Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

American Airlines Is Third Company To Share Data 241

Posted by timothy from the thanks-fellas-no-really dept.
crem_d_genes writes "American Airlines has become the third U.S. airline to admit sharing passenger records with the government. They were proceeded in admissions by Northwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways. At the heart of the matter is the implementation of the of U.S. Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) use of the provisions known as CAPPS II. Some privacy advocates have expressed strong dissent with this plan. Some concerns have even been brought up in Congress, though for different reasons. The Department of Homeland Security has a site entitled CAPPS II: Myths and Facts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

American Airlines Is Third Company To Share Data More

American Airlines Is Third Company To Share Data

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:2, Interesting)

    by after ( 669640 )
    If it'a a matter of security for me and the people that I travel with, then they can share my data. I am sertainly not opposed to this, I dont want some shmuck who got through to blow up my airplane.

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Liselle ( 684663 ) * <.ten.ellesil. .ta. .todhsals.> on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:52AM (#8858511) Journal
      That's the attitude they are probably counting on. Not that it's a bad thing: the majority of folks have nothing to hide. Privacy is nice for some things, but there is a point where it crosses over into paranoia. The sibling AC is correct, your unpopular view is either going to be modded down, or the mods are going to have an Over-rated fight this morning.

      Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems. I hang my hat with the MBTA (Massachusetts subway system), and believe me when I say this: it would be trivial for someone to blow up a train. The collateral damage from an explosion going off at Park Street during rush hour would be devastating. But that's not really on-topic, I guess. :P

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by vegetablespork ( 575101 ) <vegetablespork@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:06AM (#8858571) Homepage
        Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems.

        Don't worry--I'm sure Ashcroft and company are hard at work on a national database to be checked against a swipe of your National ID (a.k.a. "standardized driver's license or state ID") when you board any public transporation. At that point, known terrorist (or deadbeat dads, or those with unpaid parking tickets, or people with questionable political affiliations [geocities.com]) can be arrested and searched.

        In about ten years, we'll have an internal passport system for air, land, and sea transport that would have made Soviet Russia proud.

        • Man, I just got through reading your link. That's some scary stuff. I understand the need for security, but this is the problem when a military, trained to deal with hostiles, turns to policing their own countrymen. There should be some kind of way for her to challange/sue for her ticket price back. It's this kind of stuff that really makes me sad for the direction our country could go.

        • Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Parent's link is a pack of lies [snopes.com]

          Too bad that little story was entirely made up. There are 260 million Americans, what makes you think the Government cares where YOU go or why (barring anything illegal)?

          It's total ego-strokage to think you're important enough for anyone to care about you. The world does not revolve around kiddy socialists.

      • Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)

        by twbecker ( 315312 )
        Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems. I hang my hat with the MBTA (Massachusetts subway system), and believe me when I say this: it would be trivial for someone to blow up a train. The collateral damage from an explosion going off at Park Street during rush hour would be devastating. But that's not really on-topic, I guess. :P

        I agree that subways are an easy target. The main difference,

        • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Artifakt ( 700173 )
          In the past, terrorists have tended to target planes partly because many of them were trained along communist lines. Terrorists tended to get a lot of Marxist class theory mixed with their bombmaking 101, and believe that preferred targets were the ones "used by the ruling classes". Subways were too proletarian for their tastes. It would be interesting to know if the current generation of terrorists is working from similar assumptions. I wouldn't be surprised if Al-Quida thinks they are selectively targetin
          • let me first say i like your comment.

            Why would Marxists oppose hitting the White House? You can't get much higher up the ruling class than the man they elected to run the show...

        • I agree that subways are an easy target. The main difference, as I see it, is that an airplane can be hijacked and itself used as a weapon. I suppose a subway could be hijacked, but considering they can only be driven on the track, doing so would be of limited utility. You'd have to have a bomb, which hopefully could be detected by conventional means. I guess what I'm saying is that you'd have to have more than just malicious intent to do damage to the subway system.

          Subways aren't glamorous. They carry

      • London's heading that way: they now have the Oyster Card [oystercard.com] system that uses a wireless smart card. (Not RFID alone, the card actually holds more detail.) The online & offline forms for getting one of those ask for all kinds of unique personal information, which gets checked, so they can tie your address and identity to the card. After that, every time you use the card at a tube station, that info is logged and can be made available to the police "if required by law" (buried in the terms & conditions)

        • I'm just waiting for someone to say "if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear"..!

          ... except for a hernia from all that junk mail headed your way.

      • I agree, they've done the airplane thing. The next target is likely to be a mall, subway, or sporting event. Major sporting events, for example, would have security coverage. But what about an NCAA game? A large audience in a small space. Plays could be a target as well, as we saw in Russia. Especially if they target the "well-to-do" or culturally representative events.

        Terrorists leaders aren't stupid, just fanatical. They'll use their men and their weapons where they're most effective. And right now that

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:53AM (#8858516)
      That would be a justifiable position to take, if CAPPS II actually increased security. The problem, however, is that not only does it not work, it actively decreases security.

      The way it works is called the carnival booth attack, and it is described in much detail in this paper [mit.edu].

      The basic idea is very simple. A person gets a score from the system, which is based on how likely they are to be a terrorist. Then, CAPPS II has most of the searches directed at people with high scores. So, a terrorist group needs only do a number of test runs, and see who does and doesn't get searched. The people who don't get searched obviously have low scores, and so they use them for the attacks. And in case you were wondering, yes, the terrorists are already using this scheme -- it was used in the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers did test runs, on the same exact flights to make sure everything worked as planned.

      So, if there was an actual tradeoff to be made, then a rational debate could be had about the appropriate tradeoffs to make. But when they try to take away my privacy and as a result decrease the security, that I have a serious problem with.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by general_re ( 8883 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:18AM (#8858619) Homepage
        The problem, however, is that not only does it not work, it actively decreases security.

        Another argument put forward against passenger screening in particular is that terrorists will adapt to the screening methods in order to slip through the system. See Samidh Chakrabarti & Aaron Strauss, Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-assisted Passenger Screening System, at http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/sp ring02- papers/caps.htm. Again, this concern should be taken into account when developing applications but does not argue against research and development, or deployment, with adequate accounting for the problem. First, there are obviously ways to defeat any system. Nevertheless, they are worthwhile because they raise the cost of engaging in the terrorist act by requiring avoidance strategies. Not only do such avoidance strategies increase 'costs' to the terrorist but they also provide additional points of potential error on the part of the terrorist that may lead to discovery. Obviously, if we were to take this critique too seriously on its face it would support the conclusion that locks should not be used because locksmiths (or burglars with locksmithing knowledge) can defeat them. Second, to the extent that we are talking about researching adaptive machine learning based algorithms, an important research objective would be to try to anticipate these avoidance methods in application, algorithm and system design, including by building in both variability and random outcomes (for example, by combining random searches with CAPPS II).

        - K. A. Taipale, "Data Mining and Domestic Security: Connecting the Dots to Make Sense of Data," [stlr.org] 5 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 2 (December 15, 2003)

        • Obviously, if we were to take this critique too seriously on its face it would support the conclusion that locks should not be used because locksmiths (or burglars with locksmithing knowledge) can defeat them.

          I've got to disagree. True, the fact that measure X can be defeated does not make it un-worthwhile. But CAPPS determines the distribution of searches. This does make it possibly worse than the alternatives (e.g., random searching).

          Suppose that out of 100 people, the airport has resources to searc

      • Just like you use a myriad of tools to defeat spam (RBL, Bayesian, etc.), the government needs different tools to defeat terrorists. One system will never be the silver bullet, but it can at the very least put a dent in the plans of those who wish to kill, mame, and otherwise terrorize.

        Privacy is a great thing, but all things can be abused and exploited. We whine and complain about how draconian the government is about trying to catch these guys, but don't forget about the two who didn't get away [humaneventsonline.com]. We won't

      • Re:Good (Score:2, Interesting)

        by TTL0 ( 546351 )
        i disagree.

        1) it could come out that they get busted on the test run and reveal the whole plot.

        2)the longer it takes for them to find a successfull canidate the better chances are that they get stopped and the longer it takes to put together an attack.

        3) so lets say the get a guy who is the anti-sterotype of a terrorist - he may do other things that trigger the system.

        in the end there is nothing you can do to stop a terrorist or any other criminal for that matter. but you can make it harder for them.

        • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Piquan ( 49943 )
          I think you misunderstand the attack. You send, say, ten people on flights, without arms. Repeat a couple of times if you want. See who's getting screened and who's not. Pick the one who's getting screened the least, since CAPPS apparently feels that he is safe.

          So:

          1) it could come out that they get busted on the test run and reveal the whole plot.

          I don't think they'd be carrying explosives during CAPPS probes. Besides, the one guy who did get revealed is not the one they'd pick to perform the opera

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:58AM (#8858534) Journal

      Fair enough - don't you think the parties concerned should be honest about it though? From what I've read so far AA and USTSA denied that there was any sharing of data - why?

      If my GP (doctor) asks me if it's OK to share my medical history with a surgeon I'm unlikely to object. If she fails to ask my permission I will object strongly. If she lies, and claims that she didn't share my data - well, that's worthy of more than just an objection.

      ...Oh, and by the way, some schmuck will find a way to blow up planes with or without data sharing, internment, shoot-to-kill policies, bloody-great walls, compulsory ID cards, razing villages, etc.

      NB. I'm not suggesting that all of the above are current tactics against terrorism: they have all been tried at some point in recent history.

    • I'm managed to fly 49 flights on American so far this year and I'm really ticked they shared my travel information without my consent.

      Had they asked, I'd have given it to them. I'm sick of fucking (in)security with arbitrary random acts of rudeness and stupidity.

      I'm tired of standing in lines. I'm on an airplane a week it seems like and you'd think the'yd be able to go 'oh yeah, he flys with us all the time so lets not randomly search his ass because he's got a ticket that goes to one city but leaves fr

      • I'm on an airplane a week it seems like and you'd think the'yd be able to go 'oh yeah, he flys with us all the time so lets not randomly search his ass because he's got a ticket that goes to one city but leaves from another' or things like that.

        Uh.. that's kind of the premise and that's why it's a totally useless system. It directs searches toward people who are "more likely" to be terrorists. If you take 10 flights a month and never even so much as set off a metal detector, odds are you're not a terrors

    • Sounds good on paper, sure. But on your next trip to Hawaii, they hold you at the airport for...get this - reading Slashdot! Slashdot does contain quite a number of posts which would be considered by Ashcroft & Co. to be "anti-American."

      This guy at the University of Idaho got arrested because some Islamic extremists posted pro-Hamas and whatnot comments on his website. So he got arrested based on comments posted by users of his website (and plus his being from Saudi Arabia doesn't help either). Granted

    • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Safety Cap ( 253500 )

      If it'a a matter of security for me and the people that I travel with, then they can share my data. I am sertainly not opposed to this, I dont want some shmuck who got through to blow up my airplane.

      I'm saddend that you are willing to allow our government to discount the sacrifices that I and my fellow service members made to secure your freedom. I'm saddned that you think that security comes from removal of your sacred freedoms by government fiat.

      The fact that you and many like you choose not to practice

    • I had assumed it was SOP in the first place.

      The airlines don't own the sky, the FAA does, so why wouldn't the FAA already know who's flying where and when?

      And the only applicable Ben Franklin quote is, as always,

      Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

    • I dont want some shmuck who got through to blow up my airplane.

      How is this going to change that? Mohammed Atta was on an FBI watchlist when he boarded a plane on 9/11 under his own name. Seems that what we really need is for our intelligence agencies to share their data with the airlines.

  • EU better watch out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SkunkPussy ( 85271 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:42AM (#8858481) Journal
    Myth: CAPPS II will track where and when I travel and will store that information.

    Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed.

    So all the passenger data that the EU is leeching to US is being permanently stored - i.e. US is building a database of all EU citizens who have ever travelled to US. scary.

    I can't believe the EU sold us out.

    • Re:EU better watch out (Score:5, Interesting)

      by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscoward AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:52AM (#8858507) Journal
      Technically no laws are broken: data on EU citizens is protected only within the EU and the US Privacy Act only covers data on US citizens.

      A European visitor to the US is now (along with nationals from many 'visa exemption' countries) being fingerprinted, photographed, and logged in numerous databases.

      As the largest and most powerful nation on Earth, the US can do this. What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate. I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.

      We live in dangerous times: the State is seeking levels of control over our lives that would allow it to eliminate many hard-won liberties, such as the right to travel freely.

      • Re:EU better watch out (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:02AM (#8858554) Homepage
        I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.

        You've got the right idea, as did Brazil, when it started doing this. Amazingly, when they did, US Lawmakers started an uproar about how unfair it was.
        Sigh.....
        • Yes, when I read about Brazil's policy of treating foriegn nationals exactly as they Brazilians are treated in their country I was astounded at the wisdom.

          Anything with a legislature generally doesn't do anything that reasonable or appropriate.

      • Game Over (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) * on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:10AM (#8858584) Homepage
        A European visitor to the US is now (along with nationals from many 'visa exemption' countries) being fingerprinted, photographed, and logged in numerous databases.

        Yup, but this stops at the end of September. Except Canadians every terr^H^H^H^Hforeigner will be fingerprinted upon entry to the US.

        If I'd be the US tourist industry I'd be in the process of shitting my pants from fear.

        From a personal perspective: I've travelled the US about 15 times and spent a significant amount of my tourist Euro there.

        This change of procedure however has the stench of assuming that I'm a criminal and doesn't give me the warm fuzzy feeling that I'm welcome.

        I might be a tad over sensitive here (given the rotten track record of privacy protections in the US I'm not sure though), but I don't believe that I'm the only ex-US visitor with that view..

        • Re:Game Over (Score:4, Interesting)

          by bogado ( 25959 ) <bogado@bo[ ]o.net ['gad' in gap]> on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:27AM (#8858669) Homepage Journal
          When talking about entering a foreinger country I never have this "warm feeling of welcome". I always keep thinking about the dozens of historys I have heard about people being traped and humiliated before entering a country, and this is not only in the united states.

          My mother was locked in a small room in the Paris airport, revisted several times, and she didn't speak a word of french or english for that matter. She didn't know what the hell was happening, my father that was there already in a work related trip did not know what was happening.

          I have heard of people having to return home without so much as a reason from buth the US and the UK.

          But remember that I am not talking about the reception after you actualy enter the country, I was very well received in both Paris and Madrid.

        • Re:Game Over (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dipipanone ( 570849 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:30AM (#8858688)
          From a personal perspective: I've travelled the US about 15 times and spent a significant amount of my tourist Euro there.

          In the words of the famous AOL subscriber, "Me too."

          I've been to the USA at least twice a year for the last ten years. I was actually in NYC the Oct. after the WTC crash, because I wanted to support the NY hotel and tourist economy at that time. It was really peculiar and very moving to be in Greenwich Village at 10.00pm on a Thursday evening and see the streets deserted aside from a few homeless people and a handful of kids.

          Last time I flew was November last year. Air tickets were cheap (around 200 return) so I paid cash. I also made the mistake of flying Air France because I couldn't get a BA flight.

          On arrival, the immigration guy gave me the third degree. What was the purpose of my visit? What did I do for a living? Had I ever been arrested? (Answer: no.) What had I been arrested for?

          It seems that my answers didn't satisfy him, because he escalated my case, sending me to the 'big room' in which mine was the only white face to be seen.

          They kept me hanging around for about three hours, whereupon a senior official came along and asked me a more polite series of questions. (What was the purpose of my visit? Where was I staying? When would I be leaving, etc.) This lasted about two minutes and then they let me in.

          Needless to say, I won't be going again. I love the USA and I have some very close friends who are Americans, but in future they can spend their dollars here in Europe, because I'll be fucked if I'm going back there without a significant regime change.
          • I am an American citizen and I have gotten stopped almost every time I have flown (which is quite a bit).

            I am 6'3", Caucasian, blond hair, no criminal record. Maybe I look too normal - don't know.

            They are always polite, but it is frustrating constantly being checked two, three times. I always get to the airport very early but I have have a lot of close calls. Needless to say, I only fly when I have to now.
            • They are always polite, but it is frustrating constantly being checked two, three times.

              I don't mind being stopped and questioned. That's fine. What bothered me was the attitude of the original immigration guy, and then what I saw in the room where I was forced to wait for three hours, accompanied almost exclusively by people with brown skin, presumably from Islamic countries.

              There was one other white guy among us (and I'd guess there were forty or fifty people waiting in this room) and he was someone

      • Re:EU better watch out (Score:5, Insightful)

        by albanac ( 214852 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:12AM (#8858592) Homepage Journal
        the State is seeking levels of control over our lives that would allow it to eliminate many hard-won liberties, such as the right to travel freely.

        No such thing that I ever heard of. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] says this:

        Article 13.

        • Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
        • Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

        These measures do not prevent anyone from doing that. They merely allow the government to take note when he does. I don't mean to say I like it, but your implication that people aren't allowed to watch you move around is not, in my reading, supported by the document.

        ~cHris
      • As the largest and most powerful nation on Earth, the US can do this. What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate. I'd like to see a special queue at Brussels airport where visiting American tourists are finger-printed, photographed, and generally treated like criminal suspects. /me thinks the concept of "tolerance and personal liberty" would soon find a new meaning.

        I agree, it really sucks how the US Govt. seems to think it can to to others
        • I hate to state the obvious, but measures should be based on potential usefulness and potential threat, not on retaliation.

          Do I think it's cool that foreigners have to go through this added security? No! My wife is Mexican and on her last trip to the U.S. she had to be fingerprinted and photographed (to their credit she said the INS person was very friendly and the fingerprinting/photograph process was extremely quick). But the reality is that after 9/11 the U.S. has some serious justification for want

          • ...they can't see the difference between a real threat to security in the U.S. and sour-grapes retaliation against Americans, I'll spend my money at home.

            I think tourists around the world are concluding the same about travelling to the USA which only hurts the US economy and puts your countrymen out of work. America has raised the bar in these matters and Americans will be treated as they treat others. The European countries will eventually follow suit in these matters if only to defend them selves again

      • Re:EU better watch out (Score:2, Insightful)

        by goatan ( 673464 )
        technically no laws are broken: data on EU citizens is protected only within the EU and the US Privacy Act only covers data on US citizens.

        Not exactly there is something called a safe harbour [export.gov]the information about EU citizens being in the system was something that was negotiated later.

        What amazes me is not that the EU allows it (what choice does it have?), but that it does not reciprocate.

        Considering the EU managed to force America's hand over data protection and the safe harbour (not to mention stee

    • The EU already does this with non-EU visitors.
      As a visitor to an EU country you are required to give your passport to hotels. The hotels then send all that is send to interpol where it is stored for unknown amounts of time.
      In the US you are only tracked when you enter and certain forms of internal transportation; in the EU you get all of thoses in addition to every time you want to sleep indoors.

  • Ahhh... the joys of travelling (Score:3, Funny)

    by anandcp ( 617121 ) <anandcp@tat a n o v a . com> on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:43AM (#8858484)
    Actually,, legally... technically... TSA has not broken the Law. Yet.
    But then it was was only natural that the Big Brother will pry out our travel details from the cold hands of Airlines.
    My only worry is my partner working as an agent in TSA and finding out that i travelled to New Mexico without telling her for a fling with my.... THAT would make me sue TSA.!!!

  • Don't Come Here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:47AM (#8858498)

    From the Department of Homeland Security:

    Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed. The prescreening process will be conducted anew each time you fly.


    Sometime I hate my country. So, those of you who aren't from here: yet another reason to not come. Does the government not understand the manner in which science progresses? This is just going to destroy the US research community, which was once the greatest in the world. Goodbye, conferences.

    • Re:Don't Come Here (Score:2, Insightful)

      by salesgeek ( 263995 )
      This is just going to destroy the US research community, which was once the greatest in the world. Goodbye, conferences.

      If you are having a "research" conference and the mere fact that you will be logged as having traveled to the conference is a problem, then you have to wonder about what is being researched.

      If the purpose of your conference is legit, then this should be not a problem at all.

    • Goodbye US research community, conferences (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:44AM (#8858768) Homepage
      Two generations ago study of the hard sciences in Western universities required fluency in German or Russian. English probably won't go away very soon, due to its dominance in the WWW/Internet, but research might move back overseas.

      People study where the best departments and research centers are. The US attracted many of the world's top students during the 70's, 80's and 90's, because in some fields, research was most advanced. Part of the reason was because not only was Europe devastated in WWII but many of its researchers emmigrated to the U.S. before and during the war as well as during the early phases of the Cold War. It became self-perpetuating. When the leading centers were in pre-war Europe, Europe was sought ought. When the leading centers were in post-war U.S., the U.S. was sought ought.

      Now the have been two generations of post-war reconstruction and there is increasing incentive for them to stay home or return back home. The pull of good centers is augmented by the push provided by the Dept. Homespun Security, Patriot Act I-III, etc.

      So the U.S. is losing the safe haven benefit and the dynamic equilibrium is changing. This will eventually stabilize even with things like CAPPS II and a general increasingly anti-research climate (many businesses have already cut their R&D, even Xerox PARC is gone).

      However, a real tipping effect can be achieved by adding quality of life and economic issues to the equation. Many businesses have been cutting health coverage. And while there are still some good areas many cities are lacking in basic services like public transportation (could you commute if you wished?) and decent schools (where hard math and science is mastered). Furthermore, businesses have been downsizing and look to be doing so making it a hard climate. The climate is getting harder as the interest rates are at the bottom and both the national decificit and trade deficits are growing. Add the weak dollar to the mix, which might be hiding deflation behind the trade deficit, and it might be better to earn instead of $.

      Then you have patents and litigation to deal with, if some corporation objects to your results -- e.g. Felton.

      Behaviors like that are just going to ensure that a few more researchers choose to go home and build their centers in Europe, Aus/NZ, India or China.

      • People study where the best departments and research centers are. The US attracted many of the world's top students during the 70's, 80's and 90's, because in some fields, research was most advanced. Part of the reason was because not only was Europe devastated in WWII but many of its researchers emmigrated to the U.S. before and during the war as well as during the early phases of the Cold War. It became self-perpetuating. When the leading centers were in pre-war Europe, Europe was sought ought. When the

  • Permanent deletion. Is it possible at all?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bomblaster ( 580308 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @07:54AM (#8858524)
    Myth: CAPPS II will track where and when I travel and will store that information.
    Fact: For U.S. persons, information will only be kept for a short period after completion of the travel itinerary, and then it will be permanently destroyed. The prescreening process will be conducted anew each time you fly.

    I don't think this will be possible at all. Consider the fact that the information that they collect about a person will have to be backed up to other media to provide recovery options in case of system failures in the CAPPPS II system. Then it will be virtually impossible to permanently remove data.

    This is the same situation that Google recognized when it said that their GMail service cannot be guarantee that emails will be permanently deleted.

  • YRO? Seriously? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by twbecker ( 315312 )
    Am I supposed to be outraged by this or something? I'm sorry but we NEED to know whether people who are trying to get on an airplane are on some watchlist or what have you. So I'm afraid that the basic need to be secure trumps some schmuck's paranoia that the gov't knows he's travelling from point a to point b.

    • Re:YRO? Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:42AM (#8858757) Homepage Journal
      RTFA, didya?

      The issue isn't as much the sharing of data with the gub'mint (although that _is_ a valid discussion, it's one for elsewhere); it's the fact that a contractor gave it to other companies at the government's bidding without AA's knowledge or consent.

      And regarding your "conclusion", this poor schmuck's paranoia is not trumped by "the government" wanting to know that I'm travelling from point a to point b. What have CAPPS & friends (fingerprinting/photography at airports, massive visa lines at embassies, whatever) done besides terribly annoy a lot of possibly desirable immigrants and tourists, who'll now go vote with their wallets and go elsewhere? "Let 'em", you may say. "Fine, they will" I reply.
      • What have CAPPS & friends (fingerprinting/photography at airports, massive visa lines at embassies, whatever) done besides terribly annoy a lot of possibly desirable immigrants and tourists

        Have we had any more terrorist attacks using airplanes? This may not be a good argument that things are *working*, but then you've supplied no evidence that these measures are *not* working.

        The difficult thing is, whether these things work or not is very difficult to measure. If Bush had implemented such constr
        • No, you're absolutely right, I can't argue my point based on statistics as we have not had any such attacks since. But then again, we didn't have any such attacks in the same timeframe before either, so at this point it's just twisting statistics to support whatever point you're trying to make.

          Regarding the bitching, I agree with you. However, I think that there are ways to seriously go about security, such as increased intelligence about financial flows between various groups, human intelligence, whatev

    • Re:YRO? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gclef ( 96311 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:45AM (#8858773)
      As many others have pointed out, there are two major problems with this:
      1) The watchlists are horribly broken, and include many people who are not actually suspicious (there's even been a lawsuit filed by several people for interference with their free movement over this). If the watchlists actually *worked*, you might have a point. But, they don't.
      2) This system actually gives attackers an advantage by allowing them to test what we're looking for. It therefore allows them to be more confident that if they don't fall under our criteria, they will have more leeway as to what they can smuggle on board a plane.

      Truly random searches are the only way to go, honestly. While that will piss people off, and leads to ridiculous searches of grannies & the like, it's also the only way to be sure that attackers can't game the system.

      Of course, airline security is only rarely about actually securing the flight, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

  • Why the surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:10AM (#8858583)
    Why is this even news? People, the days of anonymous traveling are coming to an end. It's just a fact. The government is determined to know who is going where, especially when using risky modes of transit, such as trains or airplanes.

    I predict that within 20 years, USAmerican citizens will be ID'd even as they cross state borders. Adjust my prediction to 10 years, if there is another September-11-like attack in the near future.

    • Re:Why the surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:26AM (#8858660) Homepage Journal
      It's not at all surprising, it's just bad. And there's no reason to be fatalistic about it. Yes, the government is trying to restrict anonymous travel in the name of safety, but it's not succeeding and we should fight it!

      especially when using risky modes of transit, such as trains or airplanes.

      Come on, traveling by train or airplane is an order of magnitude safer than driving a car. If safety were a concern, rather than just trying to "Do something, anything at all, to stop terrorists!" then there would be a crackdown on cars; any jackass over 16 with a pulse who can sign his name can get a driver's license, and there's absolutely nothing in place to stop somebody who got totally smashed at a bar from trying to drive sixty miles home.
    • I suspect you are wrong.

      Currently, every state in the union is in a budget-crunch situation. The Federal government is likewise breaking its budget severely. State-by-state checkpoint simply aren't economically feasible, and won't be inside of twenty years. Even when it is feasible but expensive, no politician will be able to slip that kind of expense past the taxpayers.

      Also, it would either need to be implemented by every state or by the federal government, and the states will really fight it if the feds
  • Are they gonna monitor every time I purchase nukes from russia with my VISA??

  • Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:16AM (#8858611) Homepage
    You think SPAM filtering is hard?

    In 2003, there were 641 Million passengers [atca.org] on U.S. flights.

    Zero of them actually attempted to destroy their flight. One of them would have been sufficient (the Shoe Bomber, for instance). The people tasked with finding this individual must thus be accurate to a level of one out of six hundred and forty one million.

    By comparison, the odds of winning Powerball are approximately one out of one hundred and twenty million [lotterybuddy.com].

    But people do win the lottery, quite regularly in fact. Lots of people have to lose, of course -- that's what funds the thing -- but it's not a particularly rare occurance.

    That's sort of the idea here. Given enough "losing tickets", we'll beat the odds. And even if we don't -- at least we tried (which, ultimately, is what all the controversy is about right now -- not whether we succeeded in stopping the attacks, which we obviously didn't but whether "we tried".)

    Hate to quote Scott McNealy, but like the man who sells the servers that store all our personal information says, "You have no privacy, get over it." Everyone gave up the flight info, because everyone was damn near thrown out of business. That's the bottom line.

    • More Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:33AM (#8858706) Homepage Journal
      In 2002, there were 42,815 traffic fatalities in the US. There was presumably a similar number of traffic fatalities in 2003, although I couldn't find the exact number. That's one death every twelve minutes. A September 11 every month. Why do we care so much about airplanes? What makes them so damned important that we can't stomach a single crash, while tens of thousands of people die on the roads every year?
      • Or Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc .....

        Our health as a nation should be the biggest concern. More people are going to die from health issues is one year then in probably twenty years of terrorism.

      • If you truly think no one cares about traffic accidents, you should check the changes in drivers liscense restrictions. At least where I live, penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising, the age limits on drivers liscenses have increased by a good margin, and the driving tests have gotten enormously harder. Also, safety standards in cars have been steadily increasing.

        So, in short, you're an idiot.
        • I hardly think calling him an idiot is justified when you yourself have a gaping flaw in your argument. Witness:

          At least where I live, penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising, the age limits on drivers liscenses have increased by a good margin, and the driving tests have gotten enormously harder. Also, safety standards in cars have been steadily increasing.

          All these wonderful controls are just super-dee-duper, until you realize that you mention nothing about enforcing these mandates. Com
        • If you truly think no one cares about traffic accidents

          Please quote where I said that. Go ahead. It's not a very long post, it should be easy to find. I'll wait.

          .

          .

          Anyway, let's forget about that spectacular display of uselessness and discuss your points. They're pretty much irrelevant, but we can make some comparisons anyway.

          penalties for drunk driving have been steadily rising

          Doesn't matter. Drunk people don't worry about jail when they decide whether they should call a taxi, and the punishment ha
      • Because CNN Doesn't cover a car accident for seven weeks straight. Anyone remember TWA flight 800? Of course you do, it was all over the news for longer than it should have been. Aircrashes attracted attention while car accidents attract negative attention (I bet you get annoyed when a car accident delays your commute.)
      • Soooo, we shouldn't care at all about airplane crashes simply because there are more automobile accidents? You're saying that only the #1 causes of death should be of concern? In that case why care about automobile accidents? More people die of heart dissease!
      • In 2002, there were 42,815 traffic fatalities in the US. (...)What makes them so damned important that we can't stomach a single crash, while tens of thousands of people die on the roads every year?

        If there had been 42,815 people first degree murders in traffic each year, you'd see a reaction. Planes crash from time to time due to technical malfunction or human error, it's clearly undesirable but it happens. You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's like comparing the number of people that die from sn
    • for stating what needs to be said.

      We Americans have an exaggerated sense of danger - I don't know if it's because of all the violence in our media or we're just scared.

      Another thing the nobody has stated yet is the fact that these databases are NOT completely accurate. We're going to be getting a lot of false positives. We've all read about what happens to the folks who are falsely fingered and what they have to go through.
      Considering the inaccuracy of corporate data - that's right, that's where the TSA'

      • No, they're not accurate, but until the cost of not correcting data exceeds the cost of correcting data, they're not going to scrub anything. Nobody wants to be the guy who erased the terrorists from the database.

      • I'll only be happy if there's a legal recourse for those wrongfully fingered and can't get the information fixed.

        Is the TSA exempt from the auspices of the Privacy Act?

    • Re:Perspective - and privacy... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @10:18AM (#8859382) Homepage Journal
      So I'm applying for a home loan, and the broker requests my name and SSN. That's all.

      Within minutes, he's reading back to me recent payments, credit card balances, bank account info, etc... basically, my entire financial history. He knows that we were late on our electric bill in November, and comments on how nice it is that our car payments are so low.

      Anyone who thinks that CAPPS II is a serious invasion of privacy is seriously naive. The average person no longer possesses any privacy to speak of. The sad fact of the matter is that you can be tracked no matter where you go:

      • Your credit card purchases and ATM withdrawals track where you go and how much you spend.
      • Even the small bills ($20) are tagged with RFID's, so cash no longer guarantees privacy. Plus, it's not likely that you'll find a good job which pays cash only.
      • Your grocer records your every purchase, linked to your discount, bank, or credit card. The FBI can have this information simply for the asking...
      • Your library viewing habits are now subject to Federal review, thanks to the PATRIOT act.
      • Your medical practitioner is bound by law to turn over your medical records in cases where they suspect certain crimes have been committed. (Child abuse, for example. And yes, most practitioners consider any injury beyond a minor scrape or bruise "potential" child abuse.)
      • Your ISP and phone company are required to possess the cabability to intercept your communications. The FBI can eavesdrop on these with no oversight or accountability whatsoever.
      So, in light of the above, does CAPPS even matter? Even before 9/11, the FBI could get very detailed information about a person simply by asking people around the suspect. For example, in the Ruby Ridge fiasco, the FBI knew the suspect's daughter's menstrual cycle - the school nurse volunteered the information!

      Hate to say it, but your privacy is already gone. A person cannot function in today's society without consenting to monitoring of their every move. Why does CAPPS matter when the FBI already knows what you eat, which movies you watch, which books you read, how much you owe, and with whom you associate? CAPPS is more or less a "feel-good" government program - it's designed to assuage passengers' fear of flying while providing jobs to people who would otherwise be out of work.

    • Brightmail claims to have filtered 2 trillion emails, that's way more than 641 million passengers. Everyone knows brightmail's numbers are accurate.
  • On the website cited in the article it states that they aren't going to run a criminal background check on everyone. If that is the case, how are they going to know if you have an outstanding federal or state warrant. The only way I know to do that is through the NCIC (National Crime Information Computer) system and that will also show your criminal history. Does anyone really believe what the government says?
  • Can they really tell the difference?

  • Security is a process (Score:3, Interesting)

    by meme_vector ( 679135 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:47AM (#8858785)

    Security is a process. Find a hole in the process and the pieces you have bypassed are meaningless. At airports the assumption is that your ticket was matched to your ID at the metal detectors before entering the "Secure Zone" where the gates are located.

    Even the name "Secure Zone" implies that by virtue of being there, everyone near the gates is authorized and not a threat.

    So all a terrrorist would have to do is buy/steal a ticket (or boarding pass for that matter) for a name that passes CAPPSII and then get into the secure zone.

    Every pen test we read about shows how easy avoiding the checkpoints are. Once at the gate, you show your boarding pass and walk onto the plane. O'Hare and many other airports no longer check the ID again at the gate.

    Alternately, you just avoid the gate completely and have your team access the plane directly from the tarmac or via the ramp by penetrating one of the lower, non-public levels of the terminal.

    So 9/11 isn't behind us. Another one is possible just a soon as the assets are in place and the timing is right (like just before the next presidential election)

    • The only reason 9/11 happened is that the Bush Administration refused to share a vital fact with the American people: planes were to be hijacked and used in terrorist attacks. The passengers in the first three flights to crash thought they were in an ordinary hijacking, and acted accordingly. Which got them, some of the people in the WTC, and some of the people in the Pentagon killed.

      Flight 93 was different because it was last and passengers found out what was really going on - too late to save their p

  • Figures (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @08:58AM (#8858842) Homepage Journal
    Reason I really hate the idea of your "Credit Rating" saying how secure you are is the fact that just becuase someone has bad credit does not mean they're a bad person.

    So all the people that have been laid off due to bush's bad economic policies and a war we did not want are now bad people becuase they've had to default on loans or worse.

    I recently tried to see about better insurance rates than my current state farm insurance. I was quoted rates 2-3 times what I'm currently paying. This was with Progressive, Nationwide, and Geico. After some digging around and a credit alert from equifax about the inquiries (Paying for that credit watch finally pays off) I call Geico and ask for a manager and after asking them why I get a quote 3x my state farm premiums they said I dont have enough credit for lower rates. I'm ask him what my credit has to do with my driving habits and he said people with bad credit are usually bad drivers. Personally I think this is bull and I ask him if those studies are publically available and he said no.

    So my point here is that there may be studies about this and maybe there's a point to the higher rates. However I've been in one wreck when I was 16 and 10 years later I've never had a ticket, accident, or even looked at funny by a cop for bad driving. But now they'll use the same lame excuses about how I'm a security risk becuase of low credit despite having never caused a problem for anyone.

    Just remember if you like me have less than perfect credit wear shoes you can slip on and off easily and be prepared to find your luggage ruffled through and items missing on the other end.

    Last time I flew my baggage was opened 3 times on it's way from Fargo International to Dallas Tx. Once when I arrived at the airport they opened it and when I got home and reopened it I found 3 seperate inspection notes in there. God knows why it was inspected all those times but I really dont like that many people leafing through my luggage.

    I sure hope they liked smelling the dirty laundry in there :)
    • Just because there were three inspection notices does not mean it was inspected three times. The last time I flew, I watched the woman put two notices in my bag as she was inspecting it.
    • How about the people who are in so much debt that crashing their car into another car just to get a big old check from the insurance company?
  • so terrorists like targets with lots of people to kill at the same time...

    we'll just have to reorganize ourselves to be more dispersed, which, incidentally, could solve some other current problems as well.

    for example:
    telecommuting (ie working from home)

    another good thing I would like to see happen is personal aircraft use, more specifically, one that the majority of people could fly safely, like a family-size zeppelin using inert gas and solar power-assist, or a cheap ground-effect vehicle (called ekrano
  • is to see who got 9/11 "loans". I am guessing that they were tit-for-tat. United is one of the few to not a loan. Yeah, it was stated that their house was not in good enough shape. But others in far worse shape did get loans. I would not be surprised to find that these were linked indirectly.

    "Oh, we see that you did not offer the use of your customer's data. But no problem".
    Next go around, loan denied.

  • Carnival Attack (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skifreak87 ( 532830 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2004 @11:59AM (#8860516)
    As has been proven by something called Carnival Booth [mit.edu] any system for screening potential threats that does not have a sufficiently random element can be beaten. The system will supposedly screen some people everytime and will screen some people none of the time. This means if I'm a terrorist and me and 9 terrorist friends get on a plane, and one of us doesn't get screened, we send him on 5 more flights, if he never gets screened there's a good chance he never will (assuming nothing changes his risk status). He's then a good candidate to do bad things. Basically, the system provides a way for terrorists to find out who's a good candidate that wont be stopped while trying to get onto the plane.

    That's my objection to the system. Furthermore, why is racial profiling considered evil? It's not saying, oh you're arabic, you must be a terrorist, it's saying you're arabic, x% of terrorists we've found are arabic, so if we screen more people who look like you, we might catch more terrorists. Obviously we shouldn't screen based solely on race but why is it bad to single out people who fall into a group that historically has been more likely to be a problem as opposed to senator's w/ metal in their hips or old grandmothers w/ hip replacements?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_

Close