Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

Congress to Test Air Screening Program 564

Posted by CowboyNeal from the trust-in-uncle-sam dept.
unassimilatible writes "The Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday it will order airlines to turn over passengers' personal records in the next couple of months to test a computerized passenger screening program that could keep dangerous people off airlines, reports Yahoo/AP. The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II, would rank all air passengers according to the likelihood of their being terrorists. Suspected terrorists and violent criminals would be designated as red and forbidden to fly. Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening. The vast majority would be designated green and allowed through routine screening. But some say the project would violate privacy rights, while others are concerned it would cost the private sector too much money. The Air Transport Association, the trade group for major airlines, has come up with seven 'privacy principles' that it says the government should follow in implementing CAPPS II."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress to Test Air Screening Program More

Congress to Test Air Screening Program

Comments Filter:

  • Queue 'My rights are being trampled' posts (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GO!

  • Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oO Peeping Tom Oo ( 750505 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:14PM (#8605362)
    Does this not open the door for racial discrimination? I would suppose that one wouldn't NEED documents to do this, but with a colour rating being put in place, it would be rather easy to put anyone with, say, iranian parents on a code orange warning.

    • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Funny)

      by Apathetic1 ( 631198 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:22PM (#8605436) Journal

      You are questioning the system! Orange flag warning! You will not question the system!

      Yeah... I can see where this is going...

    • "Does this not open the door for racial discrimination?"

      This door has already been opened, this just gives them further power in order to do it more efficiently. I don't think that the leaders of the U.S. government are very concerned with racial discrimination, their only concern is making sure that there is not a huge outcry (within the US population) against what they are currently doing since an election is coming. Most likely most people in the US won't even be aware of this as many major news, suc

      • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:39PM (#8605584) Homepage Journal
        Excuse me, but in the case of airport screening for terrorist activity I do think that racial discrimination is exactly part of the *right* approach.

        Before I get modded as a troll, please think about this for a minute. Is a 60 year old white female EXACTLY AS LIKELY to be a suicide bomber looking to blow up a few American White Devils as a 24 year old Saudi Arabian of Palistinean lineage? Do you really think so?

        This is not the same thing as pulling over all the white cadilacs on I-95 driven by black males, which is obviously unneeded and morally reprehensible. This is about trying to make some sort of judgment about just who should need to go through a little extra scrutiny to prevent fireballs with hundreds dead crashing into national landmarks.

        I'm not proposing that every Arab needs a strip search. Most (of course) are opposed to terrorism, and probably a little tired of some of the misplaced suspicion. Still, to discount race entirely as a factor in airport screening is just being foolish, and unduly sensitive.

        • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee AT ringofsaturn DOT com> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:42PM (#8605603) Homepage
          You're absolutely right. Just ask Timothy McVeigh. Or members of the the PIRA. They're all darkies, just like that Osama Bin Laden dude.

        • Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)

          by iminplaya ( 723125 )
          In all the terrorist acts that happened in the U.S.(I include them ALL...church, abortion clinic, OKC bombings, political assasinations, etc., etc., etc.) only two(both against WTC) haven't been proven to be domestic in origen. If the truth ever comes out about WTC, we just may find that it too was domestically orginized and financed. So yes, I would suspect a 60 year old white female that could be and is worth checking to make sure she's not KKK or similar. The wackos in America are every bit as dangerous(

          • Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)

            by VertigoAce ( 257771 )
            So what if she's KKK, that group doesn't have a history of causing problems on airlines. The goal of airport security isn't to stop all terrorists, it's to keep airplanes secure. While there is no inherent reason why a particular race of people would cause certain acts of terrorism, that doesn't mean there is no correlation.

            There are a couple things to keep in mind. First, if race were to be considered, it would be a minor factor. Secondly, the system won't be static. If 60 year old white females start cau

            • Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)

              by iminplaya ( 723125 )
              Most of the groups responsible for attacking the airlines have lots of money. In other words, they're rich. Using this line of reasoning we should be investigating rich people. If you want make air travel safe from terrorists, fill the plane with sleeping gas.(stole that idea from Donald Trump)

              • Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)

                by VertigoAce ( 257771 )
                You bring up a good point. However, the job of airport security isn't to stop terrorist groups from existing, it's merely to stop their plots from working.

                Groups like the CIA do investigate the flow of money. Within the past year or so a charity in north Dallas had its assets frozen because they appeared to be funding terrorist groups. People who have lots of money and are moving that money around are investigated. Sure, stopping the funding is important, but it's not like these are the people who were boa
              • If you want make air travel safe from terrorists, fill the plane with sleeping gas.(stole that idea from Donald Trump)

                I used to think this was a good idea until I asked an anaesthesiologist. Turns out there is no one-size-fits-all gas dosage. You'd wind up killing some, while others would remain conscious.

            • Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
              Right - Al Qaeda had no history of simultaneously bombing trains, so they must not have bombed Spain this week. We should be going after the ETA, just like the defeated Spanish lackey^WPresident wanted, Iraq style. What makes you think you can reduce to a /. paragraph a deterministic filter that antiterrorist organizations haven't been able to articulate, given years and $billions? Airline sabotage security screening is an intractable problem, because the players are dynamic. Take a young European convert

        • Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tsg ( 262138 )
          Excuse me, but in the case of airport screening for terrorist activity I do think that racial discrimination is exactly part of the *right* approach.

          You and Bill Maher have this exactly wrong. As soon as you start picking Muslims and Arabs for extra security screenings, guess who's going to be carrying the bomb. Do you really think there aren't 60 year old white females on the planet who wouldn't be willing to do it? It doesn't matter that they're less likely now, because as soon as you stop checking

  • Privacy? Never! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr. Certainly ( 762748 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:15PM (#8605370)
    Is this going to be similar to the screening policies that have old grannies being detained for possible terror threats? What gets me is what's going to happen when someone innocent is labeled as the uber-terrorist by this new system...there better be a nice little compensation package for those folks. Oh wait, we as the rest of the consumers will have to pay for both the system AND the compensation. Well, fancy that.

    • Re:Privacy? Never! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by schmaltz ( 70977 )
      Probably I look more like a potential terrorist (long hair, scraggly beard, army boots, disheveled clothing) than anybody here, but I've never been even searched since 9/11, whereas my 68-y.o. mother, grandmother of two, gets searched almost every time she flies.

      What about all the tens of thousands of people who've been arrested on criminal charges for carrying a deadly weapon (3+" knife blade, unloaded gun, nunchucks.) I bet they're gonna be flagged "violent criminals" and be denied access to the count

    • Re:Privacy? Never! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:42PM (#8605597)
      And just where is the office that those who are wrongly accused by this system go to in order to get their good names back? Having a business trip busted up by a little red light is going to cause damage to quite a few unluckly people...

    • Absolute power without any accountability (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alexo ( 9335 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:53PM (#8605692) Journal
      Is this going to be similar to the screening policies that have old grannies being detained for possible terror threats? What gets me is what's going to happen when someone innocent is labeled as the uber-terrorist by this new system...there better be a nice little compensation package for those folks. Oh wait, we as the rest of the consumers will have to pay for both the system AND the compensation. Well, fancy that.

      You forget one thing, there will be no mistakes.
      Innocent people will never be flagged as threats because the fact that they are flagged as threats proves their guilt.

      There will be no explanation, no due process and no possibility of appeal because that would compromise national security.
      Oh, did I mention that once you're on the list, you'll stay there forever? That's right, once a terrorist - allways a terrorist.

      Don't think for a moment that this is just another way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they don't like by denying them transportation rights. No sir! This is the finest example of your taxes at work. You should trust your government, it only tries to protect the country against terrorists.

      Now be a good citizen and vote for Kodos, or Kang, does not really matter.
      • Actually, there will be an appeals process.

        From: http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/edit o rial_1202.xml

        With CAPPS II, there will be a redress process established, to include a Passenger Advocate. The Passenger Advocate will focus on assisting passengers who feel that they have been incorrectly or consistently prescreened. Since CAPPS II will be a centralized government-run system, rather than a decentralized system implemented by over 70 airlines, CAPPS II will provide the opportunity for a m

  • First Informative Post (Score:5, Informative)

    by homer_ca ( 144738 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:15PM (#8605373)
    The dontspyon.us [dontspyon.us] site is chock full of info about CAPPS II, TIA, etc.
    • Obviously, the current administration wants to make sure the economy is really in the tank.

      The airlines are already suffering, but this?

      And now, the #2 Al Qaeda leader is surrounded [google.com] by the Pakistani military.

      Note, that's not US forces. That could be a good thing.

      Truly sad to watch this administration. At first, I thought it was a huge conspiracy, but maybe they really are that incompetent.

    • *Your* Information (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:12PM (#8605848) Journal
      Notice how the words "passenger" and "traveler" keep cropping up?
      "Passengers' personal records"
      "all air passengers"
      "travelers' identities"
      "a traveler's risk"
      CAPPS II at a Glance [tsa.gov] does not use the word "you" even once
      their followup page CAPPS II: Myths and Facts [tsa.gov] talks about you only twice.
      (funny that its in the 'editorial' section of the site) Anyways, before waiving it off as semantics, consider how it would sound if every 3rd person reference to you was replaced with... you.

      Under CAPPS II, airlines will ask you for a slightly expanded amount of reservation information, including your full name, date of birth, home address, and home telephone number. With your expanded information, the system will quickly verify your identity and conduct a risk assessment utilizing commercially available data and current intelligence information on you. The risk assessment will result in a recommended screening level, categorizing you as no risk, unknown or elevated risk, or high risk. Your commercially available data will not be viewed by government employees, and intelligence information on you will remain behind the government firewall. Your entire prescreening process is expected to take as little as five seconds to complete.

      Not so benevolent anymore is it? The idea behind CAPPS isn't inherently flawed, its just that i doubt it'll be very secure. My guess is the CAPPS II database will end up getting passed around the internet faster than Paris Hilton.

  • "The vast majority would be designated green and allowed through routine screening"

    No problems for me or my brown-skinned and turbanned brothers then?

    Abdul Asif Hussein

  • Raise questions (Score:4, Funny)

    by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:16PM (#8605378)
    "Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening."

    It just goes to show you should never rock the boat at an airport (or border crossing). :)

    • Re:Raise questions (Score:5, Informative)

      by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:26PM (#8605477) Homepage Journal
      I read this the same way you did, the first time. Reading the article, though, (even though it is a direct quote) makes it a little more plain that they should have said "Passengers with a profile that raises questions..."

      OTOH, while they are pretty specific about what the system will NOT do (read the "myths about CAPPS II" from the link), it is pretty vague on specifics about things they will be looking for. They metion "suspected terrorists" and that those with "outstanding state or federal warrants for violent crimes", but there is obviously more to the rating that those 2 factors. They just never say what they are.

      Why is it that so many of these government security programs seem afronted by the concept of "transparency". They say things like "race and national origin will absolutely not be considered", but they don't give you any idea of what WILL be.

  • Questions? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by joe90 ( 48497 )
    Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening.


    Wow - ask a question, get "reclassified" as more of a security risk. Sounds a bit McCarthyist . . .

  • This is going to become the norm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by toltas ( 466545 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:18PM (#8605408)
    I dont know about anybody else, but as much as I dont like people invading my privacy, I would rather not be on a plane with a criminal.

    I think that things like violent crimes and terrorist actions should be looked at when deciding who can fly. It's not the airlines fault that a person broke the law and might consider doing so again.

    Now the problem is that these 7 "privacy principles" are probably not going to actually limit any of these types of people from getting on an airplane.
    • Er, might consider doing so again? I can understand red flagging violent criminals that are on the loose, but ex-cons? That goes against the very idea of limited sentencing and the justice system -- if you flag them for the rest of their lives, why even let them out of prison to begin with?

      In any case, what's wrong with airline security now? It seems to be quite effective.

    • I think this is a good time to bring up Franklin's quote:

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      We're not just looking at people who have "broken the law." We're looking for people who, for one reason or another look "suspicious." Now, how do you tell who is a threat? Is it because of their job? What about their bank account? Maybe they attended some rally for a certain cause? Or maybe we look at their nationality?

      I don't believ

    • I dont know about anybody else, but as much as I dont like people invading my privacy, I would rather not be on a plane with a criminal.

      How many times have you been assualted or meanaced on an airplane? What's the reality of that threat? In hundreds of flights, the number of threats for me has been zero, if you don't count the kid kicking the back of my seat on a flight from Denver.

      This isn't as much a question of privacy as reality. Does the reality of the threat justify the invasion of privacy? A

    • Re:This is going to become the norm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:03PM (#8605772)
      Were this system certain to accomplish this goal and not cause collateral damage to innocent people then I would agree. The problem is there is a great deal of doubt whether this system will do any of that. First off I really doubt wanted felons and known terrorists are going to get on an airline in the U.S. now unless they are stupid or have really good fake/stolen ID's.

      Another problem is any sleeper cell terrorist who keeps their database entries clean will go through green and like greased lightening. As soon as Al Queada knows how the system works they are just going to work with and around it.

      This is unlikely to stop any concerted terrorist but it will cause massive inconvience, loss of privacy and freedom for everyone else. Like most of the measures the U.S. has taken post 9/11 its designed to be a political campaign bullet to show how the current administration is protecting us from terrorism when they really aren't. It is designed to massively extend the tentacles of a growing police state in to everyone's lives. We can't really stop at airlines now can we. Since madrid we have to do subways and trains, and if we do trains we have to buses, and maybe at that point we should start putting check points on highways to nab the terrorists who might be driving car bombs. At this point the U.S. looks like Israel or Nazi Germany. For all of Isreal's security measures they STILL don't stop terrorist attacks. A major goal of terrorism and guerilla campaigns for centuries is precisely to provoke the responses we are seeing from the target government who become increasingly oppresive and unpopular, who trash their own economy trying to stop the unstoppable all of which enhances recruiting for the guerilla movement and encourages the population in general to get rid of the increasingly repressive government.

      Another case that is going to burn many is if you are an innocent person who has an mismatch between the personal information you give at the counter and some unknown assortment of databases including commercial credit databases you will recieve yellow or red status, and if you get red you don't fly. If you move very often you know how hard it can be to keep all the personal information in these databases in sync. Instead of stopping terrorists this system is designed to punish people for not keeping all the credit agencies, who already weild unwarranted power over us, in sync. At this point its undefined how an innocent person will go about clearing the discrepency because the TSA will probably not tell you why you have been red flagged. If you need to fly for your job, welcome to unemployment.

      This system also give various individuals and agencies of the federal government nearly arbitrary discretion to add you to a watch list and prevent you from flying indefinitely. This is done without a trial, without proof and without appeal. Some government drone or political hack gets ticked at you and they punish you by putting you on a watch list. This is an exceptional tool to punish and marginalize vocal political opponents of the current administation. Watch lists have already being used to prevent anti war activists from flying in the U.S. If there is a political activist who is traveling to speak engagements or protests this is a tool to radicly slow down their exercise of their 1st admentment rights.

      Making airlines reasonably safe is already a well defined task:

      - Armored locked cockpit doors
      - Screen passengers and luggage for explosives and weapons
      - Stop the out of control bureaucracy run amuck syndrome and focus the resources on the first two which are really easy to do.

      Better yet, to win the war on terrorism compell a real peace in Isreal and the West Bank and get U.S. occupation troops out Islamic countries. If the U.S. and Isreal stop humiliating the Palastinians in particular and arabs in general that will dramaticly reduce the ability of islamic extremists to recruit for and fund their movement.

  • Upgrading (Score:5, Funny)

    by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:18PM (#8605409)
    Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening

    "Am I incorrectly inferring that if I voluntarily submit to a full body cavity search I get to go straight through to my seat?"

    -Goatse guy

  • Extra security screening. (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:19PM (#8605411)
    Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening.

    Am I the only one who read that as, "rubber glove and a handful of vaseline"?

    /note to self, do not ask questions at the airport

  • Will this survive the Supreme Court? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by and by ( 598383 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:21PM (#8605424)
    I would think that the "violent criminal" bit could be unconstitutional. This is assuming that they're refering to ex-cons; I don't think that a wanted violent criminal would be given a red flag, rather they'd have the police called on them.

    The denial of access to public accomidations was refuted in terms of both gender and race. I know that it's constitutional to disallow felons sufferage, but I don't think that you can do much more to them (save monitoring them).

    I think even Rhenquist and Scalia would be against this legislation.

  • Worried about privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by J05H ( 5625 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:22PM (#8605427)
    Hit them where it hurts: don't fly. If you really want to stand up, then sit down. tell your favorite airline that you aren't flying until they promise passenger privacy. If you feel REAL civic, write your congresscritter and tell them, too. Money talks, and if enough "consumers" do this, someone will start/reform an airline to respect the rights of Those Who Pay The Bills.

    What's that knocking? ^H^H^H^H NO CARRIER
    • Yeah right. "I call for a boycott on flying." It'll never happen, and you know it. Besides, it's Congress that's doing this, not the airlines.

      I suspect that what will REALLY happen is that they'll screw up the implementation and some VIP will get red flagged. Poof! Project disappears.
    • I'm surprised no one else has said it yet on this thread, but for some of us choosing not to fly also means choosing to find a new job. That hits me where it hurts. There is no other practical option for travelling coast-to-coast, and that's what my business requires.

      You may also be aware that several major airlines already have Chapter 11 protection, so in a sense they are already being protected against "consumers" voting with their wallets.

      You were right on about writing to our representatives, but unf

  • And it won't even be effective anyway!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sribe ( 304414 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:22PM (#8605429)
    But some say the project would violate privacy rights, while others are concerned it would cost the private sector too much money.

    Reasonable people could argue those points if the damn thing could work, but it can't. (For discussion see this interesting paper [mit.edu].) And since it cannot be effective, it is complete foolishness to even consider this massive invasion of citizen privacy, not to mention waste so much money!

  • First one's on us (Score:4, Insightful)

    by darkCanuck ( 751748 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:22PM (#8605434)
    So what about those terrorists who are 'unknown' flying for the first time?

    They get a green light, pass through and drive themselves and the plane into the ground.

  • EFF (Score:4, Informative)

    by AnonymousCowheart ( 646429 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:23PM (#8605448)
    The EFF also has a good write up [eff.org] on it. A second opinion on things is always good.
    Also see Why EFF is concerned about CAPPS II [eff.org]
    In short, what's at stake?
    " Your fundamental right to privacy and your fundamental right to travel without being forced to give up your constitutionally protected freedoms"

  • This actually DECREASES security. (Score:5, Informative)

    by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:24PM (#8605456)
    This paper [mit.edu] describes how such a system actually makes it more likely that a terrorist cell can carry out a successful attack, when compared with random screening. The basic idea is that it is not hard to determine whether or not you are on the watch list, and then the terrorists can use hijackers who aren't on the watch list. Anyway, I know slashdotters aren't known for reading links, but the paper is actually quite accessible and worth reading at least some of.

    • Re:This actually DECREASES security. (Score:4, Informative)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:37PM (#8605572)
      It's extremely easy to figure out whether you're on the security list or not... just go flying on a couple round trip flights. If you don't get stopped for the "extra screening", then you're clearly not on the question-every-time or never-fly-ever list.

      What if they send the equipment with the least likely hijacker to be screened, everybody else can be checked and found to have nothing on them... contraband can be passed in the terminal among conspiritors.

  • Not too terrible? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gnuzip ( 670049 )
    I'm sure many many people are ready to start explaining why this is a terrible thing, but I (especially after reading the Myth/Fact list) have decided that, if they were to follow the procedures listed, this could be a very effective, and reasonably fair way of increasing air-travel safety. Plenty of issues may be raised about whether information privacy is threatened, or if certain people may become unfairly "flagged", but I believe that (aside from the perhaps unfair requirements placed on the airlines th
  • > But some say the project would violate privacy
    > rights, while others are concerned it would cost
    > the private sector too much money.

    It will also decrease security.

  • Right To Travel (Score:5, Informative)

    by Omega1045 ( 584264 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:26PM (#8605475)
    "As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thomson, Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

  • Whatever happened to due process? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:27PM (#8605483)
    Those who are dangerous to the highway system lose their ability to drive on the highway system. It's called taking away ones driver's license, and it can be invoked for nearly any repeated moving violation, and for some it even comes on the first offense. But the thing is, in order for that to happen, one has to be convicted in a court of having committed the offense, or at least plead guilty by not contesting a ticket.

    I have no problem with those who intentionally cause a security scare being barred from ever flying again, but they should at least have been convicted of an air-security related crime first. The reason why the spooks want to use a system that profiles and acts preemptively is because they say that the first crime they committ will kill everybody on the plane if not more. However, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were already comitting a crime just by being in the United States of America. If we bothered to have security at the borders, we wouldn't need to be over-securing our airport to the point that some law-abiding Americans get locked out.

    Just what does make a terrorist profile? They'll never get it to a 100% science, so what will happen is that there will always be some people who have done nothing wrong but spook the database who will get the red flag, and nearly any journalist who ever challenges the Department of Homeland Security will constantly invoke the yellow flag.

    Security-by-annoying-everybody is not a working model. It might spend the allocated money and fool some people into feeling safer, but it really doesn't do anything.

    • I'll bite (Score:4, Insightful)

      by riptalon ( 595997 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @12:44AM (#8606818)

      Those who are dangerous to the highway system lose their ability to drive on the highway system.

      This is not the same thing at all. An equivalent senario would be people being banned from travelling in (not just driving) any vehicle on a highway if they were caught drunk driving. Banning someone from being a passenger on any aircraft is equivalent to banning someone from ever stepping into a car, bus or truck.

      Of course as you note it is also different in that a court is involved at some point (i.e. there is some sort of due process) in driving bans but there are other differences as well. The people they are intending to ban from flying haven't done anything. It isn't like they have a previous conviction for hijacking an airliner so they are not allowed to fly on one again. It is that the government does like them in some way, because they are suspected of being a "terrorist", or for some other reason. Not only does stopping people from flying based purely on suspicion very bad, but it puts a huge amount of extra power into the hands of the government to persecute whatever people they don't like, as you note.

      I have no problem with those who intentionally cause a security scare being barred from ever flying again, but they should at least have been convicted of an air-security related crime first.

      This is a red herring though. Sure they might use this system to pick on such people but its main purpose will be to select people fitting a certain "high risk" profile. Who would "intentionally cause a security scare" anyway? Sure a terrorist group might phone in a fake bomb threat to cause disruption (its cheaper than a real bomb) but then you are not going to catch them are you. If this is going to be used to ban people from flying who are carry the wrong book [citypaper.net] or aren't grovellingly deferential enough to the security screeners then that is another big problem.

  • The problem is that we've lived with airliners for so long without recognizing them as the huge cruise missiles that they are. If our cultural heritage included walking around with belts of live grenades slung across our chests, we would resent a sudden requirement to leave them at the door. It isn't that there is any greater danger now, it's just that now we're aware of it and we have to deal with it. Rod Serling always felt responsible for inspiring airline hijackings with a tv episode he wrote, but soone

  • Wonderful news! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:28PM (#8605500)
    I live in Canada, the more the Americans pull stunts like this, the more people will migrate over to here (especially the educated ones). This will be great for the Canadian economy!

    Well done folks! Keep pissing on your country and driving everybody off it.

  • What will they do with the list? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:28PM (#8605503) Journal
    Will they run the list through the program and see if it correctly picks out acts of terrorism ahead of time based on personal information fed in in a chronological sequence? I kind of doubt the program will be able to do it correctly. At first. But then they will tweak it to work, and they will claim success. But it will be biased at this point, they may tweak it not to spit out many false positives when run on the data given to them. If it does get put into practice, expect a lot of false positives. Expect civil liberties groups to be outraged. But there is currently a Federal do not fly list [google.com], and I don't think it is coordinated now any better than it was when it was first set up. People get put on the list, and no one can say why, or how to get taken off the list. At least if this list is centralized, there will hopefully be some way of clearing one's name if one does get on it.
  • How exactly will this improve security?

    No, seriously, how will this help? This can go wrong in so many ways that it isn't even funny, is an enormous violation of privacy, but I can't for the life of me see how this will improve security.

    Never mind we are focusing too much on front end security to begin with...

  • Scary when you are boarding (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xeaxes ( 554292 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:35PM (#8605546)

    I was at the airport a couple weeks ago. The system is in place, but they aren't doing screening. Anyway, everybody's getting a bright green color, then the person in front of me gets bright red and the system makes a buzzing noise. He stops and goes "what? what's that?" He was clearly upset. The person checking everybody in said not to worry about it and go ahead and board.



    Of course, I knew what it was, and it made me nervous. Then, you wonder what coud happen with that guy on the plane.



    They should implement it so you cannot see the screen. I guess a month from now they would pull him aside and get out the rubber gloves.

  • these "dangerous people" traveling in the air are the fucking politicians making these ass raping invasive laws that OTHER people have to live with.

    Fuck, ban them from air travel.

    Tom
  • This is exactly what airline passengers have been hoping for. We want the airlines and TSA to stop looking for weapons (and in the process confiscating fingernail clippers, combs, medals of honor, earrings, etc) and start looking for, and trying to keep off airplanes, terrorists! If this means a few innocents will be subject to extra scrutiny, then so be it. The alternative is for everyone to be treated like a criminal status quo.

    The Israelis have been phenominally successful in keeping terrorists off of

    • Re:Long Overdue! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sisco ( 763303 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:54PM (#8605704)
      Pragmatism is no guide to live by. Sure, the system in Israel might work, but so would shooting anybody that looks like a terrorist once in the chest and once in the head.

      Just because it works does not necessarily make it right.
  • Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening.

    I misread this statement at first... because it seems to be true in that sense too.

  • It will be it's own worst enemy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HD Webdev ( 247266 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:46PM (#8605630) Homepage Journal
    Airline security will be less secure because many security personnel will trust the software to do the job for them. Just like firewalls/anti-virus, it won't stop the people who really want to get in. It'll just encourage security to slack off of screening all people.

    Terrorists will figure out all of the things that the system is checking for and find ways around it. Then, we'll be caught with our pants down when a bunch of 'green' passengers take a plane under control. After all, security was concentrating on the red/yellows. Those yellows/reds could easily be co-conspirators attracting attention away from the real threat.

  • Destruction of records... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marcilr ( 247981 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:46PM (#8605634)
    "The TSA says it agrees that privacy must be protected. A privacy officer, Nuala O'Connor Kelly, has been hired to make sure federal privacy law is upheld. The agency won't hold on to passengers' records, except for people who might be terrorists."

    Wouldn't logic dictate that anyone *might* be a terrorist, hence the agency will hold on to anyone's records indefinitely?

  • Who is a violent criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HeelToe ( 615905 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:54PM (#8605708) Homepage
    So if someone is a wanted fugitive, yes, I can see using this to catch them. What if they have committed violent crimes and have paid for them, this prevents them from flying? Last I heard, the only thing you lost from being a convicted felon was your right to vote.

    What is a "violent criminal?"

  • time to root out the real 'terrorists' (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:56PM (#8605718) Journal
    "The Political Safety Administration said Wednesday it will order parties to turn over politicians' personal records in the next couple of months to test a computerized political screening program that could keep dangerous people out of the government, reports Yahoo/AP. The Computer-Assisted Politician Prescreening System, or CAPPS II, would rank all candidates according to the likelihood of their being corrupt. Suspected corporate cheats and self-centered assholes would be designated as pig-fuckers and forbidden to vote or run for election. Candidates who have questionable stock or campaign contributions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening. The vast majority would be designated 'friends of Diebold' and allowed through routine screening. But some say the project would violate the corrupt and idiotic way of politics, while others are concerned it would just be another corrupt entity. The Supreme Court, has come up with seven billion dollars that it says will go to the best bid, and as always, companies who would like to bid to build and run the system may have any political or corporate affiliations they want.

  • Unconstitutional (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lucas Membrane ( 524640 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:13PM (#8605856)
    The Constitution guarantees all persons born or naturalized in the US all the "privileges and immunities" thereof. Way back in the 1800's there was a case in which the Supreme Court tried to almost write this out of the Constitution. They said that "privileges and immunities" didn't include anything like voting or having a fair shot at government jobs or contracts, or getting to go to the same schools or bathrooms as other people, it meant only a few simple rights like the right to sail the navigable waters of the US and the right to travel from place to place. Seems like that ought to include the right to ride on an airliner, and they shouldn't be able to take that away from someone now without a trial.

  • Isn't profiling already taking place? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by greppling ( 601175 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @11:21PM (#8606311)
    Boarding in at the Northwest Terminal in Detroit, there are always separate lines at the security into which selected persons are being assigned for extensive checking and searching of the carry-on baggage.

    Of course, it could just be random screening, but I that seems unlikely to me. I got selected the last few times I flew from Detroit.

    Frankly, I still find the procedure somewhat humiliating. It's incredible how inefficient they are. There are always 6-8 TSA guards standing around waiting until the next guard can take over their passenger for the next step. Apparently collecting the documents from the passengers, waiving the next person through the metal detector, staring at the xray monitors, handing over the documents to the person doing the baggage searching, and doing the metal detector screening are all highly specialized tasks that require special skills so that it is strictly impossible for one guard to take over the responsibility of the next one.

    Their metal detectors are so sensitive that they regularly "detect" the trouser buttons. Then you have to roll over over the trousers a bit, so that they can check more closely. Their baggage searching doesn't exactly make the impression of being undefeatable, to say the least, but at least that means that it doesn't take ages and they put everything back together as well.

    Now imagine you started queueing 30 mins before your boarding deadline, and all this goes on and on, inefficiently etc. First some 15 mins in the queue, then you have to wait again until your baggage got x-rayed, then again for the metal detector checking. I think the worst thing is -- even if they seem nice, maybe I actually feel like chatting with them, then I start think, "Oh better don't, might get misunderstood", "Oh come on, they are humans, too, after all", "Better not, even if it just causes a delay, remember your flight is going in 15 mins". It's like being in an exam without knowing what you are being tested in.

    Well sorry about my ramblings, many of you probably know the procedure yourself, but had to get this off my chest. But I would be curious if there is reliable information on whether this "selected security screening" is purely random based, or based on some sort of profiling.

  • Thank Wesley Clark (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stewiethegreat ( 763513 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @12:28AM (#8606749)
    Whether you agree or disagree with the program, you can thank Gen. Wesley Clark for selling it to the government. He was the salesperson for the company that developed the program (I forget the name right now) last year.

    When asked during the debates about CAPPS II, Gen. Clark said he'd never heard of it, even after the moderator reminded him of his role in implementing it.

    Seems a little strange.

  • why screening when solution is at hand ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bsdcow ( 743021 ) <gilbertf@noSpAM.netbsd-fr.org> on Friday March 19, 2004 @12:30AM (#8606760) Homepage
    why has the tsa developped such a tool ?

    1. the best solution is to scan everyone. every bag, every person and no exceptions. no one.

    2. use a tool to "tag" some people and scan them.

    solution 2 is what tsa would prefer because solution 1, which is the only valuable one regarding security, requires TIME and thus MONEY.

    i would suggest to use solution 1. it will pay in the long term and save lives. and because everyone has to be searched, it will not raise as much problems as flagging a few.

    this stupid program is just a try to avoid solution 1 to spend less cash and putting more risk on people that will die if something wrong happens.

    and solution 2 will allow terrorists to do "dull runs" for years and once they're always taggued green and have a clean aspect like a family life, good job and education, they will be able to attack again.

    most 9/11 terrorists were pretty clean. some had families, been living in the US for years, reconnaisance around the twin towers started four years before attack (as video founds show) and they had real papers under false names, issued by someone from the administration in Virginia that issued true driver licenses but under false names.

    jump on solution 1. scan everyone, everything. solution 2 is just keeping the risk over people's life and they are priceless.

  • Congress should make sure it works. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by michael.creasy ( 101034 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @12:48AM (#8606849) Homepage
    They should all volunteer to be classified as yellow. That way whenever a member of congress flies they'll if it's working or not. I'm sure Congress wouldn't mind doing this in the name of security.

  • The best thing... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tehanu ( 682528 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @01:48AM (#8607147)
    The best thing is, if there is a terrorist attack, the government will say it is because the system isn't draconian enough and make it even more unfair, invasive and tougher.

    If there isn't a terrorist attack, the government will say "hey it's working" and to make it work better we need to make it more draconian and even more unfair, invasive and tougher.

    It's a win-win situation for the government either way.

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close