Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


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

U.S. Government Wants June Passenger Records 80

Posted by timothy from the all-of-them-that-is dept.
danwiz was one of several readers to point out the Associated Press story (carried here by the Boston Globe) which says that that the Transportation Security Administration plans to issue an emergency order requiring that U.S. airlines turn over passenger data for all June 2004 flights to the government within 40 days. "Such data may include credit card numbers, address, telephone number and meal request. Perhaps unrelated to terrorism, the data will be also tested to see if fraud or identity theft can be detected."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Government Wants June Passenger Records More

U.S. Government Wants June Passenger Records

Comments Filter:

  • Comment period (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stoborrobots ( 577882 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:27PM (#10315806)
    Hopefully, in the 30 day comment period, the airlines make some worthwhile objections...

    Who am I kidding?
    • They might object, but then they still need to turn over the data.

      "I object to us closing the doors on the barn after the house got out"

    • Re:Comment period (Score:3, Insightful)

      by andreMA ( 643885 )
      Of course the passengers - the ones whose data is concerned - aren't invited to comment.

      • Re:Comment period (Score:3, Interesting)

        by andreMA ( 643885 )
        ...Although this [tsa.gov] claims a public comment period... "Although not required by law" (i.e., we're going to do it anyhow; the comment period is just window dressing)
      • Well, you wouldn't want to invade their privacy.
      • Time to anonymize personal flight info.

        Too bad most consumers are just sheep at can't relax enough to just drive. Or, too lazy and too spineless to just say no to airlines.

        I am sure, though, that bush has done LITTLE to deserve credit for our not being attacked since 9/11. The attackers are just waiting for a good, long lull and the attendent lapses in security, all the while collecting and analyzing patterns, details, and opportunities information.

        I am sure that if they attack from freeways and bicycle
    • So, they're preparing to enact an _emergency_ order to go on a phishing expedition to see if the data is useful? Isn't this overstepping the bounds of uses that emergencies powers can be used for?

  • Conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)

    by dsk052 ( 230739 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:27PM (#10315814)
    The good news is it shoots a hole in all the conspiracy theorists idea that the government has this information readily availalbe all the time. :)

  • Keeping you on your toes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @10:45PM (#10315911) Homepage Journal
    Bush is losing his post-convention bounce. Kerry gave a great speech to open the last phase of the election.

    Gee, we need a distraction! Let's remind the voters that they need to be scared. A terrorist might kill you and you child at any minute! Only Bush can save you!

    • Re:Keeping you on your toes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why is this flamebait? Bush has used fear quite successfully ever since September 11th. I'm sure all hard core Bush lovers (i.e. all Republicans) would disagree. They're I guess they're getting mod points, now. Of course, most of the Bush lovers are the ones saying, "They can have information about me. I've got nothing to hide."
      • I think they are both using a bit of fear. However, it is true. These people are bent on killing as many American's as possible, anywhere, by any means they possibly can.

        I have lived abroad and been hated because of my nationality, and no other reason. I understand that these people have no respect for life or anyone elses right to even exist.

        So call if fear mongering if you will. If you want to live in fear go ahead. I understand the threat but don't live in fear. Being afraid of a threat only make
    • Who say's he's "my" president? I don't own him, nor would I ever claim his ass. He doesn't speak for me, only commit and condemn many people to global consequences for his inane, dangerous comments or embarrasses the country with his inept cliches. He may be anointed **THEE** president, but he is not **MY** president. (Notice the lack of capitalization here...)

      When I was in the Navy, and topics about stupid or corrupt presidents came up, the Chiefs would scowl, "It's not the MAN you're defending and suppor

  • You're right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bergeron76 ( 176351 ) * on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @11:37PM (#10316123) Homepage
    This gives them a "credible source" to be able to attribute your information to.

    Seriously, they couldn't possibly arrest you as an "enemy of the state" just because you violated the Patriot Act/DMCA and were considered pseudo-potentially-suspicious by NSA, CIA, or FBI.

    However, now that the "MCP^H^H^H Department of Homeland Security" is in place in conjunction with the "Transportation Saftey Administration", you can rest assured that travel information for June (and the months following) will ONLY be used for your protection.

    Now move along Citizen...

    ... or our Gubment will open a can of "whatever-we-want-in-a-military-tribunal-exempt-of -your-constitutional-rights" on your Patriotic ass - you criminal, non-Christian punk.

    (I have karma to burn, so if you think I'm trolling - bring it on... If there's ever been anything worth burning karma for in my lifetime, it's the future of the USA and the world in general. Even if you don't agree with my points, you owe it to yourself as a fellow intellectual to make the right decision in November [if you are or know a US Citizen] - VOTE!

  • Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @11:50PM (#10316163) Journal
    Because once you have lost data privacy, you're never, ever going to get it back.

    One more database falls to the federal government.

    I can't wait until the first person prosecuted or watch-listed because of something he said over an instant-messaging program ("God, Bush is an idiot -- I wish someone would shoot him".) Still no GPG encryption on IM clients (well, other than gabber).

    Used to be that you could have an anonymous website, but that's about to go away.

    You can't drive without a license (where you get thumbprinted).

    You can't fly without all sorts of data about you being logged.

    The US government is pushing hard for biometrics in all areas. Biometrics are *terrible* as a traditional authentication system mechanism, since once someone's stolen the secret data (say, hacked one iris reader), you can never invalidate it. However, they're wonderful for monitoring purposes, since people have their "papers" with them wherever they go. They can also be used to tie together databases nicely.

    Authoritarianism allowed by the application of computers will be one of the greatest new world problems that we'll have to face. Never before have societies had the ability to crack down, monitor, and ensure precisely compliant behavior on such a large chunk of their population. Can humans function well in such an environment? Is such an environment a good idea?

    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jaybird144 ( 558619 )
      You can't drive without a license (where you get thumbprinted).

      I'm up to two states now where I've never been thumbprinted to get a license. (Minnesota and Illinois, and Illinois was only a month ago.) The most identifying data I had to give was my SSN.
      • West Virginia does not require you to thumbprint when you get your driver's license, but they do not inform you of the fact at the time.

        I *was* fully fingerprinted (i.e. not just thumb) by the local police department when I was a child as part of some elementary school-related function. I remember objecting, even at that age, and being told that it was "in case I was ever kidnapped." I was kind of dubious, and tried smudging them.

        • If it was like anything around here, you get fingerprinted, and they hand the fingerprint card to your parents in case you're kidnapped. The police don't want a bunch of toddler prints lying around.

          • If it was like anything around here, you get fingerprinted, and they hand the fingerprint card to your parents in case you're kidnapped. The police don't want a bunch of toddler prints lying around.

            Why not? Your prints don't change shape. You just slap them in a police database. And while I was a kid, I certainly wasn't a toddler.

            • Your prints don't change shape.

              Yes they do, somewhat. While the formations don't really change, there is some stretching and "distortion" that accompanies the growth. Matching child prints against the prints of the same person as an adult is difficult and not very reliable, even by human experts -- who are three to five orders of magnitude better at it than the best automated matchers.

              Plus, if you ask your parents, I'll bet they remember getting the card with your prints on it. They may still have i

    • zChat [zuggsoft.com] is a PGP encrypted chat client and is, I believe, strictly peer-to-peer. Alternatives are good, right? Note that the link page doesn't display properly in Opera for some reason, but works fine in Firefox. I plan to install a Jabber server myself, but zChat is dependable. I've used it since I've got a license to zMud.
    • "Used to be that you could have an anonymous website"

      Please elaborate.
      How exactly did it use to be?
      What changed, and when?
      Thanks.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION ( 553878 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:34AM (#10317914)
      Question: does anything stop these airline companies from exchanging this information (other than the CC number, perhaps) with each other? Does it really make sense for us to fear giving to our elected officials information that we already allow unelected corporations to play with to their hearts content?

      I think it's time we realize--what the U.S. government knows is a superset of what any American corporation knows. If you give any information to any corporation at all, you should just expect the government can get their grubby hands on it at will. There is no law requiring a corporation to withold information requested by the government--or even to tell customers such information has been requested--even if the government has no right to compel such a revelation.

      • Does it really make sense for us to fear giving to our elected officials information that we already allow unelected corporations to play with to their hearts content?

        When they are "questionably" elected officials - HELL YES.

        Our elected officials are our last line of defense against corporate rule. Do you really think Walmart would "let" you take 2 weeks of vacation out of the kindness of their heart if they didn't "have to"? There are a tremendous amount of programs in place that we take for granted e
    • Three words: Book of Revelation
    • "Don't blame Bush. Blame how you voted in the last election (or didn't vote)."

      A majority of the electorate (although not, arguably, the electoral college) voted against Bush - he was appointed to the Presidency anyway :/
  • What is so bad about the idea of establishing criteria for high risk passengers? Statistically speaking, I believe that the prominent threat to the airlines (notice I don't say "only") comes from Arab Muslim single males between the ages of 18 and 45. This criteria certainly fit all of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers. What is interesting is that although the article mentions that the post data would be turned over, it doesn't specifically state exactly how the government will use the data in terms of homela

    • What is so bad about the idea of establishing criteria for high risk passengers? Statistically speaking, I believe that the prominent threat to the airlines (notice I don't say "only") comes from Arab Muslim single males between the ages of 18 and 45. This criteria certainly fit all of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers. What is interesting is that although the article mentions that the post data would be turned over, it doesn't specifically state exactly how the government will use the data in terms of homeland

    • It's posts like this that make it obvious just how it was that Hitler was able to round up Jews so easily.

      Those that don't learn the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.

      • When I was a child I saw a television series about the holocaust.

        Terrified, I asked my father: "Dad, how come these people didn't leave Germany when they still could ?" He answered: "A lot did, but most wanted to stay near their family and didn't think it would become that bad."
    • I believe, statistically speaking, that the most prominent threat to the airlines are the result of pilot error and/or inadequate maintenance. Better trained pilots and better trained maintenance crews would probably save more lives than any sort of passenger profiling.

    • Re:What's a little profiling among friends? (Score:5, Informative)

      by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) * on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @03:47AM (#10316909) Homepage
      What is so bad about the idea of establishing criteria for high risk passengers?

      Simple, that the true baddies will avoid to fall into this profile. Since more attention is directed towards those folks of which the computer believes fall into the category of baddies, less attention is dialed out to those that don't fall into this category and this will be exploited.

      Read about the Carnival Booth Algorithm [mit.edu] for more information.

    • I'll spare you the obvious Benjamin Franklin quote. If our government hadn't been so busy grabbing all our guns the passengers on the hijacked flights on September 11th would have been able to defend themselves (see note below). Terrorists (and other criminals) are always trying to avoid security (DuH!), but if the majority of citizens provide their own security then, and only then, are security precautions unavoidable for the want-to-be perpetrator. No government, be it Federal, State, or Local, has the
      • If this woman [womenswallstreet.com] had a gun, we'd have 14 less Syrian musicians. Point being, self defense may not be bad for rational people like you (well, at least you sound rational), but there are far too many idiots out there. Or do you think those idiots would eventually be weeded out by being shot?
        • I think that if everyone is armed people will think twice before whipping out their own firearm because if bystanders had been armed and that lady had been armed, they Syrian musicians would have been fine. Scenario: Female (can't call her a lady if she isn't going to act like one) takes aim on the unarmed Syrians, bystander (or 3) takes aim at the female and either tells her to drop it, or they drop her. Situation resolved with minimal (if any) loss of innocent life. Common sense will stop most of thes

    • What is so bad about the idea of establishing criteria for high risk passengers?

      Why all the special treatment for airlines? You won't find security that way, all that does is make anything not defined as "airline security related" less secure.

      Statistically speaking, I believe that the prominent threat to the airlines (notice I don't say "only") comes from Arab Muslim single males between the ages of 18 and 45.

      I don't suppose you'd care to post a cite or something to back up this claim? How many air

    • Statistically speaking, I believe that the prominent threat to the airlines (notice I don't say "only") comes from Arab Muslim single males between the ages of 18 and 45

      However, most people in that group are NOT terrorists. If they were mostly white males, would you hold the same view? I doubt it, especially after you would be put through the extra screening.

      Some passengers may be inconvenienced

      have you been searched? Its more then inconvenienced, you feel violated afterwards. I really hope that y
    • What is so bad about the idea of establishing criteria for high risk passengers? ... I don't think that maintaining flexible profiles for high risk passengers is such a bad idea.
      Yeah, seriously. Because Ted Kennedy and Cat Stevens are such a threat to US national security!
    • Either you have a short memory or I wasn't aware that Timothy McVeigh was an Arab Muslim.

  • if they're really interested in testing their software, why not pick a month where there some known terrorists flying?
  • Well if no have no data protection laws, people (and the govmt) can do what they want...

    Maybe about time someone with a clue started banging on about all this at Capitol Hill.

    Mind you with November creeping up I doubt they'd get much airspace..
  • I'm not so worried about them having my travel details for the month of June, I think I flew to Tulsa for a meeting. I would also happily email them a summary of all my trips to the supermarket, gym, driving to & from work.

    Better yet, what if everybody emailed them everything? For every trip? Would a DDoS work?

    Sometimes it's better to take the opposite approach. If someone closes a road with a gate and a padlock - don't knock it down, put an extra lock on it. Or two.

    Alan.

  • The point which everyone's missing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nusratt ( 751548 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:17AM (#10317817) Journal
    "We are at war. There are people who would like to do us serious harm, and we must keep ourselves alert and not kid ourselves into thinking that religious faith or other statistical data is but a mere coincidence."

    I've stopped using all public transport which requires ID, if it also means the potential for data retention or a database search (versus mere inspection of your ID).

    All these comments about security versus privacy miss an important point:
    strictly speaking, security does NOT require that ANY privacy be sacrificed.
    There are alternatives.

    Even tin-foil-hat (Ultimate Paranoid) I would be willing to submit to personal searches before boarding -- as exhaustive as needed to ensure that I present no risk -- IF it meant that I didn't have to PERMANENTLY risk any privacy/anonymity by making any info about myself available for recording, etc.

    I'd gladly trade momentary personal "dignity", and additional costs and delays, to retain my long-term privacy.

    All these "terrorism"-related measures aren't just about security. They're also about the inexorable tendency of large regulatory institutions to become impersonal and concomitantly unconcerned about individual rights, an observation which is part of the bedrock rationale for "anarchists".

    Particularly in the case of law-enforcement, people in those institutions drool at the prospect of having an excuse to collect exhaustive data about the entire populace, for reasons and purposes far beyond the prevention of terrorism.

  • Arguably the government can use the data to do a better job of investigating and preventing terrorism.

    And so it should.

    But, the current policies are being driven forward with that single-minded objective with no consideration whatsoever given to the preservation of the rights and liberties that have made America a desirable place to be a citizen.

    Sure we can defeat terrorism - but who wants to live in a police state?

    The government should institute the recommendation of the 9/11 commission [nytimes.com] to create a tr

    • But, the current policies are being driven forward with that single-minded objective with no consideration whatsoever given to the preservation of the rights and liberties that have made America a desirable place to be a citizen.

      Or, indeed, the rest of the world.

      Current US policies basically say any non-citizens must expect to provide a lung for comparison purposes and expect to be subject to all sorts of stuff. The US government reserves the right to export you to a third country despite your actual cu

  • Already started to creep. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by base3 ( 539820 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @09:41AM (#10318438)
    Perhaps unrelated to terrorism, the data will be also tested to see if fraud or identity theft can be detected.

    And in a few years, you'll be denied boarding and arrested after a swipe of your national ID reveals that you have some unpaid parking tickets in Peoria or you're a little behind on your child support payments.

    Who else remembers being told about the horrors of Soviet Russia in elementary school, one of which being the internal passport and lack of freedom to travel? Guess what, kids--it's here.

  • There is nothing to worry about. The people who want this information will be overloaded by the huge amount of data. They will try to invent new database techniques and filtering algorithms to produce information from this data, but in the end the data will become so much that no algorithm will be able to produce useful processable information from them.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be is to program.

Close