Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Databases Programming Software United States Your Rights Online IT

Airlines Ordered To Turn Over Passenger Data 57

Posted by timothy from the rolling-out-the-new-window-dressing dept.
interactive_civilian writes "Wired (among others) is reporting that the Transportation Safety Administration plans 'to order all 72 domestic airlines to turn over the passenger records -- which can include credit card numbers, phone numbers, addresses and health conditions -- in order to stress-test a centralized passenger screening system called "Secure Flight."' They are hoping to reduce the number of "false positives" in the no fly lists. If the information were to be made available, it would be interesting to see how many names that would not have been allowed to fly were allowed to."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airlines Ordered To Turn Over Passenger Data More

Airlines Ordered To Turn Over Passenger Data

Comments Filter:
  • In Soviet America, YOU tell on Airlines!

    sorry, had to be said.

  • Stress-testing?? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I would have thought that stress testing could take place without using real data. You could stress test just using huge numbers of randomly generated pieces of data.

    It sounds more like a test data conversion, or test functional testing to me...?
  • Gah, HTML formatting. Repost.

    Big Brother is here, but is this any worse than what we already have? We all may abhor a centralized depository of data run by the government, but can private sector databases truly do better?

    Take the credit agencies for instances. Three of them, each only communicating a minor amount of information. Got a problem with your credit? Some possible fraud on your record? Just try getting a, non phone-tree, human representative to speak to you - without having to pony up the $

  • Safety Data (Score:2, Insightful)

    by billysielu ( 818427 )
    Yeah I think it's justified. Better to give over a few details than to have your plane taken over by terrorists. Does anyone think their data is more important than their safety?

    • Re:Safety Data (Score:2, Insightful)

      by krymsin01 ( 700838 )
      I, for one, value my privacy more than I value some percieved security. And you have to know that that is all this is, percieved security from a percieved threat...

    • Re:Safety Data (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @04:43AM (#10805912)
      I do. Quite frankly- there is no terrorist threat. It doesn't exist. And like our forefathers who founded this nation, I value my freedom over my life. I would rather take a 1/1,000,000,000 chance in dieing (and yes, it is that small. Thats the proportion of airline travelers who have died of terrorism idue to the flight. That may be overestimating) than give it up.
      • The population of the USA is under 300,000,000. Over 300 Americans were in the hijacked planes on 9/11. That's 1 in 1,000,000, a factor of 1000 greater than your "overestimate."


        I'm not disagreeing with the notion that terrorist threats are overblown, but let's not exaggerate here.

    • Re:Safety Data (Score:5, Insightful)

      by clambake ( 37702 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @05:52AM (#10806025) Homepage
      Does anyone think their data is more important than their safety?

      yes.

      Better to give over a few details than to have your plane taken over by terrorists.

      Indeed. Please give me your data, and I will protect you. What you don't believe me, a perfect stranger? But you seemed to believe the TSA folks... Aaah, you were lulled by thier shiny badges... I get it, shiny things good.
      • Let us all QUIET DOWN and see what the fortune database has to say about this...

        "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."
        --Benjamin Franklin

        That settles it.

    • Re:Safety Data (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @07:19AM (#10806177) Homepage Journal
      The era of airliner hijackings is over. Before, everybody knew that if you just kept your head down and acted docile, you would live through a hijacking. You might be stuck on the plane for a while until things worked out, but your chances of survival were very good. Thus everybody stayed quiet and let the hijackers do what they want.

      Now, everybody knows that if you don't do anything, you will die. People faced with certain death become very motivated. No hijacking will be able to take place now unless the hijackers have significant numbers compared to the passengers, are very well-armed, and are willing to kill most people on board. That simply isn't going to happen. My best way to stay safe on an airliner is to be on a plane filled with bad motherfuckers who won't be afraid to rush the terrorists when they try to take over. The TSA isn't trying to protect us from hijackings, they're simply trying to expand.
      • and are willing to kill most people on board

        But they are willing and able to do exactly that.. and it only takes one suitably equipped suicide terrorist to do the job.

        I don't think they are too concerned that passengers will get frisky and try to stop them.. they will kill any that bother them and then kill the rest after anyway..

        If they are able to get on the plane, then its all over no matter what.. best that can be hoped for is that less people are killed on the ground as well.

        • Re:Safety Data (Score:5, Insightful)

          by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @11:57AM (#10807160) Homepage Journal
          But they are willing and able to do exactly that.. and it only takes one suitably equipped suicide terrorist to do the job.

          Killing everybody onboard is not the realm of hijacking, so it's not part of the subject being discussed. There are many easier ways to kill everybody on board an airliner than getting a bunch of guys inside it with guns.

          I don't think they are too concerned that passengers will get frisky and try to stop them.. they will kill any that bother them and then kill the rest after anyway.

          That worked three times. The fourth time it mostly failed. (The airliner crashed, but the airliner's target wasn't hit.) The only reason it was "mostly" is because the passengers didn't find out that the calculus of hijacking has changed until the situation was controlled by the hijackers. Now people will make their move as soon as a hijacking attempt becomes apparent.

          If they are able to get on the plane, then its all over no matter what.. best that can be hoped for is that less people are killed on the ground as well.

          Do you really think that five guys armed with box cutters are going to be able to kill a plane full of people with nothing to lose? Or two guys armed with guns? It's not going to happen. Notice how many successful hijackings there have been in the last three years. Notice how every time somebody tries something weird, he's tackled by his compatriots and tied up. The hijackers will always be significantly outnumbered, and no weapon you can get through security with any degree of reliability will let you win against those odds, especially against people who are backed into a corner.

          • Do you really think that five guys armed with box cutters are going to be able to kill a plane full of people with nothing to lose? Or two guys armed with guns?

            Unfortunately, the answer is clearly yes: guy points gun at side of plane and fires, cabin decompresses explosively, plane crashes, and everybody dies. No magic or cunning planning required.

            The relevant question must surely be whether facilitating enormous invasion of privacy will actually make this any less likely, by reducing the risk of the

            • ... highly motivated passenger tosses life preserver or seat cushion onto sucking hole, grabs terrorist, takes the next six bullets, saves rest of passengers. Who tear the terrorist to shreds, and volunteer for independent homicide missions to the terrorist's hometown. Not my preferred scenario, but probable, especially in light of the evidence from the 9/11/2001 flight that crashed in the Pennsylvania field.

              Airline security is a joke: it's just PR to support the government takeover of privacy and other ri

            • Do you really think that five guys armed with box cutters are going to be able to kill a plane full of people with nothing to lose? Or two guys armed with guns?

              Unfortunately, the answer is clearly yes: guy points gun at side of plane and fires, cabin decompresses explosively, plane crashes, and everybody dies. No magic or cunning planning required.

              You are incorrect. Explosive decompression will not kill everybody on board. Look at the case of Aloha Airlines flight 243 [aviation-safety.net]. A structural failure resulted in an

    • Better to give over a few details than to have your plane taken over by terrorists. Does anyone think their data is more important than their safety?

      Absolutely. I do not give consent to the US government to track data about me as a non-citizen, and many US laws would currently (and try to) violate privacy laws here in Canada.

      I simply will not travel to the US nowadays specifically because the current administrations policy of assuming that I'm a criminal and that my friggin credit card information is an

      • Sad to say, but I'm an American citizen, and the only thing that keeps me traveling there is the fact that I have family in the country. When that's the case, I'm not going back either.
    • Its the argument that's made all the time, but its all based on the premise that giving the data over will *actually* increase safety. Given the government's track record, I would hardly see that as a given.

      So at the moment, we are giving up our personal informaiton, but all we are getting is the possibility of more security. There will be no public review as to whether the loss of privacy will *actually* increase security. There will be no conesquences if it doesn't.

    • Yeah I think it's justified. Better to give over a few details than to have your plane taken over by terrorists. Does anyone think their data is more important than their safety?

      You're getting ahead of yourself. Try asking that question after you've already established that the data will actually be used in a competent manner to get useful information.

    • The hijackers who flew planes into the WTC here on 9/11/2001 had proper documentation. The terrorists who do the next big job, if we have the system that will make you feel so safe, will be 20-year olds, also with only a generated history of uneventful flights, suicidal true believers recruited from sympathetic caucasian populations, carefully sequestered from traceable contact with identified terrorists. Then we'll get another horrendous attack, all the unnecessary recriminations from your "safety data", a

  • Seems like this has been ongoing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @04:10AM (#10805849) Homepage Journal
    From the very first rumors of "leaked" data to the bold and blunt official news that data has been requested/demanded... there is a definite program here.

    As a personal rights advocate, all I ask for is transparency in the process. The Bush administration has been criticized for it's misleading statements regarding the purpose of it's initiatives... so Bush, just tell us what's going on so we know what to think about it...

    • Wow... mention a critical comment about the Bush administration and you're instantly Insightful... three times no less. Sure I wrote what everyone was thinking but I wouldn't say my comment was "insightful".. well, maybe just a little.. but not 3 times over.

      Here is the truly insightful comment:

      "Most likely this is an Aschcroft legacy project and will be curbed soon by Gonzalez."

      I just wanted to test out my hypothesis that any negative or even pseudo-negative comment about Bush would get high marks here o
      • Here's an insight: Bush is a lying puppet of a corporate government, bent on destroying your liberty, and probably the integrity of the US government, as it competes with their global profiteering. Gonzales, who finds the Geneva Conventions so quaint, is smarter than Ashcroft, and will curb nothing, except what is made redundant by his more realpolitik-based fascism. And less songs about eagles.
        • Watch my post get modbombed down. Any comment about Bush gets lots of attention on Slashdot. Bush has so divided the country, the world, and so lobotomized the mass media coverage of his administration, that there is lots of momentum in either direction.

  • Transport Security Administration (Score:3, Informative)

    by storem ( 117912 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @04:42AM (#10805911) Homepage
    That would be Transport Security Administration [tsa.gov], there is no such thing as Transport Safety Administration.

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is committed to constantly reviewing screening procedures to ensure our measures are targeted to counter potential threats, and recently changed passenger screening procedures to strengthen our ability to detect explosives at the security checkpoints. One significant enhancement, which has generated discussion and concerns among some passengers, involves more frequent use of pat-down searches, which are to be done in a professional, respectful manner. We take each situation seriously and procedures are in place to address all concerns.

  • Terrorism is impossible to fight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @05:47AM (#10806017) Journal
    That is the whole point after all. Terrorism or freedom fighter or guerrialas or commandoes all come into action when normal warfare is impossible. Wich one you call it really depends where you are on the battlefield.

    When the allies were unable to attack the germans through convential means they used civilians in occupied europe to launch attacks. Freedom fighters or terrorists? Well they won and the germans lost so freedom fighters they are.

    Certain groups feel that they have to wage a war against the goverments to achieve their objectives. This is nothing new and sometimes we are sympatetic and sometimes we are not.

    There are however three problems in fighting them. The first is that the terrorists don't obey the same set of rules. Lets face it, baskenland/ireland/palestine terrorists could be easily wiped out if spain/england/israel just used the same methods but on a slightly larger scale. But that ain't allowed. Terrorists have no rules, those that fight them can't afford to have no rules.

    Second is that crime may not pay but terrorism certainly does. Just check Arafat. The guy has become filthy rich. Some people here complain about how western goverments are only stuffing their own pockets yet the income of a blair or bush pales to the self enrichment that goes on in palestine.

    Ireland has the same problem. On both sides the terrorists have established a very nice power base for themselves with criminals empires that may once have been put up to fund their activities but now give their controllers a very nice income.

    But the final problem has become clear time and time again. It is easy to track the ringleaders but impossible to take them out without angering all the bleeding hard liberals. The recruits who commit the actual attacks are unknowns. Check the 9/11 attackers. Check the murderer of Theo van Gogh. Check the people who blow themselves up in Israel and Iraq.

    But really check them. They are not just clean as in having no previous terrorist connections. They are clean in that they come from "good" backgrounds. Not the poor, family killed, religious lunatics that people like to imagine.

    If anything they are poor little rich kids.

    You can't track them. The ring leaders stay outside reach and keep themselves just low profile enough that you can't just send a commando team to kill them. The raw recruits are to clean to show up.

    Sure there can be arrests and you can spend billions on tracking them all but the terrorists don't care. They have won. Every second we spend on chasing them they have won. Every second we are afraid they have won. We could arrest 99% of their people and if they only manage 1 feeble attack every few years they will still have won.

    It is in many ways like the war of drugs. Unless you are willing to go the way of the soviet union or china then their is no way to fight drugs. Stalin was very succesfull at keeping all the populations in the USSR in line. Slaughter everyone. Dead people don't riot. Then again who needed terrorism in the USSR when the state was so ready to hand it out?

    • That's kinda the point, of course. Assuming the government didn't incite 9/11 itself (quite an assumption), the terrorists probably knew the government's reaction ahead of time: Lock down the nation and throw anyone in prison who stands in politicians' ways.

      Sorta the old 'butterfly causing a hurricane' effect. Just knock down a building, set back and all the governments will do the rest of the terrorizing for you.

      Well at least it's a good time to be a politician. That has to count for something, doesn'
    • Just check Arafat. The guy has become filthy rich.

      Um, the last time I checked he was still dead.

    • there's a distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. terrorists target civilians and generally try to promote "terror" among the general population.

      if the hijackings of sept 11th had been on military planes and crashed into military targets (ie..an airforce base), this world would be completely different from how it is now.

  • Turn 'em over! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spudley ( 171066 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @05:48AM (#10806019) Homepage Journal
    Airlines Ordered To Turn Over Passenger Data

    Yeah, that's right Delta - Those passenger lists have to be FACE DOWN!

    Turn 'em over - NOW!
    • Or splitting it differently:

      "Okay, you're approaching the building where the records are kept. When you get there, bank sharply, because the FBI ordered airlines to turn, over passenger data."
  • "TSA is aware of, and sensitive to, the need to preserve Americans' freedom while pursuing better security," the agency wrote. "In implementing a new security measure that affects these interests, it is necessary to move deliberately and cautiously."

    Maybe they should be sensitive to the need to preserve everybody's freedom and security, American or not. It's the right thing to do. Even if that doesn't matter to the TSA, tourism figures should and tourists will stop coming if they don't feel welcome.
    • I refuse to fly. I'm not worried at all about my security, though I have no faith that I'm safer now than before. I simply refuse to be part of the process of eliminating our rights. It means that I only travel where I can drive, but even that is merely the least evil option, since leaving Long Island means being tracked (by license plate) at every bridge & thruway toll until I get away from the I-95 corridor. It's not so bad that I'll move just to get away from it, but since I'll be moving next year an
  • Oh... My bad. Airlines.

    Move along... Nothing to see here.

  • It's been said before (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @12:02PM (#10807193)
    but it bears repeating.

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin

    Limiting freedoms in grotesque ways like this harms America more than any terrorist action ever could. Further, it permits the terrorists to succeed in their mission by admitting that we are going to change the foundational elements of our society simply to accommodate their existence.
    • "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin

      While the pricipal point that one should not be giving up essential liberty to get temporary safety is good, I have one ongoing problem with this quote being used over and over.

      Who the fuck Franklin thought he was when he decided that he has the right to decide who deserves what?

      • He had an opinion, like many people are wont to have, and, being a person of some importance at the time, his opinion was remembered. I happen to agree with him in this case. Just because you don't, it doesn't suddenly make him an arrogant bastard for having an opinion.
        • What would you say if someone came up to you and said "You deserve to go to jail." And if you ask why, you will be told: "Because I think so."

          Regardless of what preceeded the "you deserve..." statement, to say something like that is in essence forcing a value judgement upon another person. That's what makes the second half of Franklin's statement arrogant.

          But I guess that's the way the world works these days. If a majority thinks the forceful value judgement, then you are stuck being a minority opinion
  • ... welcome to the America of your choosing, comrades. These are Bush's people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close