Registered Traveler Program Open For Business 262
storem writes "Enrollment into TSA's Registered Traveler program started yesterday at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Frequent flyers are given the opportunity to sign up for a fast-track system using biometrics to identify themselves. It seems this is pretty much the same system tested in Europe in the s-Travel program. There frequent flyers carried their biometric identifiers (fingerprint & iris) with them between airports on a smart card (privacy reasons)."
Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
We try to get away from cards because of inherent insecurity, and now we entrust biometric info to a card. When will it end?
Imagine if you were able to bring your own background information with you when you were fingerprinted.
I thought the purpose of biometric security was to have a database of info about people, not to verify that they are infact the true owner of a card.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A bribe here, some blackmail there and viola, a fake card or worse.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
black market cards?
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly. I see this being instrumental in preventing the frequent flyer program from taking off ;-)
(and yes, the second pun is also intended... )
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So how is that any worse than what can happen today? There will always be someone to bribe to get what you want, no matter what system is in place.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. your biometric details are stored on the smart card
2. your flight history is also stored on the smart card
3. each time you use the card, it reads biometric data on the card, checking it against that read from you by fingerprint/iris sensors
4. then, it reads all information on the card and MD5/SHA1 hashes it. If it matches the hash stored in the database, and if biometric data checks out, it adds current flight information/status to the card, calculates an updated hash (including the new information), and stores this hash (which is propagated to other airports)
This way, your biometric data and flight history is never stored by the system, maintaining your privacy, but is available from your card as necessary. Your card cannot be forged as the hash will be different if any bit of data on your card is changed, and will not match that on record.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
There are ways to crack or spoof this system. It is far from secure and should not be considered by anyone as foolproof.
It is a compromise between security and personal freedom and as such may serve neither.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new here...
In all seriousness, do you for one second believe that the current government security agencies under Bush gave any thought at all to protecting your privacy? Your entire flight history including biometrics is probably stored, unencrypted, in some government database from the moment you sign up until your death. And probably well bey
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
And if they don't get there in time, the worst-case scenario should be that you end up going through the same security rundown everyone else goes through.
Rising cost of terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a pretty good point.
What do you suggest the government do instead or in addition to this? For me, right now, nothing comes to mind that anyone would be happy with (but hey, it's late)
Does anyone else have any ideas to:
- Improve
- Reorganize, or
- Change
this process?Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Some ideas:
1. Avoid installing or supporting despotic dictators that repress their own citizenry and exploit the resources of their nation for personal gain.
2. Avoid bombing the crap out of countries that haven't attacked us.
3. Avoid making up intelligence about other countries and then using that fake intelligence as an excuse to invade them.
4. (It really amazes me as an American that it has come to the point where we have to even talk about this, but) avoid torturing citizens of other nations.
Just a few pointers, hopefully that will get us started in the right direction. Maybe its time to get back to that whole idea of making the world a better place and promoting liberty and democracy by setting an example?
That's not possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a couple of comments.
1. Fair point... I'll grant you this one.
2. In the right circumstances, I fully support preemptive war, just as I endorse police officers not waiting until they're shot at to shoot back (as a former SWAT officer, I've personal experience with this one). Giving your enemies the first punch is stupid; I can't see sacrificing lives on the basis of either indecision or moral cowardice.
3. Intelligence is often nothing more than a best guess. Occam's razor may be appropriate here... don't attribute to malice that which is explained by simple incompetence.
4. Avoid torturing? Good advice, and probably followed by the vast, overwhelming majority. But defining torture... and whether it's ever permissible is a great debate. Rhetorically, a case can be made for torture in some circumstances (if a terrorist knew where a nuke was, and refused to divulge that info, is torture justifiable? Does the tiny private moral victory of "I'm a good person... I don't torture others" drown out the screams of the millions you might be sacrificing by staying within your own moral comfort zone?) I honestly don't know the answer to that one. As technology progresses, and the technological bar to enter the nuclear-club gets lower and lower (and as nukes proliferate, ala AQ. Khan), that scenario becomes plausible... Seriously... what would you do?
Re:That's not possible (Score:4, Interesting)
On 2: As a police officer you should also have heard of 'innocent until proven guilty'; someone is innocent until the situation is fully ascertained (not when you are first storming the building) or when a crime is blatantly committed (you are fired upon). Until then, any assumption of guilt is purely circumstantial, and thus not worthy of punishment. There is an acceptable level of uncertainty on the police officer level, but not in the international policy level.
On 3. I agree with you on the nature of intelligence, just wanted to be a pain, and point out you meant Hanlon's Razor' [wikipedia.org], not Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org].
On 4. The classic argument for torture (terrorist, nuclear bomb, 3 hours before detonation.. heated argument in philosophy 101) is hardly applicable to the current problems encountered in Iraq. I am sure you read the articles, so I am sure you remember that a large number of young men, who may have been invovled in attacks on soldiers were tortured and humiliated, although many of the soliders admitted to not doing it to extract any information. The problem here is that torture was the rule, not the exception.
yes... (Score:2)
2. "Innocent until the situation is fully ascertained" can't really exist on the street... things happen too quickly (unless you want to sacrifice a lot more police officers than already die each year). When a cop sees a guy coming with a knife or a gun, he has to choose in a split second. Maybe the person was simply bringing the gun to the police officer, (or it was a toy gun, or they were just joking, or, or, or...) but that's just the way it goes. Innocent until pro
Re:yes... (Score:2)
of every police state.
Re:yes... (Score:2)
Now, they're still considered 'innocent', but they're not exactly free anymore are they? This is the 'BUT'.
Re:yes... (Score:2)
Re:yes... (Score:2)
Oh puh-lease (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only good for one thing: getting some innocent bugger to "confes" anything you want to hear, so you can then hold a fake trial and execute them. That's why it's been used so much for the last 10 millenia or so, and is still loved by dictators.
Think just of the _millions_ (literally, and we even have the records) who confessed to flying on broomsticks, having sex with the devil, summoning vile demons and plagues, signing pacts in blood with Satan, etc, at the hands of the Inquisition. Stuff that isn't even physically _possible_, but enough torture got that crap "confessed" anyway. That's the kind of bullshit that torture produces.
You get a fellow snug on a rack and torture them enough, they'll tell you any _lie_ you want to hear, just to make it stop. You just have to bring them to the point where even death looks like a nicer alternative.
But for actually obtaining _intelligence_ it's fucking useless. What you get is whatever _you_ had already decided you want to hear, not trze information you didn't know. I.e., you could just as well just act on your mis-conceptions and prejudice, and spare the torture part, since you'll get exactly there anyway.
So you know what will actually happen in your "terrorist with a nuke" scenario? You'll torture some innocent arab who probably didn't even like the fundamentalists at all in the first place. And you'll keep torturing him until he tells you whatever false "confession" you wanted to hear, just to make the pain stop.
Will you find your nuke? No fucking way. But now you have a "confession" so you can execute or deport an innocent.
Well gee... if that's what the "land of the free" is supposed to mean...
I'll tell you a little secret (Score:3, Insightful)
But you know what? We still didn't devolve into a scared mob led by aggressive retards. We also didn't use it an excuse to either torture people or invade muslim countries for oil. We didn't burn mosques down, nor deport random arab-looking people each time someone detonated a bomb.
So get over it. The whole "oooh, scary terrorists, let's let the go
Re:That's not possible (Score:2)
Expanding on this idea, the person who you shoot at, who may or may not be armed, is going to be seriously wounded or killed by your actions. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Too many innocent and often unarmed people, mostly black or minority, have been shot by people such as yourself (grandparent post) who are only too willing to justify pulling a trigger in the name of...whatever cause you feel you are defending.
4. Avoid t
Re:That's not possible (Score:2)
The bush administration and the CIA under it has completely forgotten that intelligence is more than gathering information. Intelligence is about being smarter than the enemy and making sure they know it only when its appropriate. Intelligence would have been leaflet bombing in Iraq as was done in Afghanistan (which successfully softened the early ranks of soldiers who didn't really want to be there). It would have also been a campaign of confus
That is NOT Occam's Razor (Score:2)
Occam's razor is:
"plurality should not be posited without necessity." OR simply "Don't do something with more if you can do it with less".
Your quote, "don't attribute to malice that which is explained by simple incompetence." is a misquote of Hanlon's Razor and is actually probably borrowed from the sci-fi Robert Heinlein (both men say "stupidity", not incompetence). See:
http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/h/HanlonsR a zor.ht ml
I fully
Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:2)
Such as Stalin. Never should have allied with that guy. The world would be so much better off if we'd let Hitler take him out.
2. Avoid bombing the crap out of countries that haven't attacked us.
Such as Serbia and Somalia? I know you don't mean Iraq, since a US Federal Court has found they financed Al Qaeda and it's been upheld by the Appeals Court.
4. (I
Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:3, Informative)
Libya has given up the quest for nuclear weapons, in return for a normalization of diplomatic status. I submit that Libya not having nukes is of more than "global corporate interest".
The US bombed the crap out of the Serbian military, not the people.
Amnesty International disagrees with y [balkanpeace.org]
Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:2)
1> Dump the Iran/Contra style "shadow government" parts of the CIA that support only global corporate covert actions
2> Make the CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies primarily accountable to Congress, rather than the President
3> Destroy the Pakistani ISI, which backs the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the global network of nuclear weapons suppliers
4> Force the Saudis to create a Parliament that controls its own intelligence services
5> Back several competing democratic fac
Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Do about what? Do you seriously think that someone could successfully pull off another 9/11 style attack? The world changed a few minutes after it became common knowledge that hijacked planes could be used as missiles. Witness the UA flight 93, crashed by the hijackers when passengers learned about the WTC and Pentagon planes. Or how about this [nzherald.co.nz] crazy?
So given how hard it's become hijack planes, what exactly is the point of this trac
Re:Rising cost of terrorism (Score:2)
How does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
It does establish your identity though and reduces the time necessary for that task. Now, what might the airline do if it had some extra time for each person?
Re:How does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where in the article does this promise to make terrorism harder?
Re:How does this help? (Score:2)
Re:How does this help? (Score:2)
They were known terrorists and criminals and were on several watch lists.
The problem isn't flying or airport security...its the fact we knowingly let these fucks come into the country in the first place. We knew they were here and tried to keep "an eye on them". They shouldnt have been allowed in anyways.
Re:How does this help? (Score:2)
"On May 13, 1949, a chemical truck loaded with 80 drums of carbon disulfide burned on the New Jersey side of the south tube, destroying
Re:How does this help? (Score:2)
Re:How does this help? (Score:3, Informative)
This is a false statement. Some were in fact known terrorists. In fact, some had been previously denied Visas under other names.
They were quiet people, under the radar....
Which is exactly why they wouldn't apply for these cards; the risk of exposure would be too great.
Therefore, they'd still be subject to random search, and they'd be more likely to be searched because the pool would be smaller, since so many people would have been
Frequent flyers- such as international terrorists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps the hidden subtext is "The biometrics signatures will enable white non-suspicious regular travelers to whizz through customs while suspiscious non-whites are filtered for more efective controls by customs".
Other than that possibility, I have nothin per-se against biometric controls - it's how they are used and who by that's the problem.
Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris (Score:5, Insightful)
Been through a fast-lane enabled toll booth recently? The cash lanes are getting fewer and slower all the time.
agreed, this is an obvious fraud. (Score:2)
It should be obvious that the quick check in is temporary at best. The long lines at airports have little to do with making sure you are who you say you are and everything to do with government interference. Long lines at airports are the result of a federally i
Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris (Score:2)
Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris (Score:2)
Until he notices this is the second and third time he's been hauled off to the side for a "random" exam on this trip. And come to think of it, last time he flew he got hauled off to the side for random searching. That's how I figured out I was in CAPPS.
Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris (Score:4, Insightful)
Raise the bar higher and everyone is treated like a criminal, but the criminals are the only ones that don't mind.
KFG
Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris (Score:2)
Re:Frequent flyers- such as international terroris (Score:2)
It doesn't. Except maybe, if the authorities want to know who that was flying a plane into a building.
Also, why would a terrorist attack a harder target? Why would they target planes again when there are lots of other different and less watched targets?
It doesn't make sense to me to spend lots of money on a slim risk that someone malicious _could_ be on a plane and _could_ be planni
nice try (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, we carried our biometric identifiers on our FINGERS and our EYES. That's the whole point, you see?
Re:nice try (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, we carried our biometric identifiers on our FINGERS and our EYES. That's the whole point, you see?
That's what I'm wondering about. Since we carry our fingers and eyes with us, why is a card necessary? A card can be manipulated, probably more easily than someone can fool a fingerprint/iris scanning machine with an airport agent watching.
Aside from creating a fast-track f
Re:nice try (Score:4, Insightful)
However if the card says "I am John Smith, iris 0x1234ABCD5678FEDC" then it is trivial to pull the said iris' pattern out of the central database and check your real eyes against that trusted copy. By changing the direction of search they simplified the task immensely.
Besides, right now there is no central d/b yet, and all passengers carry their pieces of the database with them. This won't last, though - it is far more practical to have the database centralized. Then even a nudist can fly, as long as he remembers his SSN. Maybe that's the whole point, after all :-)
Re:nice try (Score:2)
ID checks can only provide security IF the correlate with some external database -- that flags known offenders. The identity of those providing biometrics acn be compared against that databas
Re:nice try (Score:2)
You only need to check relations of one pair of eyes against the one pair of eyes on record.
Re:nice try (Score:4, Insightful)
Without the card, they can't peg that ID number 481453 is John Smith. That's the privacy aspect.
The card has your biometrics on it to let them verify that you are the proper bearer - they compare it's digital copies of your biometrics to the real deal, then they know that you actually are the person that 481453 refers to, and so the green light actually applies to you.
As I say, that's just how I interpret the submission. It's probably totally wrong.
Nice that it's an option (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'd probably defect to the "convenience" side myself if I were flying fairly often. Not really that different than the privacy invasion I tolerate for using a credit card. Boy do we pay for our conveniences in the long run...
Re:Nice that it's an option (Score:2)
How is a credit card even remotely convient? You get to swipe your card a few dozen times on the barely-working card reader. Try to decipher the words on the screen, hidden behind the massive scratches, show some photo-ID. Fill out an extra page of forms, etc.
Yeah, real damn convient... I know if I have to choose between two check-out lines, I don't choose the li
Re:Nice that it's an option (Score:2)
More likely that the scanners will be the same, but the line for the first class section will be *very* short
only a few minor details before USA = USSA ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or one might simply peruse a copy of Huxley's [huxley.net] prophetic Brave New World...
And wonder how are the themes of Brave New World any different than the themes of the US government (or any government) of today?
The Themes of Brave New World
1. COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY- VERSUS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
Community, Identity, Stability is the motto of the World State. It lists the Utopia's prime goals. Community is in part a result of identity and stability. It is also achieved through a religion that satirizes Christianity- a religion that encourages people to reach solidarity through sexual orgy. And it is achieved by organizing life so that a person is almost never alone.
Identity is in large part the result of genetic engineering. Society is divided into five classes or castes, hereditary social groups. In the lower three classes, people are cloned in order to produce up to 96 identical "twins." Identity is also achieved by teaching everyone to conform, so that someone who has or feels more than a minimum of individuality is made to feel different, odd, almost an outcast.
Stability is the third of the three goals, but it is the one the characters mention most often- the reason for designing society this way. The desire for stability, for instance, requires the production of large numbers of genetically identical "individuals," because people who are exactly the same are less likely to come into conflict. Stability means minimizing conflict, risk, and change.
2. SCIENCE AS A MEANS OF CONTROL
Brave New World is not only a Utopian book, it is also a science-fiction novel. But it does not predict much about science in general. Its theme "is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals," Huxley said in the Foreword he wrote in 1946, 15 years after he wrote the book. He did not focus on physical sciences like nuclear physics, though even in 1931 he knew that the production of nuclear energy (and weapons) was probable. He was more worried about dangers that appeared more obvious at that time- the possible misuse of biology, physiology, and psychology to achieve community, identity, and stability. Ironically, it becomes clear at the end of the book that the World State's complete control over human activity destroys even the scientific progress that gained it such control.
3. THE THREAT OF GENETIC ENGINEERING Genetic engineering is a term that has come into use in recent years as scientists have learned to manipulate RNA and DNA, the proteins in every cell that determine the basic inherited characteristics of life. Huxley didn't use the phrase but he describes genetic engineering when he explains how his new world breeds prescribed numbers of humans artificially for specified qualities.
4. THE MISUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING Every human being in the new world is conditioned to fit society's needs- to like the work he will have to do. Human embryos do not grow inside their mothers' wombs but in bottles. Biological or physiological conditioning consists of adding chemicals or spinning the bottles to prepare the embryos for the levels of strength, intelligence, and aptitude required for given jobs. After they are "decanted" from the bottles, people are psychologically conditioned, mainly by hypnopaedia or sleep-teaching. You might say that at every stage the society brainwashes its citizens.
5. THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS CARRIED TO AN EXTREME A society can achieve stability only when everyone is happy, and the brave new world tries hard to ensure that every person is happy. It does its best to eliminate any painful emotion, which means every deep feeling, every passion. It uses genetic engineering and conditioning to ensure that everyone is happy with his or her work.
6. THE CHEAPENING OF
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2, Funny)
Option 1.
Convince man, whose family you've just murdered by way of collateral damage, that you're actually nice guys at heart.
Option 2.
Throw tax dollars on expensive security programs which will only keep half the mad men out.
DUH! You must me new here!
Well I for one welcome our fingerprint, retina-scanning overlords
In Soviet Russia, the Retina Scans YOU!..oh wait..
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Like caving in to extremist demands?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Before this, we fought the Soviets. Well, that was a political system. There was nothing sacred there. Eventually, the people came to realize that a capitalist democracy is superior to a commu
Reformation Requires Unification (Score:2)
How about fix this problem:
Ultimately, the problem is that Islam never had a reformation.
I agree with your post's spirit; that is, it's a religious issue and no amount of talking/bombing will change fanatics' minds. But the answer is not an eradication of Islam; rather, it should be a re-evaluation of Islam by its leaders.
It's really a testament to the solidity of its faith-system that Islam has lasted as lo
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, exactly. Everyone who is currently getting instructions from their dog to kill people, gets a coupon for one free popscicle...
Problem solved!
Modeled after ActiveX (Score:5, Interesting)
Only useful at one airport? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, what is the reasoning behind this? Why can people registered only use the designated checkpoints at their "home" airport? For folks who frequently travel across the country, will saving half an hour at one measly airport be worth giving a gove
Re:Only useful at one airport? (Score:2)
I guess they have only very few airports equipped with iris and fingerprint scanners. So they want to maximize the efficiency of this beta-testing by ensuring that people who sign up *will* be using the system. Nothing suspicious in that.
too much to remember (Score:5, Funny)
Watch out (Score:3, Insightful)
Client-Side Vs. Server-Side (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe every programmer knows that giving variables to the client are less safe then keeping them on the server, even beginners such as myself.
MultiPass (Score:4, Funny)
Leeloo Dallas, Multipass.
Your government at work (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I wish [visiting] Bill Clinton could roam the streets of SoMa, where he might spy the posters showing the hooded, bewired Iraqi prisoner, with the angry caption, "Got Democracy?" The posters are the work of Robert Mailer Anderson, the gifted and funny novelist of Northern California ("Boonville", Mr. President, is Anderson's terrific novel about growing up as the child of especially narcissistic and narcotized Baby Boomers). Those posters were prompted by Anderson's on going concern about civil liberties, a concern sharpened into dismay when, while trying to board a plane last month, he was told that his traveling companion was on the government's "No Fly List" and could not alight the plane. Who was this suspect traveling companion, this possible terrorist?... Anderson's two-year old daughter, that's who. This toddler was identified by name as one too dangerous to let on a plane."
These are the people you're paying billions in taxes to for Homeland Security?
Re:Your government at work (Score:2, Funny)
Do you know how nasty and obnoxious and disruptive two-year olds can be? They don't call it "terrible twos" for nothing! Those little terrorists!
Re:Your government at work (Score:3, Funny)
It's his own damn fault for naming his daughter "Osama bin Laden"...
Wow. I feel really safe. (Score:5, Funny)
You'd think that with the hundreds of thousands of people in government, one could have an idea that actually does what it is supposed to, without ulterior motives?
Why are we confiscating fingernail clippers? To protect against hijacking, or to touch everyone in some small way and remind them of exploding planes?
I fail to see how whitelisting white people is going to help anything, other than padding the info of CAPPS, and introducing biometrics to the public -wrapping it in a sense of convenience to help the spread of this insecure ID.
If I held my breath until our government did something *for* me, rather than to or against me, I'd be goddamn Suffocated Smurf.
Israel Already Does This... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of your politics or religion or whatever, you have to admit that there are few countries that have to deal with terrorism on a more daily basis than Israel.
And it appears that Israel's voluntary program has also been effective on a logistics level. I found this quote via Google, from the page of Sen. Hutchison (R-TX) [senate.gov] referencing a report by the General Accounting Office
At Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, security waiting time has been reduced from approximately one hour to 20 seconds through the use of biometric identifiers.
The biometric identifiers mentioned are part of the "trusted traveler" program.
As long as any program such as this is not compulsory, I view it as a useful option.
- Neil Wehneman
Re:Israel Already Does This... (Score:5, Insightful)
And regardless of your politics, you have to admit that there is no country that has been more spectacular at failing to solve their terrorism problems than Israel. For all their logistical ability, Israel is on the top of list of countries that we should avoid emulating when it comes to actually dealing with terrorism.
Re:Israel Already Does This... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why This Solution Really Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a doubt, some of the earliest users of this system will be the political class. Right now we are suppossed to be subject to random searches (as well as an apparently random no-fly list, but that's another topic). This condition means that potentially anyone, all the way up to the speaker of the house and the senate majority/minority leaders must entertain the possibility of being subjected to random search and all the inconvenience and embarrasment that goes with it.
There have been countless stories in the news of big famous celebrities and big important rich white politicians being subject to "pointless searches" since everybody knows they aren't terrorists. Well, besides the fact that some of these people are clearly off their rocker to begin with, at least being subjected to a search is equalitarian or in other words, it's "keeping it real," for those who make the rules too.
Once all the big fat important people effectively opt out of the hassle of searches, only the occasional flyer, the average joe and his poorer cousin, who still make up the majority of passengers, will be subject to the hassle of searches. The people in power will no longer have to live with the consequences of their (assinine and useless) "security" while the rest of us will still bear the brunt of it.
The next logical step is for "security" measures to be stepped up one little bit at a time because, after all, what politician wants to be seen as "soft on terrorism?" More thorough and invasive searches adding, say, 20 minutes to your wait time -- not a problem on paper since we are all expected to get to the airport 4 hours before departure, so there is plenty of time for extended and more frequent searches (yeah right). Since the very people who will inevitably be tightening the screws on the thumbs of general public will never feel the pressure themselves, it makes it that much easier for them to fuck with us with impunity.
On the plus side, the database of people in this program is certain to be a high-value target for identity theft. If security on the data is handled by the same people responsible for airport (in)security, then we can look forward to a successful break-in and theft of the database and all the personal information contained therein. Maybe the fallout from such a theft will be enough to get some effective data privacy laws passed in this country. But I'm not holding my breath.
How long before this is REQUIRED? (Score:2)
Now I get to wear my special Airport T-shirt (Score:2)
"Fuck all y'all bitch ass niggas!"
Convenient? Perhaps - but where's the security? (Score:3, Insightful)
The old system worked reasonably well. During the 9/11 hijackings no guns, bombs, chemical mace, swords, stun guns or other major weapons were used. The security system worked. The failure wasn't in the security system - it was in how the flying populace was trained to react to a hijacking. Five guys with box cutters will not be able to take over an airplane again.
This new measure will make it easier for frequent flyers to put up with the current nonsense, allowing the TSA to perpetuate itself while offering no real security. There is no way you can keep hijackers off an airplane because YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. We have been successful in keeping them from having any major weapons. That, combined with the new attitude passengers will take towards hijackers are sufficient.
The next terrorist act in the U.S. will not involve airplanes. That barn door doesn't need any more shutting.
Obligatory. (Score:2)
yep, nothing will ever work ... (Score:2)
That's why we've had 10 more 9/11 attacks, as you know.
Terrorists are all-knowing, unstoppable geeks, who can game any system, and GPG their messages in their heads without computer help. ;)
Um, no. Obviously, any measure can be theoretically defeated, but that doesn't mean not taking measures is a good idea.
Carried their own ID? (Score:2)
I don't get it, if they can't store your biometric data what good is it? Do you scan your real fingerprint and verify that it matches the one one the smart card? Then anyone who holds a card and matches it is cleared? This seems odd.
Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of the (frightening) possibilities... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh... how long until we start seeing information from this system used against *us* (the NON-terrorists) in court? It's already being done with EZ-Pass and the like. ("Yes, your honor, it was my finger that purchased those condoms...")
This only makes it worse...
I think it's time for a one way ticket to Antartica!
Airport security is easy (Score:4, Informative)
1. Empty out your pockets into your carry on bag. Everything! Keys, changes, everything! I usually keep my wallet on me just because only thing in there is paper and plastic.
2. Stick your boarding pass in your back pocket so nothing is in your hands.
3. Wear sneakers. If you can't wear sneakers then take your shoes off ahead of time and send them through the machine.
4. No big metal belt buckles. I see this so often, people are idiots.
5. Walk through normally, not folding your arms or hands in pockets.
6. Be polite! This is a biggie! I've seen so many rude frequent fliers and businessmen at security.
Using these simple steps avoids any metal on you and gets you through security without getting stopped. It takes no time at all to put things in your carry on bag before you leave your home or car. But people are so freaking lazy then they act like the security is singling them out when the real truth is they set off the detector because they are a freaking moron.
Re:Identity theft (Score:3, Informative)
Singapore's Immigration Automated Clearance (Score:4, Interesting)
It actually makes a lot of sense to use biometrics to automate immigration checks, because it's entirely a question of verifying the passengers' identity. Once the gonvernment has made the determination that a citizen/resident is eligible to enter the country, that person will be likewise eligible to enter every time henceforth (until the passport or residence permit expires).
On the other hand, in pre-boarding security checks, identity verification is not the question at hand. The objective there is screen passengers for weapons. A seemingly well behaved citizen could be weapon-free 99 times, then sneak a weapon through on his 100th flight. It might even be unintentional -- a terrorist would try to plant knives in the luggage of these trusted fast-track individuals.
The TSA's Registered Traveler program is analogous to automating the customs check instead of the immigration check. The fast-track passengers may be statistically more trustworthy, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. The TSA could get more or less the same results by adding express lanes requiring a minimum of 50000 miles on your frequent-flyer card.
Re:Singapore's Immigration Automated Clearance (Score:2)
While not in the article referenced the only frequent flyers who quailitied were thoses who had 75,000 miles. Not sure if that qualification was just for getting in this initial testing or if it will be a normal qualification to get in the program.
Singapore Immigration Automated Clearance System (Score:3, Informative)
http://app.ica.gov.sg/serv_pr/oth_serv/iacs.asp
It doesn't cover separate security checks, but does allow one to speed through the immigration lines at entry and exit.
The above cut'n'pasted from the parent AC; I had moderator access, why couldn't I mod it up? The mod button was missing completely for that post alone...
Cheers,
-j.