselves to be more dispersed, which, incidentally, could solve some other current problems as well.
for example:
telecommuting (ie working from home)
another good thing I would like to see happen is personal aircraft use, more specifically, one that the majority of people could fly safely, like a family-size zeppelin using inert gas and solar power-assist, or a cheap ground-effect vehicle (called ekrano
I suspect that an easy way to find out (Score:2)
"Oh, we see that you did not offer the use of your customer's data. But no problem".
Next go around, loan denied.
Carnival Attack (Score:3, Insightful)
That's my objection to the system. Furthermore, why is racial profiling considered evil? It's not saying, oh you're arabic, you must be a terrorist, it's saying you're arabic, x% of terrorists we've found are arabic, so if we screen more people who look like you, we might catch more terrorists. Obviously we shouldn't screen based solely on race but why is it bad to single out people who fall into a group that historically has been more likely to be a problem as opposed to senator's w/ metal in their hips or old grandmothers w/ hip replacements?
Re:If it saves lives - it's worth it. (Score:2)
Re:Criminal Background Checks (Score:2, Funny)
So if I'm an airline, I can use CAPPS II data for marketing purposes, pay the fine for breaking CAPPS protocol, and still make a net profit.
You don't mess with the feds. The feds aren't going to give airlines a little fine. They are going to make sure the airlines pay with more than a fine. Look at Martha Stewart.
They already have enough information to do marketing on you. I am member of 4 frequent flier programs and I get 5 credit card offer a week with the airline names on it. The only way no
Re:only a start (Score:2)
Things that have been steps down a very ugly slope in the past should get spe
Re:regulation (Score:2)
After spewing so much croporate totalitarian b