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

Airlines Gave More Data Than Previously Disclosed 365

Posted by timothy from the thanks-fellas-love-the-security-facade dept.
scottfk writes "Wired news has an article exposing the fact that still more customer data recorded by airlines were turned over to the TSA for their CAPPS II testing. From the article, 'Delta, Continental, America West, JetBlue and Frontier Airlines secretly turned over sensitive passenger data to Transportation Security Administration contractors in the spring and summer of 2002, according to the sworn statement of acting TSA chief David Stone. In addion, two of the four largest airline reservation centers, Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airlines Gave More Data Than Previously Disclosed More

Airlines Gave More Data Than Previously Disclosed

Comments Filter:

  • Remember Northwest? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:12PM (#9509799) Journal
    Very funny how this comes out a week to the day (atleast when it was posted) that a judge tossed out a privacy lawsuit [slashdot.org] against Northwest when they released their cutomer's personal info.

    Well, perhaps it's not funny... But pretty damn scary.

    • Re:Remember Northwest? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ateryx ( 682778 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:30PM (#9510068)
      Well, perhaps it's not funny... But pretty damn scary.

      I fully agree, however what is an 'okay' amount of information to give out?

      I'm not trying to flame but I get tired of seeing 'I WILL KILL WHOEVER SO MUCH AS GIVES OUT THE FIRST LETTER OF MY LAST NAME TO ANY FORIEGN PARTY!!!!' without any solution. I'm as for keeping my information to myself as the next guy--I never fill out optional information in any context--but what right does JohnDoe Inc. have to my information? Is a slightly lower price based on the sale of information reguarding what I purchased together and a complete list of my purchase--w/o my name--worth $5 off an item or free shipping? All these little benifits add up when purchasing many things and I would say 95% of the people reading slashdot have no idea where their data ends up.

      Addtionally, while never part of the tinfoil hat crowd, I can't ever help to shake the suspition that if the Gov't really wants info on me, it will go beyond the law to get it, to which I am helpless anyway.

      • what is an 'okay' amount of information to give out?

        We need personal information metadata! Parties obviously need to exchange information in order to do business but that exchange should have clear rules and any data exchanged should be tagged. The system would, for the most part, be self governing. Would you really want to do business with someone or somecorp that is handing you data tagged "not for redistribution"?

        Most data transfers are unnecessary however and request for such data should raise a flag

  • Is it legal to distribute people's credit card #s? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:15PM (#9509838)
    credit card numbers

    Is this even legal to distribute credit card numbers like that?

    I hear that there's this websize h@x0rz.hk that'll happily buy such lists of information. Does this precident mean it's Ok to share with them?

  • Unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by supersandra ( 788539 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:16PM (#9509849)
    The problem is there's a need to balance privacy rights with a hightened level of security.

    Disclosing that much information is , in my opinion, excessive and crosses the line.

    Of course, privacy seems all but dead these days, so maybe I'm just being too optomistic even about what could be. All I know is I don't think anyone needs my credit card info to figure out if I'm a security threat or not, not really.

    • Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stanmann ( 602645 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:28PM (#9510024) Journal
      Depending on who else co-operated linking a fertilizer purchase with a diesil purchase by someone who doesn't own a farm or a tractor may or may not warrant further investigation, and if the arrest or evidence is later thrown out for constitutional privacy reasons so be it, even if the person was building a bomb, because the bomb didn't go off. Should we throw out the constitutional privacy protections?

      Of course not.

      Protect the rights of the individuals... ALL of them... esp the right to live.

      • Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sdjunky ( 586961 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:57PM (#9511151)
        "and if the arrest or evidence is later thrown out for constitutional privacy reasons so be it"

        I'm sorry.. you're assuming that they won't be kept in detention [npr.org] indefinitely.

        You're assuming that the evidence will be made available to the defendant. Or that the means of obtaining that evidence [newsday.com] will be available to their lawyer.

        And, if for some reason there is a trial, you're assuming that the trial will be fair.

        "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
        -Thomas Jefferson

        "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
        -Thomas Jefferson

        "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
        -Thomas Jefferson

  • Speaking as devil's advocate... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:17PM (#9509851) Journal
    ..the TSA or its contractors may have violated the Privacy Act, which prohibits the government from compiling secret databases on Americans
    I thought that under the 'Patriot' (sic) Act it was perfectly legal for information to be handed over to federal agencies without their knowledge. Is there some sort of conflict between the 'Patriot' (sic) Act and the Privacy Act?

  • Health data? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:17PM (#9509853)
    Requested center seat. Indications of possible insanity.

  • Go Greyhound (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:17PM (#9509856)
    This is why I use the bus. Nobody wants any personal information on anyone they've met on a bus.
    • Nobody wants any personal information on anyone they've met on a bus.
      Unless it's a pair of hot Swedish chicks (preferably twins) with blonde hair, seductive blue eyes and sexy smiles.

    • Re:Go Greyhound (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pilgrim23 ( 716938 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:39PM (#9510173)
      For years, back when I traveled a lot by plane.. and this was many years back... I ALWAYS used a fake name, and paid by cash. Why? Not because I had something to hide. I do not. But I DO believe that my business is just that: my business, and not yours, not the government's, not Acme Marketing's.. These days I travel by car, bus, walk, or ride a bike. I do not fly. I would see no difficulty in "hopping a frieght" if it came to it..
      I have always wondered why good network geeks who go out of their way to hide their real IP, and take various other protective steps to insure their net is not violated, will hand over the most confidential data about themselves without a backward glance..
      Every incremental step taken "for our own good", "To protect us", or whatever the reason du jours, is just another step away from what this land was once about. We have met the Evil Empire and him be US!

  • Travelers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ryanwright ( 450832 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:18PM (#9509868)
    without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission

    Don't you mean terrorists? You can't tell citiz..-err, terrorists, that you're going to investigate them.

    Welcome to the United States, where any random citizen is an enemy of the state.

    • Re:Travelers? (Score:5, Funny)

      by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:26PM (#9510001) Homepage Journal

      Welcome to the United States, where any random citizen is an enemy of the state.

      It's much more convenient that way. All that actual investigating and charging with real crimes and such is so much WORK. It's just so much easier to declare people enemy combatants and have jack booted thugs drag them off in the night.

      Besides, little Sarah, Agent Bob's daughter, thought it was GREAT FUN hooking up electrodes to the enemy combatants' nutsack when she got to sit in on the interrogation of one of these "terrorists-who-we-can't-actually-pin-with-a-crime " on take your daughter to work day.

      Sadly, the fact that little Sarah was privvy to this information without the proper security clearance made her an enemy comabtant, and Agent Johnson was ordered to.... deal with her.

    • Re:Travelers? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sirReal.83. ( 671912 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:53PM (#9510370) Homepage
      I don't know who originally said this, so I guess I'm totally stealing credit.

      You can't control innocent people... but you can control criminals. What do you do with a large group of innocents that you want to control? You make them criminals. You pass so many ridiculous and confusing laws that it's impossible for one to lead any kind of reasonable life on the good side of the law.

      Okay, that's old news. I guess the newish part they're tacking onto this time-tested tactic is to simultaneously scare the piss out of people using various methods such as erosion of privacy, and study them statistically with the information gained as a result of the former. Know your enemy, scare your enemy, own your enemy. Just like bullies on the playground.

      • Re:Travelers? (Score:4, Informative)

        by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:54PM (#9511109)
        Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged".

      • Re:Travelers? (Score:3, Informative)

        by GileadGreene ( 539584 )
        You can't control innocent people... but you can control criminals. What do you do with a large group of innocents that you want to control? You make them criminals. You pass so many ridiculous and confusing laws that it's impossible for one to lead any kind of reasonable life on the good side of the law.

        I'm not sure if she originated it or not, but a speech roughly similar to the above appeared in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

  • ...the way this works is:
    • large business violates customer privacy to government agency concerned with national security
    • judgement is made that this type of activity is okay because it is necessary for nat'l security
    • bill may be passed to state the obvious
    And, well, there's no ...? - profit involved:)

  • Privacy Act Violation (Score:4, Informative)

    by insomnyuk ( 467714 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:19PM (#9509897) Journal
    If they mis-handled Social Security numbers alone (simply by sending them to the TSA without the approval of the people who possess those SSNs) then this is a very clear violation of the Privacy Act [usdoj.gov]. Hello lawsuit?
    • I don't know about you, but I have never had to give my SSN to get on an air plan. Driver's License maybe but never SSN. Don't tell me that your butthole hurts every time you fly either :)

  • Bah... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ag3nt ( 790820 )
    Mz6 makes a very good and valid point. I can't say I blame the airlines though. Bad times plus the chance for a law suit sure would make me put all my cards on the table. I am amazed however by how many people think that they have a right to privacy. Unfortunately, no where is it written in the Constitution or any other civil documents that individuals are entitled to privacy.

    • That'd be the 4th Amendment. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jack_Frost ( 28997 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:36PM (#9510138)
      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Your credit card and medical information can easily be argued to be your "papers and effects." Privacy is one of the few rights that is specifically defined by the Constitution.
      • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. That information was disclosed to the airlines willingly, with full knowledge of the implications of the disclosure. As I restate, no where in the IV amendment does it say that it protects against unlawful disclosure of personal information.

        • As I restate, no where in the IV amendment does it say that it protects against unlawful disclosure of personal information.

          You would think that when the constitution says "unreasonable" that it also means "unlawful". Why would anyone expect it to be within reason to be searched unlawfully? If that is the case, then the constitution no longer applies and it doesn't matter what it says so this argument is mute.

          Oh wait, this administration has already invoked nationalism and fear. What was I thinking. Fail

          • You would think that when the constitution says "unreasonable" that it also means "unlawful". Why would anyone expect it to be within reason to be searched unlawfully? If that is the case, then the constitution no longer applies and it doesn't matter what it says so this argument is mute.

            Oh wait, this administration has already invoked nationalism and fear. What was I thinking. Failure to report to the nearest GOP office to receive your brown shirt and shiny black boots may be held against you come 2005.

      • Re:That'd be the 4th Amendment. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:57PM (#9510417)
        > Your credit card and medical information can easily be argued to be your "papers and effects." Privacy is one of the few rights that is specifically defined by the Constitution.

        Your CC#, SSN, and medical records are just as valid today as it was before a copy was transmitted to TSA.

        In the context of the Founders (who were talking about people stomping into your place, rummaging through stuff, and locking it away while you wait for trial), in what way have your airline's "papers and effects" been "searched or seized"? If filesharing isn't stealing, then it doesn't matter whether it's you and me sharing MP3z, DivXz, and warez, or your airline and your government sharing records of financial transactions.

        And yes, I meant "your airline's" data. That data wasn't in your hands, but in the hands of the credit reporting agencies, airlines, and insurance providers, so it ain't your papers we're talking about.

        If there really was a Fourth Amendment issue, it'd be trivial to have a judge issue warrants against the three major credit reporting agencies, a few dozen airlines, and a few dozen insurance agencies, specifying the data to be copied.

        As Bill Joy said, "Privacy is dead. Get over it."

    • Re:Bah... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ckaminski ( 82854 ) <slashdot-nospam@ ... er.com minus cat> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:49PM (#9510310) Homepage
      Last I checked, there's no right to breath free air in the Constitution either. Doesn't mean I have given up that right.

      Amendment X:
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      Get that, reserved by the people. Nice little catch-all Amendment.

      A bit naive perhaps...

    • Re:Bah... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by transient ( 232842 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:14PM (#9510630)
      no where is it written in the Constitution or any other civil documents that individuals are entitled to privacy

      This very statement is why many people were opposed to the Bill of Rights. They thought it would limit people's rights. One subtle but important fact of the Bill of Rights is that it does not grant rights to anyone, it only lists them. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness inherently. You were born with it. This right wasn't granted to you by a piece of paper. The Bill of Rights simply declares that which is already so.

      It is entirely possible that they left one or two things out.

  • The data that I have provided to airlines has definitely not been sensitive. I have never been queried for my DOB, SSN, Driver's License #, or any unique information besides my name. I think there is a big flaw with the airlines in that anyone can purchase an airline ticket for anyone else. Anyone else can then get a "non-legitamate" ID card and get on an airplane. If they disclose when I travel, then maybe the data can be considered sensitive, but then again me leaving my car at long term parking will

  • Like this is news. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jwcorder ( 776512 )
    Seriously, how many of you in here can read this and say you are surprise? Not I said the duck...Not I said the goose....Not I said the little red hen. This is not surprising. (Place tinfoil hat on now.) The government has the ability to know anything about anyone of us that they want. As long as you stay "Above ground" ie, you have a life, you are easily traceable by almost anyone, more or less Uncle Sam.

    The deal is the same with ET and life in space, the majority of society is not ready to know this.

    • Re:Like this is news. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JGski ( 537049 )
      My direct experience working in the gov't is that our greatest protection against Big Brother has been (until recently) the pervasive Byzantine and internecine nature of the government bureaucracy. In general the gov'ts fundamental inefficiency has been underestimated by the tin-hat crowd. The scary part of much of the WOT is that it seeks to eliminate that protecting inefficiency and self-destructiveness. Efficiency != Democracy. Mussolini made the trains run on time.
  • It's common knowledge that any data that the government wants, it can have. Ofcourse they need a good excuse for it, and I guess the only thing the article exposed was what excuse the govt used.

  • Paranoia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stanmann ( 602645 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:23PM (#9509957) Journal
    I understand the worry and concern about mis-use of this data, BUT as I recall, and you might also, in the short months directly following the 4 attempted attacks using airliners the airlines and associates were running scared and were providing the FBI and later HSA any and all information they had, requested or not.

    So any surprise or concern over this data seems misplaced. Patterns were being examined and evidence compiled. Yes, extreme measures were taken and should be acknowledged and where appropriate apologized for, but these events should surprise noone and these revelations simply confirm what we already know.

    Some people(and corporations) do foolish things when faced with a catastrophe.

    • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:31PM (#9510077) Homepage Journal

      You make it sound (intentional or not) like this was done as part of an investigation. This data, however, was provided as part of a screening tool test. Grabbing needed information to investigate a crime that has already occurred seems acceptable. Grabbing personal information to make people into unwitting, unwilling guinea pigs is not.

    • I understand the worry and concern about mis-use of this data, BUT as I recall, and you might also, in the short months directly following the 4 attempted attacks using airliners the airlines and associates were running scared and were providing the FBI and later HSA any and all information they had, requested or not

      I can understand and forgive providing this type of information in a heightened alert situation, such as what you mentioned above, however the information that was handed over to the TSA in th

  • This info is important! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scumbucket ( 680352 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:25PM (#9509977)
    You must be crazy to think that not using the inofrmation doesn't "make us secure". Do you even know how much crap is confiscated from passengers during searches? My friend works for the TSA and they've confiscated, among other things, switch blades/knives, drugs (LOTS of it, and not just pot either), guns, etc... And almost all of the time these items are taken from white/american citizens.

    Now imagine what would happen if that gun wasn't confiscated, got on the plane, and some nutcase decided to start firing at people for whatever reason.

    Being "secure" means being certain that there are no holes in the screening process, even if it inconveniences you.
    • Yes i can understand confiscating those things, but taking home phone number...Ok, I'll give you that, make sure that its a true home number and citizen.

      However, Credit card info and other types of private info, like SS# I would not want that stuff given out.
    • Now imagine what would happen if that gun wasn't confiscated, got on the plane, and some nutcase decided to start firing at people for whatever reason.

      That's when I start feeling really sorry that they confiscated MY gun. Guess I won't be returning fire on that trip. Maybe I can call 911 on the inflight phone...

    • Being "secure" means being certain that there are no holes in the screening process, even if it inconveniences you.

      How does having my home phone number or Social Security number help the government find concealed weapons on airline passengers?
    • wait, how does having my SS# effect the operation of metal detectors again??

    • Re:This info is important! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Angry Mick ( 632931 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:17PM (#9510662) Homepage

      I call bullshit.

      The only way to be totally secure , is to park your monkey ass in a shallow underground bunker and NEVER leave. Ever. Pray that your God delivers you food and water, because actually having someone deliver it is a risk. Going to the store to buy it is a risk. Eating anything ever handled by another human being is a risk.

      In other words, welcome back to the dawn of man where just being alive is a security risk!

      There is a deeper problem here. Any idoiot that believes if we only collected more information, we'd be a lot more safer, is fooling themselves and ignoring a much greater set of problems.

      Terrorism exist because of anger, distrust, and a sense of hopelessness and/or exploitation. Deal with the core issues as they arrive, instead of waiting for them to fester and explode, and it is entirely possible to limit, if not actually eliminate, the rage quite literally blowing back in your face.

      But its neither easy or convenient to think like this - in a capitalist society, some would even consider it heresy. It's time consuming - don't think that declaring a Palestinian state would make Osama retire tomorrow. It demands a greater understanding of foreign culture, idealogy, and history - don't assume that global economics will eventually "buy" peace by making all the citizens of the world consumers in a common market. It'll cost time and (get ready to flinch) money.

      As a nation, the U.S seems far more attentive to the fear and loathing aspects of human existence, than it does its so-called "Christian" beliefs and values - there is very little of Christ in American christianity right now - and most of the fear is centered on pure and simple economic greed. Blame mass marketing, blame capitalism, blame anything, but this country loves its money and all the toys it can buy more than it has ever loved anything else. Other cultures see this, and resent it, and learn to hate it.

      Just stop to think for one second what the goodwill payoff would be if a country like the U.S spent just one-tenth of its defense budget on development programs in third world countries. Millions of people would benefit, and, to give the hard-core capitalists a reality check, would be more likely to invest in U.S products and interests.

      Just so my point is clear. Increased data collection will not stop the terrorists.

      It will, however, make it easier to market to the families of the victims . . .

    • Re:This info is important! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Laroue ( 213278 ) <hemphill@bib3.14lio.com minus pi> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:20PM (#9510711)
      Trying to keep dangerous weapons off of planes is a futile effort.

      Yes you confiscate a gun, whoppie. I can take my steel bodied ink pen and a paper bag full of gunpowder. No one is screening for matches. As long as we allow the people on board we are allowing weapons. The mind is the only real weapon anyway. I find the security in airports a joke. I flew threw Portland, recently, and a terminal was being remodelled, cordless drills and tools everywhere, with no one watching them at all(I assume it was the lunch break for the crew). Anyone could pick up and take whatever they want onto the plane. In Cincinati you can buy the nail
      clippers that are prohibited in the terminal. Take liquids for instance, we don't check them to see if they are volatile. Anyone could walk on board with a 20oz Sprite bottle filled with nitro and no one would question it.

      I will say it again airport security is a joke. period.

      The only way that I see to secure our airlines, is to issue every adult border a knife/handgun/weapon. Then we can be sure that everyone is armed. Perhaps a simple check, "Are you prepared to defend the plane if terrorists attack?" if not you can drive.

      Just my 2 cents.

  • Sabre &Travelocity? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jdunlevy ( 187745 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:26PM (#9509989) Homepage
    Travelocity was "Born of leading travel innovator Sabre (the world's largest travel agent reservation system) [travelocity.com]." (In fact, recently spun off from?)

  • And if they ask.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:26PM (#9509999)
    YOu cant refuse to give them your name anyways.

    They still'll get all your data.

  • The only good "privacy policy"... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:29PM (#9510050) Journal
    ... is not taking the info in the first place!
    As if anyone believes any companie's "privacy policy"... especially when the fine print says it can change at any time and any new law (PATRIOT act) superceeds it.

    I wish there was some way to go thru the world without leaving a HUGE record of everything I did. Why does every business request your name, address, etc? (Yeah I know why). What ever happen to the idea of obtaining a token from (say) Visa which is worth $500 and passing that to the airline ... and no other info.

  • So? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by azmatsci ( 759463 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:30PM (#9510062)
    So? Forget the fact that all of this information is available on the Internet, the FBI can pull this information very quickly anyway. I support this because it just eliminates the wasted time for the FBI to do so. Passenger tracking by governments is going to be a way of life permanently thanks to a few morons. Just prey it doesn't extend fully into automobile driving, trains, or buses. The fundamental issue here is citizens willingness to have their personal information and whereabouts freely available by the government they are currently involved with, be that their home country or the country they reside in. But I think that is just a phantom of the real issue which is people's fears that by governments simply having that information it can be stolen or sold to somebody to use it against the individual. This is a valid concern in most countries right now. As governments advance and globalize, this kind of information sharing should become more secure and less invasive. Meaning full detailed information will not need to be kept on anyone because if you are in a modern country the needed information will be generated when you need it and not sitting on a server to be misused. I personally don't mind my government (US) tracing my whereabouts and my purchases because I don't feel they can use that information against me. Mainly because I do nothing that they would conceive as harmful to them. Some people want to keep everything private because they fear misuse, but I truly believe most people that want to keep everything out of government hands is because they have something to hide. Perhaps I am wrong in calling them the majority, but I don't understand when someone is worried about your government knowing where you are or how to find you.

    • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by g0bshiTe ( 596213 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:45PM (#9510244)
      Yeah and next we will all have to have the proper papers to fart. Let me ask you this. Since Sept 11 and the Patriot Act went into effect, are you or do you feel anymore secure? Does it make you sleep better at night knowing that the FBI can knock down the door of a suspected terrorist in the middle of the night? Your door in fact. Should your paper boy get pissed because you stiffed him last week on his tip and dropped a dime, told some agency that he has seen plans in your house of building blueprints. And they kicked in your door. Pulled your family out of your house at 3 am at gunpoint, this makes you safe? Statistically you have a greater chance of being eaten by a shark than ever encountering a terrorist. Personally I would rather live with the terrorist threat, than lose the freedoms that my father, and those before him fought for. Don't confuse false security with real security. Welcome to the new police state. They are watching us all.
    • Forget the fact that all of this information is available on the Internet

      That's bullshit. Read the article.

      If my credit card number and health records are available on the Internet, there are going to be some lawsuits forthcoming.

    • Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)

      by deity ( 8806 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:31PM (#9510833)

      I personally don't mind my government (US) tracing my whereabouts and my purchases because I don't feel they can use that information against me. Mainly because I do nothing that they would conceive as harmful to them.


      I take it that you don't sit too far from the center of the political spectrum. You're probably not a third party supporter (Communist, Green, Libertarian, etc.). You're probably not Muslim. You're probably not gay or lesbian. By your statements, you don't strike me as an activist for social justice or civil liberties. It might surprise you to learn that our country has quite a lot of folks who, for some reason or other, are currently or will eventually be persecuted for being different, holding different political or religious beliefs, or pissing off the wrong elected official. Think about the journalists--what happens when their every move is known in advance? This is a power that the government should not have, not without warrants and the traditional Constitutional protections given to our people by the Bill of Rights.

      Head over to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and read the article on CAPPS [wikipedia.org] (disclosure: I wrote it a few months ago) and CAPPS II [wikipedia.org]. There are so many problems with this system, besides the big one--it won't work.

      In my opinion, the most disheartening aspect of this debacle is that a syndicate of large corporations lied to the public, lied to their customers, and undermined the Constitution. But there will be no reckoning. This is a burning example of our corporate "citizens" escaping responsibility.

    • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jtheletter ( 686279 )
      but I truly believe most people that want to keep everything out of government hands is because they have something to hide. Perhaps I am wrong in calling them the majority, but I don't understand when someone is worried about your government knowing where you are or how to find you.

      Wow. So do you also believe that all people who choose vanilla icecream over strawberry do so because they are allergic to strawberries? I'm not exactly a card carrying member of the tinfoil hat club, but I do value my privacy

    • Mistakes are never made, Mr. Tuttle/Buttle... (Score:5, Informative)

      by geekotourist ( 80163 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:39PM (#9511620) Journal
      When the former privacy czar of Canada wrote his Warnings on why privacy protection is important post 9/11 [privcom.gc.ca], he intended it to be a warning to Canadians not to lose rights Americans have already lost. I'm sure he didn't intend it to be an anti-guidebook for Ashcroft et ilk. The essay answers your question:

      "A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear... the truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others... The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

      If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.

      But there also will be tangible, specific harm.

      • The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life...
      • wrong information and misinterpretations will have potential consequences. If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect...
      • Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight...
      • That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state.
      • The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada.

      Here's where Ashcroft is using the essay as a guidebook:

      "Last summer, the CCRA informed me that, contrary to its past undertaking, it has decided to keep all API/PNR information about Canadian travellers for six years in a massive new database.

      All this personal information - more than 30 data elements including every destination to which we travel, who we travel with, how we pay for the tickets (sometimes including credit card numbers), what contact numbers we provide, even any dietary preferences or health-related requirements we communicate to the airline - will be available for an almost limitless range of governmental purposes...

      "This is unprecedented. The Government of Canada has absolutely no business creating a massive database of personal information about all law-abiding Canadians that is collected without our consent from third parties, not to provide us with any service but simply to have it available to use against us if it ever becomes expedient to do so. Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society...

      It is difficult to imagine a m

  • Can you say lawsuit? (Score:5, Informative)

    by g0bshiTe ( 596213 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:34PM (#9510115)
    Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.'"
    Is a direct violation of the Grahm Leech Bliley Act which states that any private information may not be released to third parties without the persons prior notice. The only time it may be given out is if there is an investigation into that individual. Seeing as how several airlaines gave it to the TSA I wonder who authorized that information to be released? Had I flown with them then and found this out, the requesting agency had better have the proper authorization, or I would damn sure file a class action lawsuit against the TSA and the airline.
    • IANA-Lawyer but I skimmed the Grahm Leech Bliley Act and it seems to apply to transactions between financial institutions. I thought about the HIPPA law in regards to health data, but that seems to apply only between medical practictioners and insurance companies. Again, I haven't read it clearly. However, airlines and the government may claim that neither of these laws apply because of semantics. Remember that this is the same government that argues about the semantics of torture vs. interegation.

      Make

  • cross-linking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theCat ( 36907 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:36PM (#9510139) Journal
    The airlines gave that much no doubt because they were asked to. And the reason why they were asked to is because it takes a lot of data points on an individual to fully cross-link and cross-reference all the scattered databases that are used to define who someone is and what they are doing recently.

    Yeah it is excessive. I don't like it at all. It is spooky. But it happens all the time though generally on a smaller scale.

    This is just one time when it was on a huge scale, and so we found out.

    Before very long there will be a lot of strangers in the world (I mean all over the world, including offshore outsourced data mining facilities) that know more about the Total You than anyone you actually know personally, outside yourself. That's one of the reasons why privacy laws are such a total flipping joke in the absence of data secrecy.

    It's probably better just to stay out of the databases if you don't want your whole life being dredged up in the next terrorist-inspired data dragnet.

  • A little more information (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:36PM (#9510145)
    I'm posting this AC because it touches on my job and I try to keep that separate.

    Sabre and Galileo are Global Distribution Systems, or just GDSs to people in the travel industry. Several are or were started by groups of major airlines. Worldspan is another; I forget the names of the rest. There are about five of them in total, and they formerly were a very heavily federally regulated industry, the idea being that if they were allowed to, for example, choose their own prices they could offer different prices to different airlines (or different travel agents) and exert an unfair hold on the market. They've been deregulated by Congress within the last year, but it's too soon to say what effect that will have.

    The relevant part is this: If you purchase a plane ticket, regardless of how or where you buy it, your availability and booking are handled by one of the GDSes. Access methods vary by GDS, but the reality of it is, much of your information is available to not just the government, but really anyone with the proper knowledge of how to get at it. I can't imagine too many hackers being very interested in getting your mom's flight information or personal info from Sabre, but if they did it wouldn't be especially hard.

    There aren't a lot of choices to insure your privacy here. Most of us can't realistically choose not to fly.

    • There aren't a lot of choices to insure your privacy here. Most of us can't realistically choose not to fly.

      How about this? Nobody needs to know my Name, Address or any other information about me to make the flight safer. If they search properly at the terminal and employ properly trained people to look out for people acting wierdly, then it would be possible for me to fly as safely as I do today, but in complete anonymity.

      I am not an American and each time I book a flight with a non-US credit card t

    • Re:A little more information (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @05:01PM (#9512488)
      Galilleo (1G)
      Amadeus (1A)
      Worldspan (1W)
      Axxess (1X?)
      Sabre (1S)
      and 3 other I can't remmember because they are small but i can get a list...
      Bottom line "passenger are not told" is wrong. Passenger are told thru the "contract" they are accepting by buying a ticket. It is on the back of the ticket or given in an additional sheet with the ticket. Naturally nobody read it. But it is there. In germany it is in the agb (allgemeine geschäft bedingung, general condition of contract).

      Now you might discuss that it might not be correct to NOT WARN EXPLICITLY the passenger, but hey, this happens also in many other field (auto leasing and small prints... Always read the smallest print...).

      Bottom line is, if you give any data even in EU where we are supposed to get data protection, then it will be forwardded to the US sooner or later thru CAPS/CAPS 2 programs. As an EU inhabitant I think the EU dropped their pants on that one, but this is probably off topic.

  • Best. Sworn. Statement. Evah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:41PM (#9510204)
    > Loy's sworn written response was, "No. TSA has not used any (passenger) data to test any of the functions of CAPPS II."

    Pop Quiz! Loy's unsworn, unwritten response was,

    a) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data to test all of the functions of CAPPS II."
    b) "TSA has used (passenger) data to test functions of screening systems not called CAPPS II"
    c) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data to test functions of systems other than CAPPS II"
    d) "TSA has used (passenger) data not to test, but to implement, CAPPS II",
    e) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data not to test, but to implement, CAPPS II"
    f) "Agencies other than TSA have used (passenger) data not to test, but to implement, profiling systems other than CAPPS II".
    g) "All of the above are belong to us!"

    Remember, we live in a litigious society.

    Republicans: You can say - truthfully - that you "did not have sexual relations with that woman", and that still leaves room for gettin' the knob polished, spunkin' up her dress, and finishing off with a slightly fishy-smelling cigar.

    Democrats: Now watch this drive!

  • Health data? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Forget the credit cards -- where did they get the "health data" from? That seems far more invasive to me...

  • All laws can (and often will) be abused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxhansl ( 764171 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:56PM (#9510404)
    As history taught us (or not is seems)...

    Laws increasing governments' power will ultimately be abused.

    How long before the transmitted information will be used to catch tax-evaders? Be crosslinked with other data to find *potential* criminals (Minority Report anyone)?

    The funny thing is that this information won't even help to catch any terrorists. How often can a suicide bomber be caught repeating his crimes? All that terrorist groups have to do is to send previously unknown people.

    The only people suffering are average joes going about their lives.

    And don't tell me: "If you don't have anything to hide, why bother." If that is the case, than why not install a camera in everybodys home ala 1984... Nothing to hide... No problem... Right?

    And this is just the beginning. I remember a few years back an extensive camera system was installed in London, allegedly to find terrorists. Well, now this system is being used to catch speeders, and to track where everybody is going in the city just in case (which is used to collect tolls).
    • "Laws increasing governments' power will ultimately be abused."

      That would be why I'm a libertarian.

      "You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy." - US President Herbert Hoover, right after our decline into the great depression.

      And that would be why I'm a communist, or at least believe that currency is a waste of our resources and time.

      Capitalism doesn't seem to be working for everyone, so my suggestion is to compromise and apply some socialist or communist concept

  • Sensitive Customer Data (Score:3, Funny)

    by ledbetter ( 179623 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:56PM (#9510406) Homepage
    Sources report the "sensitive customer data" included:

    -Passenger's favorite brand of peanuts
    -Success passenger had flirting stewardess
    -Whether or not passenger washes hands after using washroom.
    • > Sources report the "sensitive customer data" included:
      >
      > -Passenger's favorite brand of peanuts
      > -Success passenger had flirting stewardess
      > -Whether or not passenger washes hands after using washroom.

      I'm authorized to disclose that for all subjects where data element #2 is nonzezo, graphic #2 as a function of time shows either an uptrend or a downtrend, and that data element #3 is strongly and positively correlated with the direction of this trend.

      What do the peanuts have to do with

  • Can they search your browser cache / trashcan? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gentlewizard ( 300741 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:58PM (#9510435)
    Compounding the problem is the vagueness of policies and incomplete training of personnel. My laptop gave a false positive for TNT a while back, so I had to submit to a secondary search at the security checkpoint. Besides proving that the laptop did indeed boot up, the police officer double-clicked on my trashcan to see what files were there, and checked the dropdown on my browser to see what recent links I had been to.

    It didn't look like the officer was following any kind of script, was just nosy. But I was quite steamed about it at the time. (Good thing I had recently cleared both before packing the laptop!)

  • I smell a lawsuit... really! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:17PM (#9510665)
    Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.

    According to HIPAA [hhs.gov], this is a big, costly, no-no.

    IANAL. Yeah yeah.

    • Re:I smell a lawsuit... really! (Score:4, Informative)

      by zoombat ( 513570 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:23PM (#9510747)
      According to HIPAA, this is a big, costly, no-no

      HIPAA only applies to Covered Entities:

      1. Health plans
      2. Health care providers
      3. Health care clearinghouses
      Thus these companies are not Covered Entities and are not bound by HIPAA law, unless they have a Business Associate Agreement with a Covered Entity to preform some function for them, but that is very unlikely.

  • Sadly pointless effort (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:37PM (#9510918)
    Someone in the FBI/NSA/etc seem to have the belief that it you gather terabytes of low grade "intelligence" that you can shove it through a computer and generate pearls of wisdom. Fortunately we already know that this will not happen. In fact Babbage knew it would not happen...

    On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], ``Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?'' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage

  • Probably redundant... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blankmange ( 571591 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:24PM (#9511449)
    but this is not news - our government abuses its power over its citizens and doesn't tell us for how long? This is not news and anyone surprised by this should be slapped with the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and any other insidious legislation that has been passed by our Congress who seems more willing to trade our civil rights for an illusion of security. How much more secure are we for this trade-off? We are not. We spent a truck load of money, created a new administration in our government, increased taxes, and are currently watching our own men and woment die in foreign lands for this veil of FUD called 'Homeland Security'.

    I work for the government and all I have seen from my end as an employee is an increase in regulations, paperwork, and workload but no difference in how difficult it is to enter the country, purchase a fake identity, and live/exist here with little or no fear of being caught. We can track a single cow to its origin if we suspect that it may be infected with mad-cow disease, but we lose how many dozens of legal aliens every year, not to mention the illegal ones that we genuinely have no idea of...

    Again, nothing new here, move along with the rest of the sheep....

  • As a former Sabre employee... (Score:4, Informative)

    by luke923 ( 778953 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:40PM (#9511635) Journal
    ...I have to say that this is scary, considering that both Sabre and Galileo aren't limited to airlines for their clientele. In other words, if you booked a hotel, rented a car, bought a train ticket, or anything other transaction that can be made on Travelocity (a Sabre Company), then your info could possibly be in the hands of the TSA or other third parties. Also, I remember when I first started working there, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork stating that I would not give out sensitive information to third parties. This is crucial considering most of the paperwork was for EU compliance. I'm not surprised that the EU is not in an uproar.

    Where's the French when you need them?

Slashdot Top Deals

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Close