Passenger Profiling: CAPPS II 539
gabec writes "'Initial rollout of what may eventually become the world's largest silicon repository of personal data could be less than 90 days away....The Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) is designed to scan multiple public and private databases for information on individuals traveling into and out of the United States. The system will feed the results to an analysis application that mathematically ranks travelers' potential as security threats.' It will happen by the end of the year, if nothing is done to stop it: And
here
are
some
articles
on
this."
I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... (Score:2)
Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... (Score:2)
I need say no more (eh?)
Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... (Score:2)
Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... (Score:2)
Re:I've said it before, and i'll say it again.... (Score:3, Interesting)
(gahd. bloody tedious little patriots, so fulla stars in their eyes that they're unable to see the big black hole o' rights and privacy compromises that's about to smoke 'em in the head...)
wow 7 links (Score:2, Funny)
oh wait, I forget no one reads the articles, nevermind.
Lets hope the Pentuim bug is really gone (Score:4, Funny)
Lets just hope none of those F00F bugs start popping back up...
The F00F Bug (Score:3, Informative)
The above is a technical article on it; here [insecure.org] is a simple one, which only lists the actual exploit.
Damn! (Score:4, Funny)
They'll never let me on a plane, what with my nick and all.
Let me throw a curve ball (Score:4, Funny)
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The system is supposed to "analyze passengers' travel reservations, housing information, family ties, identifying details in credit reports and other personal data to determine if they're 'rooted in the community' -- or have an unusual history that indicates a potential threat." What is this really supposed to mean? "Anylyze passengers' travel reservations", so everyone beware...set all your travel plans ahead of time and don't vary from them or you could be showing odd behavior that indicates you are a terrorist. "Housing information" - let's not let anyone who doesn't have a permanent address or who lives in an area known to have other suspicious characters in it travel. "Family ties", well, we all know everyone who has a family member who disagrees with the government or who is tied to anti-American activity must be evil, so let's arrest them. "Identifying details in credit reports" - pay your bills or more branches of the government besides the IRS will be after you.
And the real kicker..."determine if they're 'rooted in the community' -- or have an unusual history that indicates a potential threat." So, if you didn't grow up in the same place your family has lived in for the last six or seven generations you must be a terrorist.
Yea, I think I've figured it out...our government has completely lost its mind. If we wanted to stop terrorism at its roots, why weren't more steps taken after the Oklahoma City bombing (and please note how young, white, Christian men weren't placed under scrutiny by our government as young Muslim and Arab men have been since September 11)? Why didn't the government take more precautions after they were placed on high alerts after threats were made the summer before September 11?
Don't get me wrong, I'm proud to be an American. I'm an Army brat who was raised across the US and the Middle East and loves her country. But taking away the rights that makes this country great and alienating the citizens who make it so wonderful is not the way to go about saving it.
One little mistake. (Score:2)
Oh, nononono... they don't care wether or not you actually paid. All they care about is what those bills are for.
As long as you never buy anything suspicious, you should be fine.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
In my opinion, it might well be both - except for the fact that govt. has done some real whoppers of revolting AND stupid things in the past. (Check out the papers written by military officials about nuclear testing in Utah, post WWII, for example. In one document, it was clearly written that government considered the population of Utah as "expendable" - when trying to discern environmental impact of the tests, vs. value to the nation as a whole.)
>Yea, I think I've figured it out...our >government has completely lost its mind. If we >wanted to stop terrorism at its roots, why >weren't more steps taken after the Oklahoma City >bombing (and please note how young, white, >Christian men weren't placed under scrutiny by >our government as young Muslim and Arab men >have been since September 11)?
Well, unfortunately, I think your conclusion here isn't quite on the mark. Government hasn't "lost its mind". It's always been a "group conscience", formed of a mish-mash of politicians and advisors - so it's not really possible for it to lose its mind. It never had one of its own to begin with.
Young, white, Christian men weren't scrutinized in the same way that young Muslims and Arab men are for a very sensible reason. It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with. If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time. We've got LOTS of them here in the U.S. -- much more than we've got of Muslims. People screaming about "racial profiling" seem to be neglecting the numerical facts. Why focus on a single group at all, unless it's statistically beneficial to you? In this case, focusing on Arabs is.
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously weren't paying attention to the myriad scare stories about the White Aryan Resistance and the myriad militia groups in remote places during the 80's & 90's. There is a significant and demonstrably violent subculture of young white "Christian" men, among them Tim McVeigh, who are as real and present a threat as your nebulously defined "arab culture". They just aren't half as easy to target and isolate because they look like so many of us.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
But the militia have gone downhill since then, to the point where largish Aryan groups have been smacked around by lawyers and getting their lands confiscated. Odinists, Hitlerites, WCC, and their ilk, et al, haven't seemed to accomplish much lately. The fact that these buggers generally seem to mind dying also reduces what they can achieve.
The assorted Islamist groups have a decent amount of money, including support / blackmail from governments; more martyr wannabes than they can use, c/o the unholy combination of assholes-in-power on all sides in the Middle East; and a willingness to target just about anybody, instead of, say, just government institutions.
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Insightful)
There were numerous arabs on 9-11 that much is true what what about since then?
Richard Reid was a Jamaican living England. Shouldn't we also profile blacks? Remember there are also lots of black muslims in this country who have a some bones to pick with the US govt.
John Walker was a nice white boy but I guess we can't really profile white people.
Jose Padilla is a latino. Apparently there have succesful attempts at recruiting latinos (and presumably blacks) in jails by al quada. Perhaps we should also start profiling latinos too.
The fact remains that the US has a lot of enemies both external and internal. In the west there are militias of people who are preparing for an armed overthrow of the US govt, all over latin america there are hundreds of thousands of people who hate what America has done them and their countries, same goes for the slum districts of any big city.
the bottom line is that Al quada is a religous organization and not a racial one. They accept all races and colors as long as you are willing to convert to islam and take up arms. In fact they have consciously tried to recruit american and european citizens. Profiling by race will only give you a false sense of security. If you don't believe me ask yourself this question. If there was a turk, an arab and an israeli all dressed in blue jeans and a T-Shirt could you tell who was who? Of course not! In fact most americans probably would probably confuse hindus and latinos as arabs too.
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>>>
Now, I consider myself a fairly easy going guy when it comes to things outside of operating systems, but this pisses me off. First, there is nothing "simple" about this situation. There are many different, weighted, positions along with a huge amount of information about cultural and political happenings over the past few hundred years. Making a blanket statement like the one above just reveals how completely ignorant you are. First of all, there is no "Arab" culture. There is a somewhat coherent concept called Western culture, because (among other reason) the intellectuals who developed it were in communication with (and thus influenced) each other. The situation was entirely different in the Middle East. At the time "Arab" culture developed, there was a large part of the population that belonged to nomadic tribes, with little contact between them. Additionally, this situation doesn't just involve Arab culture. Its not just Arab's who are targeted, but Muslims in general. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not rooted in the Middle East, and those Muslims have vastly different cultulres. The Muslims on the Indian subcontinent have a basically Indian culture, along with a large amount of western culture (thanks to British rule) thrown in. The Muslims in Turkey and Southeastern Europe have, similarly, an Eastern-European culture. Besides, many of the people who travel are fairly well-off, and (because of the British school system) western culture has permeated that segment. That said, none of these cultures is in opposition to Western culture. Islam's cultural history is rooted in the wealthy, intellectual urban areas of the Muslim empires. These cities where cultural meccas that could easily compare with the cultural capitals of Europe much later in history. This cultural history is a whole lot different from the Islamic culture you see on CNN. The culture you see on T.V. is rooted in war-torn, poor desert regions. Basing your opinion of Islamic culture on that is like basing your opinion of Western culture on trailer communities or the inner city. For further enlightenment, take a look at the situation in Israel. You've got a bunch of Muslims committing terrorist actions against Israel. On the other hand, you've got Israel, whose police actions kill just as many Palestinian civilians, and who treats Arab residents of Israel as third class citizens. If you make everything black and white, the Palestinians are terrorists and the Israeli's are fascists. Extrapolate from there, you've got that Islam encourages terrorism/hate of America and that Judaism encourages fascism. What? Does that make any sense? No! Thus, the initial black and white assumption was wrong! Proof by contridiction! If you had any sense at all, you'd realize that this is an isolated situation, with violence caused by people in impovrished/war-torn conditions lashing out at a convenient (and not entirely blameless!) entity. Same thing with Afghanistan. Same thing with Chechnya. Same thing with Ireland. Same thing everywhere else terrorism occurs.
Now, you've got me riled up. I like history, and I think you could use the lesson, so let's delve into the details of Islamic vs Western culture, while bearing in mind that both are amorphous enough to be impossible to pin down exactly. To start off, the religious distinction is fairly small (and please, people more enlightened then me in religious matters please chime in!) Once you seperate the traditions from the ideology of the religion, you get the following differences. Muslims believe Jesus was just another prophet, no the son of God. Christians, of course, believe otherwise. The both, however, believe that Jesus is the messiah (or savior, I think they're similar, correct me on this) but differ in the fact that Christians believe that he has already come, while Muslims believe he will come in the future. Overall, other aspects of the religions are similar. Both emphasize self-sacrifice (which is reflected in western culture in the idea of hard work) with Islam leaning a bit more towards ascetism. Both emphasize charity, both emphasize belief in one God (the exact same God, btw). Now, once you get outside the core beliefs, then things get strange. All that stuff about the virgins and heaven is akin to the gothic stuff in Christianity. These "details" arose in both religions during the cultural flourishes of their respective civilizations. In this respect, modern Christianity differs from medival christianity just as much as modern Christianity differs from modern Islam. Now, moving on to the women issue. Let me say for the record that my stance on this is that all you women-supressing people can go to hell, whether or not your christian or muslim. This, I must admit, is a point of contention that makes Islam look very bad in the press. Yes, Islam does tend to supress women. Of course, the Bible also says that slavery is okay, and women should be obedient to their husbands. The main thing that people don't realize is that it is characteristic of pre-industrial civilizations to supress women. The western world did it just as well as any other civilization up until a hundred years ago. The main problem is that Islamic countries as a whole tend to be pre-industrial, while Western countries are post-industrial. Again, ideology takes a front seat to economics. Lastly, this whole thing about Jihad. Yes, the Quran does say that people who fight against the enemies of Islam will go to heaven. This statement is *literal*. When Islam was "growing up" as a religion, its central community was vunerable to attacks from neighboring areas. As a result, it became important to fight to protect the community, and by extension the religion. In no way does that mean that the religion condones killing innocent people.
It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with.
>>>>>>>>>
There is no way to parse this sentence in a way that sheds favorable light upon your meaning. I'll assume that you don't think we're at war with a specific country, that you just made a typo. If you mean keeping tabs on people who come from parts of the world that harbor terrorists, that also doesn't make sense. Terrorists are all over the place, and given current incidents, your list of countries would be Afghanistan, France, and Latin America. If you mean keeping tabs on people of the same faith as those who bombed the WTC, then the sentence makes sense, but the concept doesn't. You're talking about the second largest religion in the world. You're not narrowing it down any, and Islam covers so many parts of the world you're not even getting geographical factors to help you.
If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time. We've got LOTS of them here in the
U.S. -- much more than we've got of Muslims.
>>>>>
No duh. That's why it doesn't make sense to look at race! White men commit far more crimes than Muslims (numerically). By looking at just Muslims, yes you narrow your search, but are you more likely to find criminals?
People screaming about "racial profiling" seem to be neglecting the numerical facts. Why focus on a single group at all, unless it's statistically beneficial to you? In this case, focusing on Arabs is.
>>>>>
Fool. Statistics is only useful for larger datasets. We've got three data points here (Oklahoma and the two attacks on the WTC). One was white, the other two were Arab. Thus, 33% of terrorists are white, and 66% are Arab. Exactly...
The "people screaming about racial profiling" are the people like me. I've personally been harrassed at the Canadian border by some self-important shithead who thought he had this big important job guarding the fucking US-Canadian border. Protecting Mother Canada from all a manner of evils exported from the US. Yes I'm Muslim. Yes I'm brown. But I've grown up here and understand America better than 90% of those people that claim to be patriotic. I vote, post on
I'm tired of weak-minded people. Those without the brain capacity to handle the idea that the world is complex. Those without the learning necessary to have valid opinions. Those without the mental strength to constantly look at their outlook on life and reevaluate it in light of the current situation. These are the people who champion racial profiling. These are the people who make knee-jerk reactions to events. These are the people that make the world suck, because these are the people that make up 90% of the population.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
However. Is the idea inherently flawed? Or could this be a really, really Good Thing if done correctly? Ideally, what would happen is there would be a few billion (yes, billion) dollars spent on researching everything from people 'rooted in the community' to racial profiling to regional profiling (New Yorkers vs Texans, for instance). This research would result in a list of attributes a terrorist would have, and a way to weight those attributes.
For instance, a "reliability" rating of 98% would be given to the attribute of sharing a name and place of birth with a known terrorist. Each attribute would have both weight and reliability ratings, which measure importance and lack of false positives, respectively. If the aforementioned research was good enough, there might be a really good system in place. A hundred unrelated details may be able to identify actual terrorists (the violent kind, not the post-9/11 meaning) with 90% accuracy.
Now here's the kicker. Airline folk (and whomever else may eventually see this data) wouldn't be allowed to see *why* someone is on the list. The computer would simply raise a flag after a certain rating was achieved. The ability to see why a flag was raised wouldn't even be built into the system - as it's reading data from hundreds of sources, it could simply delete the source information afterwards.
If someone finds out they've been flagged, they can contact a government agency set up for the specific purpose of providing that information. This would be a heavily regulated agency, with regulations in place that limit its power. For instance, getting information on anyone who isn't you would require a warrant.
I think such a system might actually make me feel safer and protect people's privacy at the same time.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you completely in your conclusions, though. This kind of profiling is just plain wrong, and shouldn't be used to invade the privacy of anyone in this country, be they Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Caucasian, Arab, or Martian.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
Where did anything imply that something like that would be a determining factor? Go back last week on slashdot and read the articles on spam filtering by statistical methods. It sounds like this is really nothing different than that, except applied to terrorist filtering.
The rights and influence of citizens and aliens (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just citizens that get alienated - or, for that matter, who make it wonderful. There are plenty of aliens, both legal and illegal, living and working in the U.S., many of whom have the kind of backgrounds that are likely to throw up red flags in a system like this.
Alienating the aliens may actually be a worse strategy than many people are willing to acknowledge, in the long run. Aliens in this country tend to provide a lot of feedback to people in their home countries, and can influence attitudes around the world. If America thinks it is "hated" now, wait until policies like CAPPS II have been in effect for a few years.
This kind of thing isn't just limited to poor immigrants from third-world countries, either. As a sort of reverse example of what I'm talking about, look at America's almost irrationally strong pro-Israel policy. That is ultimately driven by a powerful Jewish constituency in the U.S. (Not trying to be anti-anything, someone please let me know if you think I'm wrong.)
The same sort of thing can happen in reverse. If the unambiguous and unvarying message coming from aliens in America is that it is a country where it sucks to be an alien, where its much-vaunted human rights are selectively applied to those who are "rooted in the community" etc., that is going to influence attitudes, and will be bad for America in the long run.
The Bush administration's policies have already led to some unusual international reactions. For example, Germany has recently taken the position that it will not help the U.S. in a war against Iraq, even if U.N. approval is obtained. The reason for this essentially seems to be unhappiness with U.S. unilateralism - not consulting its allies, including those in NATO, before embarking on a course which could create major international conflict.
The Germans have a point. If the U.S. decides that it doesn't need goodwill from anyone else in the world - including the aliens within its borders - it will soon find out that it only has 5% of the world's population, and that it can't simply invade everyone else.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
Re:Let me throw a curve ball (Score:2)
Sorry, never made a beowulf joke before. Did I spell it right?
Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
I can only imagine the uproar of privacy concerns and issues relating to the technology behind it.
I'm not one to give up my privacy, but as crimes have become drastically more violent and their impact greater on society because of the media, isn't it time to update the system?
Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Crimes haven't become more violent. Our news coverage is simply more extensive and public than at any other point in history.
Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction (Score:2)
KFG
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fingerprints and Slashdot's reaction (Score:3, Insightful)
1. What problem does it solve?
Identifying people is not a goal. Nothing is achieved by figuring out someone's true name (though psychologically speaking humans seem to think that finding identity is somehow useful. Most of the time it isn't.)
Identity does not imply motive. What type of criminals tend to have criminal backgrounds? Well, small time criminals, and your serial rapists/killers/et cetera. The pre-determined criminals usually will have no record (whether it's because they haven't done anything, or because they have escaped justice.)
The proposed system is designed to take individuals who have "community standing", ferret them out and mark them as low security passengers. (An interesting example of this already in use--if you don't have a photo ID, some airlines will take a combination of different documents, one of which can be a motor vehicle insurance card--which is a great proof of "community standing" or in other words "an identity well used." A photo driver's license does not imply that the identity is "in use." Either way, what does it solve? I will maintain nothing.)
2. What happens when the system fails?
It's hard to say...what was it achieving in the first place? But it seems like the biggest problem is that "community standing" will manifest itself as low-security passengers, and people will be waived through when more of these individuals should go through the higher security checks.
I don't know if this system really has much of a failure, since it doesn't seem to achieve all that much in the first place. That's what bothers me so much--it's an expensive farce that violates civil liberties.
Schneier says that only two new security measures make any difference whatsoever--reinforced cockpit doors, and passengers who are now willing to fight back.
Errr.... duh? (Score:2)
You do know that your fingerprints (and that of everyone else in the United States) are on file in the town in which you were born, right?
You could complain all you want, but you'd sound pretty retarded.
- A.P.
Re:Errr.... us air doesnt have access... (Score:2)
for what it's worth, i believe they have my footprints on file. still though, those prints taken at birth aren't readily available to say american airlines. also, i dont have to provide my fingerprints for verification when i wish to fly. so if that were the case, then i would complain.
Doesn't it seem like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't it seem like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah it does, but who wants to be the representative or senator that goes "against the grain" and try to suggest other alternative solutions? Even with the ultra-high rate of incumbent re-election (over 90% in the House), this unique post-911 situation would provide challengers the opportunity to run ads and commercials claiming that "your rep didn't vote for increased airline security for you and your precious family.
I'm speaking from a non-partisan perspective--as a society we need to get more educated. It's democracy--the smarter we get, the smarter our officials get.
Re:Doesn't it seem like... (Score:2)
As for harbors and nuclear facilities, they are making noises about those, too -- they're just less visible changes, and reporters likely judge an airport story as more important because security measures will potentially inconvenience or otherwise visibly impact far more people.
If anonymous people are just as trustworthy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy (Score:2)
KFG
Re:If anonymous people are just as trustworthy (Score:2)
Unlike the way some people think these days the lack of being given a bonus is *NOT* the same as a penalty.
KFG
I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... (Score:2)
I don't mind them scanning people entering and leaving one bit.
In fact, if it means that they might catch one in a million people up to no good, more power to them.
Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoth Mustang Matt:
Absolutely! While we're at it, why not change this silly ``innocent 'til proven guilty'' nonsense. It lets too many criminals walk free. If they're innocent, they should be able to prove it easily. You've nothing to fear if you don't commit crimes.
If it gets one more criminal behind bars, it's worth it, right?
</irony>
Re:I'm narrowminded but I'm honest... (Score:2)
Instead it's simply mathmatically calculating risk to bring attention of those who might be crimial to someone's attention.
Everyone's slamming me, but this is what the government is doing by hand already, now we're simply taking human error out of the picture. And we're INCREASING privacy by not letting a human look over everyone's personal info UNLESS the computer throws a flag and says "Hey, this person was in afghanistan 7 years ago and is wanted in two other countries for questioning."
It's not saying that every person the computer notices is going to get thrown in jail or anything, it's simply saying that the computer is going to scan the info given to it without bias and look for possible baddies.
Yes (Score:2)
If they're catching criminals then their system is obviously working right?
I'm as concerned as the next person with privacy but I think there is still room for us to expand law enforcement without envading privacy.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the people on death row that are innocent? There have been numbers of cases of people being found innocent just in the nick of time... or worse, after the execution.
Do you call that system 'working'?
What about if you were classed as a terrorist due to your heritage, your religion, and you went to school with someone who turned out to be a terrorist? (Maybe you never even knew them)
Is that a system that 'works'?
What about if, as someone from the article suggests, that these systems were privatised (That's damn scary)... then really, what is to stop these private companies 'delaying' a few members of some particular activist group that may be threatening their activities in some part of the world?
Who decides what ranks you highly as a terrorist?
Who decides who gets to see this conglomeration of information?
Who ensures that the information that is used in these rankings is accurate?
How long does your 'terror' ranking stick for? If you took part in some protest march, are you unable to fly anywhere for the next 5 years?
This all just sounds damn close to so many grim Sci Fi Movies...
Maybe you're right. (Score:2)
I guess it allows them to push the limits a little more every time they come up with something like this.
Slightly OT: Do you have any links to documented information about people who died on death row and were proven innocent afterwards? I'd be interested in reading that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sit in the right seat, shoot the gastank in the wing. say good by to 300 people.
I managed to get part of the source code... (Score:5, Funny)
p.securityThreatScore = 0.0;
if (isMiddleEast(p.nationality)) { p.securityThreatScore += 10.0; }
if (isMiddleEast(p.destination)) { p.securityThreatScore += 10.0; }
if (isMiddleEast(p.origin)) { p.securityThreatScore += 20.0; }
if (hasDarkSkin(p.race)) {
p.securityThreatScore += 20.0;
} else {
p.securityThreatScore -= 50.0;
}
if (p.religion == Religion.CHRISTIAN || p.religion = Religion.JEWISH) {
p.securityThreatScore -= 100.0;
} else {
p.securityThreatScore += 100.0;
}
if (p.gender == Religion.FEMALE && p.age >= 18 && p.age <= 28) {
p.securityThreatScore += 500.0;
p.searchOptions.fullStrip = true;
p.searchOptions.bodyCavities = true;
}
if (knownTerroristsDatabase.contains(p)) {
p.securityThreatScore = Math.random(-100.0, 100.0);
}
if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
p.securityThreatScore = -p.securityThreatScore;
}
if (p.securityThreatScore > 0.0) {
Dialog d = new Dialog(SUSPECTED TERRORIST!!);
}
Forgot the imporant part (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad thing is... (Score:2)
Re:I managed to get part of the source code... (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that you're not being serious, but just for the record: The unabomber bombings and the Oklahoma City bombing was done by white people.
Damn, doesn't this country forget that most of the crime done in this country are actually done BY AMERICANS?
Even if you could stop all acts of terror here, are you going to stop all crime?
Oh, oops. I keep forgetting that terrorism isn't the real reason for these devices. Carry on.
Re:I managed to get part of the source code... (Score:4, Insightful)
if (hasFirstClassTicket(p.ticket) || isRichCEO(p.occupation)) {
ignoreAllSecurityThreat();
return;
}
This from personal expierence on a flight where my wife and I had to take a multiple connection flight (the seperate planes, we got searched three seperate times), and not *one* business or first class passenger was searched. It was *very* random.
Re:I managed to get part of the source code... (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe most of the 9/11 terrorists were First class passengers, so I doubt First class passengers are now not being checked.
Allow me to enlighten you as to exactly how "secure" this "random" checking of passengers is. First of all, I fly often, and always on one-way tickets in economy. Since 9/11 I have been searched a total of 12 times. That's right, I have been searched on each and every plane I have been on since that day. (I have never, not once in all my 12 plane flights seen a business class passenger get pulled "randomly" out of the search line, and after about the fifth search of your's truly, I have been watching.)
When I fly, I carry two things with me: one (1) hotel sewing kit complete with aluminum scissor that cannot cut paper, and one (1) ultra hot habenero sauce that I keep in a vial inside an official "biohazard" baggie that I purloined at a doctor's office a while ago. It is heavy duty and complete with the bright orange biohazard flower and many various "danger, do not open" labels on it (and it really IS that hot, yum.)
Each and every time I fly since 9/11 I have the tiny one inch no-blade scissors thrown away with rathar contemptuous looks, and the biohazard baggie with the vial of red goo untouched, no questions asked.
THIS is your security in action, my friend.
(Just for the record, I am your typical white male 20-something in jeans and a tee-shirt, you know, the kind that obviously looks like a terrorist)
I wonder what... (Score:3, Funny)
I can see it now: "Mostly harmless"
the usual stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
As if private entities in the US are ever held responsible for violating people's privacy rights. The US government out-sources such violations to companies, after all.
The system will feed the results to an analysis application that mathematically ranks travelers' potential as security threats.
It may do so "mathematically", but that doesn't mean "reliably": garbage-in, garbage-out. In this case, the few dozen terrorists we have had do things with planes over the last few years simply aren't enough to establish reliable criteria for who is a security risk.
What will actually happen is that police make wild guesses on what seems reasonable to them. Once programmed into the computer, stereotyping, racial profiling, and discrimination become "mathematical", and at that point, you effectively lose your right to complain or sue. "Sorry that every check-in takes 8 hours, but the computer insists YOU are a security risk; it's not our fault--WE aren't prejudiced." Overall, this system will result in lots and lots of false interrogations and arrests, and the real terrorists will likely not fit the profile anyway. Eventually, some people will just have to give up flying altogether.
Re:the usual stuff (Score:2)
As the transition to a police state progresses further, officials don't even bother making up such lies anymore, they just tell you to shut up or get arrested.
New Target For SPAM... (Score:5, Funny)
"Have a poor terror score? No problem!"
"Get plane tickets with bad or no terror info!"
"Poor terror index? No terror index? We can help!"
"Repair your terror history instantly!"
Function creep isn't the half of it. (Score:5, Interesting)
What it fails to mention, however, is that airport security has almost nothing to do with this project. It's ALL about building a huge, commercially-mineable information database filled entirely with people who aren't even a little bit of a threat.
Do you really believe that hi-jackers board planes using legit ID that leaves a paper trail right into their DMV records and credit reports? Absurd.
The only people that this system will "catch" are Joe Average and his family. Think of it as a great big grocery-store scan card system disguised as a security precaution.
This, and everything else in America right now, doesn't have a damn thing to do with security or terrorism prevention. It has to do with manufacturing more consent and getting people to march in tighter formation so that they don't spend any time thinking about how little their rights mean to the people in charge.
The fact that people are even talking about it as if it has only the POTENTIAL for abuse just shows that the media machine and their corporate/government handlers have already won.
Re:Function creep isn't the half of it. (Score:2)
Well, the last ones did.
I doubt the next will. But then, I also think the next ones will get stomped on by the passengers, so honestly I don't see the point in any of this. But whatever.
This is just an upgrade (Score:3, Funny)
if skin == brown then threat = high
This is just as great an invasion of civil rights as somebody checking out what you bought on EBay. Of course it might not seem like it if one hasn't been unjustly targetted because of one's race before.
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
Ticket Girl: "Well, yes. But you owe taxes for 1987, have five unpaid parking tickets in NYC, and you, (pauses), heh, have an unpaid citation for, heh, urinating in public that you got in June of '92."
Customer: (red faced). "Uh, look, I was drunk, I mean, i looked.... *sigh*, just whatever. How much?"
Ticket girl: "that'll be $790.45"
Customer: "Fine, whatever" (hands her the money)
Ticket girl: "Remember, there are bathrooms conveniently located at the fore and aft of the plane" (makes stewardess hand gestures.
Customer: "Just, just shut up."
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, profiling is just too complicated to work all that well. There are going to be tons of false positives falling out of this AND it won't matter anyway. So what if the system fingers someone as a potential threat - you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system.
There are plenty of crazy militant types itching to rip the system - how do you sift through to find the "credible" threats? You need a full psychofuckinglogical profile to even start to figure that one out.
And what about the closet psychopaths? The ones that just go off all of the sudden - maybe there was a buildup, but that doesn't mean they've been having clandestine meetings with the PLO or something, right? With a system like this in place, people will become complacent and we'll overlook the obvious signs (ie/ that twitchy, sweating guy with the laptop full of electronics jamming equipment and plastique might just make it through because he's lived and worked in Houston his whole life without a single brush in with the law and because the former guitarist from Rage Against the Machine was on the same flight).
Why don't they just sedate us and put us in little pods for the flight. Less of my rights would be violated that way and at least that would be more effective.
Re: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... (Score:2)
> So what if the system fingers someone as a potential threat - you still can't lawfully detain them based on information provided by such a system.
Oh, like that matters these days.
Re:1, 2, 3, 4, 5... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is exactly why profiling should be kept in advertising where it belongs. Profiling (i.e., demographics) is for taking a set of people, and tossing out those least likely to fit your market. In the set that's left, one is statistically more likely to fit your ideal customer (however, there's still a lot of noise, just less than before).
For crime, it doesn't really work, unless one is willing to prosecute a lot of innocent people. In the United States, there is the presumption of innocense. Based on this, a perfect system is one in which no innocent people are found guilty. In real life, this means that no people are found guilty. Realizing this, the founding fathers knew they had to have a compromise. It was this: for every one innocent person convicted, ten guilty people go free. Profiling strives for the scales to be tipped (i.e., for every ten innocent people convicted, one guilty person goes free).
That's not to mention that profiling is only "effective" if members of the profilied population make no efforts against being profiled (again, that's why it's effective in advertising, but not in detecting crime). I used to work for a large on-line retailer in automated fraud detection. Automated fraud detection (i.e., systems which detect the likelihood of fraud with minimal human intervention) is based on profiling.
Well guess what? As soon as fraudsters find out what they're doing doesn't work, they change the properties of their transactions to more closely mirror legitimate purchases (as seen by the profiling model). The population has incentive to become homogenous. So once the model is implemented and deployed, it reduces fraud for about a week, until people figure out what it's doing, then levels climb back up to where they were before. However, after repeatedly deploying new models, unless the number of data points increases, the incidence of false positives steadily climbs.
Narrowing searches down? (Score:3, Insightful)
--fcw.com
Using things like the above mentioned ones isn't going to be that effective in narrowing searches down. Terrorists will simply use a credit card, buy return tickets and make sure they haven't got criminal records. Its not like if they're blowing some buildings up that they'll worry about the extra cost of getting a return ticket or paying by a credit card. Especially now if these things will be used to help narrow searches down.
Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly wish these facts were more often considered in our response to the events of September 11.
Re:Terrorists can't hijack airplanes anymore. (Score:2)
I don't think there have been very many hijackings, if any, since that day. I'd be interested to see world hijacking statistics for the year preceeding 9/11/01, and the year since to see exactly how much of a decline there has been.
~Philly
heh (Score:3, Interesting)
But seriously, any kind of system that 'unevenly' applies security screening actually opens a door for terrorists. All they have to do is send their cell members on flights frequently, and see which ones get checked more often. Pack the weapons and stuff on the people who get checked less frequently, and now you're mission has a greater chance of success then with random checks.
"Well, why not just do both random and profiled checks?" you might ask, well, why not just do more random checks? I mean, either the airport can search everyone, or some other percentage. The best security would be gained by "spending" all your checks doing random checks. Any other system unevenly distributes the chances of being checked, and decreases security.
br> I saw a paper online about this a while ago. It was a bit more rigorous, but I can't dig up the link. Ah well.
Shit dog, it works (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like you to tell that to El Al security and then report back to the crowd what they say and do to you - as much as we all hate to say it (and the constitution bans it) properly-done racial profiling works. El Al is everyone's favourite case study bacsue they're so hard-core about it.
- Who are their average terrorist threats (and this is Israel - terrorists all around the neighborhood)?
- Who do these groups employ for the most part (by virtue of their ideology and appeal)?
-
So who does El Al most heavily scrutenize?
Does this miss all the John Walker Lindhs out there? Not the way they do it, with their full-out systems integration between the security services and airline computers. If you've been to one of the countries that is generally on the enemies list, then you get interrogated more than usual. JWL was in Pakistan for awhile, so he would have been flagged for the list.Arabs in general, specifically Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians.
Arabs in general, specifically Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians.
Arabs in general, specifically Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians.
So can and will this system happen over here? No bloody way. Dosen't work on physical, temporal, economical, and political grounds. On a more basic level, Israel's got 60 million people and one airline, the States has 250 million and say 20 airlines that fly into it, under various flags. So that total level of security won't work here (ask anyone who has flown El Al and they'll know what I mean), but it can, and the government may try; this massive integration could be the start of the dreaded Big Brother, or at a lower level, the Man may simply record everywhere you travel (which brings up an interesting point - if terrorists are trying to destroy the American way of life, then haven't they already won if such an anti-American-ideals system comes into effect? And if we don't implement it, then they win by physically blowing everything up...)
Re:Shit dog, it works (Score:4, Interesting)
oh, I had no idea that racial profiling was El-Al's only tool. The dudes with submachine guns on the plane probably don't have anything to do with it...
On a more basic level, Israel's got 60 million people and one airline
6 man, isreal has 6 million people, not 60.
Bad News for Canadians (Score:2, Insightful)
Former Olympic gold medalist Ross Rebagliati was denied entry [liberalartsmafia.com] to the United States when he attempted to travel to the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was eventually allowed entry [cannabisnews.com] later in the week, after getting an attorney involved. I think this dragnet will extend much farther, potentially denying entry to any Canadian every busted for smoking a joint, unless said Canadian can afford an attorney.
Algorithm ingredients (Score:2, Interesting)
2) Some things I think the algorithm should consider (this is a mathematician speaking
previous flights
age/sex/nationality
recent credit history
insurance policies
police record
payment method
passenger group (family, friends, alone, etc.)
Anyone else want to add or complain?
-- jetlag --
i've said it before... (Score:2, Insightful)
in short, get over it. if your freaked, you probably did something wrong.
Making the lives of foreign students hard (Score:3, Insightful)
hypocrisy run amok (Score:3, Troll)
Why is it OK to use these techniques to get the spammers, but not the terrorists?
Could somebody explain this one to me?
Re:hypocrisy run amok (Score:3, Insightful)
9/11 was a terrible day - but the days that are coming are worse. The victims of that day will roll in their graves when they see the vulgar abuses of power that are being committed in the name of "National Security."
Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Just a theory.
This system is no better than CAPPS I (Score:5, Informative)
Fun at LAX (Score:3, Funny)
Anyway, that's what passed for sophisticated screening back when they were real concerned about young tourists coming back from Taiwan, where my passport showed I'd spent the last few months. Consider where it goes when they not only look to see if you're somehow unusual, but make sure your credit history is thoroughly mainstream, and you're not behind on college loans, and they haven't correlated your /. handle and posts with your passport ID ... a whole lot of people getting grabbed by the balls for nothing but the fun of the customs a*holes, and a lucky few getting indefinite detention without charges or legal representation, or even publication of their names.
Of course 80% of Americans don't even have a passport, so it's just the coastal elites and foreigners who will complain. Who needs foreign travel when we can always visit Texas? To view anything more primitive, colorful or barbaric than what we can find in Texas you'd have to find the last tribe of canibals in the last acre of rain forest ... and that's about gone anyway. Ah, America, fast becoming the Texas of the world.
Re:Fun at LAX (Score:3, Informative)
The next instruction was "Place your hands back down at your side," and when I did so, a deputy behind me promptly cuffed them and put me into the back of one of the cars. For the next 2+ hours I was questioned about an apparent explosion that had taken place nearby. I was threatened with the bringing out of bomb-sniffing dogs, and "those dogs can smell drugs too." After two hours of me being quite clear in the fact that I hadn't done anything, invitations to bring out the bomb/drug dogs, and encouraging them to get the search warrant they claimed they could get at a moment's notice, I was finally let go.
I have to wonder: do law enforcement officials honestly view shaking hands as a sign of guilt? Don't they realize that the average citizen does not come into confrontation with them on a regular basis, and is (understandably) rather shook-up when such an encounter takes place?
I'd probably be nervous if they chose me for random inspection at the airport. Not because I'm doing anything wrong, but just because it's an uncomfortable and unnerving situation. I hope nobody's been detained just because they had shaky hands or a nervous voice.
Ever since my own incident, I go out on the back porch to smoke. And I'm incredibly nervous when I see a cop car, even though I haven't done anything wrong. Such is life in America, and that was before 9/11.
Shaun
A new market like credit scoring! (Score:3, Funny)
If we are refused permission to fly, are we allowed to get our CAPPS II report free for 60 days?
Or perhaps we'll get endless pop-up adverts for CAPPS II monitoring services: "Worried that your terrorist score might have gone up? Get your report monitored for $10 per month."
Basic problem (Score:2)
I'm more worried about utilities and industrial plants. Read up on the Bhopal [bhopal.com] incident.
Re:Basic problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The 9/11 WTC thing has already achieved what these guys wanted: having everyone hyper-sensitive and (potentially) over-reacting to perceived *threats*.
On this one, I'm with Bush & co. - what's the point of being the remaining superpower if everyone knows you'll cave in at the sight of american blood?
Hopefully, the US keeps this to al-Quaida et. al. and does not further dominate how other democratic countries operate. I think this is what the other western countries are really worried about.
STILL major loopholes! (Score:5, Insightful)
This, and any other airline security system, will not stop terrorists from taking planes and flying them in to buildings.
These rules are once again limited to regularly scheduled commercial airline flights. These rules do not apply to, nor will they affect the screening for chartered flights.
By that I mean that there is no screening required, or even used for most chartered flights. You can easily (money aside) charter a large aircraft for corporate use.
You would walk on board without even passing within 500 feet of a metal detector, whilst guns and bombs are stored in your carry-on luggage and in your coat pocket. Security on board is minimal as are staff. Taking over the plane would be trivial without several hundred passengers to contend with.
The Air Force will NOT be able to react in time to shoot down these planes. The hijackers will maintain the filed flight plan until they are over a major city, then they'll point the nose at the ground (or a large building). Time to impact will be less than 6 minutes, not enough time to scramble fighters, intercept, target, and destroy such an attacking plane.
There's also the threat of small aircraft (6 to 12 seaters) loaded with high explosives performing a coordinated attack on a city center or industrial complex.
Its time to party... (Score:2, Funny)
Lucky for me (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually feel sorta bad for the government guys who have to deal with this stuff. When I go through the computer, I must set off some red flags, but if they examine it closely the worst they will find is I tend to get too drunk in the airport bar before I board the plane, try to flirt with the airline attendent in a terribly clumsy way, and fall asleep.
I guess they could tap my phone, but the most contraversial thing that I've discussed was bugging my mom for spending too much money on curtans for her house.
I don't like the fact that profilling happens, but I also feel bad for the people who have to do it. On paper I'm a real bad person. In reality, I'm just dull and any investigation of my life ends up in a innane exercise in tedium.
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Me too. That's why this system is a complete waste of money.
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
ah well, i can't afford to fly anytime soon anyway. maybe by the time i make some money, this idiocy will have been stopped. if not, i'll have to travel by car inside the u.s., and catch any international flights from canadian airports - because my privacy *is* worth the price difference.
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the 9/11 hijackers would have been given a free pass if these were the criteria, since they had flown a lot. A friend who works for US Airways told me that one of them had a Dividend Miles Preferred card...
While I don't agree with his presentation (Score:2)
All of us law abiding citizens have nothing to hide.
You have a lot to lose though (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine a country where agents of the state install surveillance cameras at sporting events and scan the crowd looking for criminals and suspects.
Imagine cities where agents of the state use surveillance cameras to observe the activities of citizens and tourists under a watchful eye for suspicious goings on.
Imagine roadblocks being set up to randomly, and sometimes selectively, stop automobiles so that armed agents of the state and trained police dogs can inspect your car.
Imagine being at an airport in a country where you are questioned about where you have been and why you were there, while a dog sniffs about and an agent of the state ransacks your personal belongings, only to return them in disarray.
Imagine armed agents of the state just outside your home with high-tech surveillance equipment which monitors your every movement, listens to your conversations and observes what you are watching on TV.
Imagine a country where just being under suspicion of a crime is cause for arrest and justification for your car, home or other personal property to be confiscated by the state.
I recall learning about these types of countries in my junior high and high school civics classes. Does living in a country where you are watched and recorded by the state seem a little scary?
Is it Romania? Iran? Russia? Maybe, I can't say for certain. But, a country where these activities take place and continue to spread is America.
Does this bother you deeply? Or do you really not care because you maintain, I have nothing to hide.
When is the last time you read the Constitution? Have you read it since you got out of school? Have you read it as a mature adult? What about the Bill of Rights?
[Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.]
[Amendment V. No person....shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Are the above-mentioned activities of the state violations of the fourth and fifth amendments? Do they constitute just powers? Are these powers to which you consent because, I have nothing to hide.
The greatest enemy to our freedom is not a foreign power; we would eagerly rally and band together to defeat a common enemy. Nor is it the criminal element; they will fight for their rights tooth and nail. No, the greatest threat to our freedom is the law-abiding citizen who through quiet acquiescence consents to the usurpations of our rights because, "I have nothing to hide".
It is not the government which makes us free. It is not the law which makes people free. It is not the government which guarantees our freedom. No government can ever be trusted to do that. It is the people - who force the government through freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, the right to petition, and the ballot - who guarantee our freedom. Our government was instituted to secure your rights. It is your job to see to it our government doesn't forget why it is there.
As a youngster, I attended a church which taught me that God is always watching you. And this God was one mean, tough, angry hombre who would punish you for all eternity if you didn't play your cards right.
I can tell you that the feeling of being 'watched' is no way to live. Most of us are uncomfortable when a stranger looks at us for more than a fleeting second. Now that God and I have our relationship squared away, I don't need my government watching me. "I have nothing to hide", and so there is no just cause for me to be watched.
Demand your rights, protect your rights, watch your government at all times. Do what the constitution requires of you. You may have nothing to hide, but you have a lot to lose.
--------------
LEXX
Wake up! (Score:2)
You mean just like Jose Padilla [cnn.com]? Oh, you mean he doesn't have the right to a trial at all, even though he is a U.S. citizen and was captured in the United States?
Re:While I don't agree with his presentation (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm so sick of hearing this argument. If the government starts outlawing more and more activities "for our protection," are you positive that your personal life is so inoffensive in every possible way that you could allow anyone--regardless of their agenda--to go through it with a fine-toothed comb?
The problem with your argument is that the scope of the term "law-abiding" changes from day to day. One day, it's legal to drink alcohol. The next day, an amendment is passed outlawing the contents of your wine cellar. One day, your Colt 45 is just a cliched part of your Texan lifestyle, the next day it's an imprisonable offense. One day, your drug legalization post to USENET is a valued contribution to the national debate, the next day it's "incitement to terror or the encouragement of same." It doesn't matter if it's the ideas in your mind, the porn on your hard drive, the religion you practice, the technology you own, or the hobbies you pursue, I guarantee you that nobody is safe from having their freedoms encroached upon.
Even you, with your "go along, get along" attitude, may someday find that a law has been passed which you cannot follow in good conscience. Fight for your freedoms now. Don't wait until they've already arrested all your potential allies.
Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? (Score:2)
PROVE it you scumwad suspected perp you.
(Moderators, the above is a logical argument, not a flame)
KFG
Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing you left out is that should you ulitmately succed in your appeal you *still* won't be able to travel, you will be bankrupt, unemployed and unemployable and with your entire life in tatters.
It's the oldest "law enforcment" trick in the book.
KFG
Re:Why would anyone want to stop this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, good for you. I, on the other hand, am not. If the 9/11 hijackers tried to take control of a plane today, the rest of the passengers would take them down. (And, if they didn't the plane would be shot down. Not that it would do you any good, but still.)
The rest of this is just a power grab by the totalitarian element in our government.
I'd rather live in a place with occasional suicide bomber then in 1984land, personally.
I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system.
Well, assuming that A) the system is infallible, and B) no one ever uses the data for 'bad things' either people with legit or illegitimate access.
For obvious reasons, those are not assumptions I'm going to make...
Re:Profiling... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why do you care if they spy on you (Score:2)
If I'm not doing anything wrong, why are they spying on me?
Violations of privacy only hurt people who something to hide.
So it would be OK by you if we put a closed-circuit camera in your house?
That was meant as a joke... (Score:2)
If you don't get it, or think it's stupid, rate me '-1, Dipshit', not '-1, Offtopic'