This Time They've Gone Too Far...

[Carrie]

"Civil liberties groups are objecting to a government plan for a new system that would check background information and assign a threat level to everyone who buys a ticket for a commercial flight. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/28/...ain542315.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/28/attack/main542315.shtml)

"The system, ordered by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, will gather much more information on passengers than has been done previously. Delta Air Lines will try it out at three undisclosed airports beginning next month, and a comprehensive system could be in place by the end of the year. "

You have got to be KIDDING me.

This reminds me of two quotes:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin


And
"When Hitler first came to power, he was afraid. So he took a list of everybody who had a gun. Then he was still afraid, so he made the people afraid. 'Give me your guns and I will protect you,' he said and the people listened. They gave him their guns and turned in anyone who wouldn't cooperate. But Hitler was a small man and he was still afraid. He thought someone could still hurt him. He passed another law that said you couldn't carry anything that could be a weapon, not even a pen... but that wasn't enough because he had a lot of fear and thought that anybody could hide a weapon in their pocket and no one else would know. So he passed another law that said no one could walk down the street with their hands in their pockets, even in winter when it was very cold. But even that wasn't enough-- the next law he passed said that anyone walking down the street had to have their hands behind their back! That way, everyone was completely at the mercy of the police. (Expletive deleted), they already had their hands ready for the handcuffs."
--Deborah Horton, quoting her father, who was a Holocaust survivor

[PornoDoggy]

What ... you don't think a pattern of late payment of your AMEX card and two unpaid parking tickets in Hoboken is valuable information for rating the threat to airline safety you represent?

[JR]

Originally posted by Carrie@Mar 1 2003, 07:29 AM

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


what "essential liberty" is being lost or taken away?

[PornoDoggy]

Wouldn't a more appropriate question be "What is the relevance of this kind of data?"

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 1 2003, 11:25 AM
Wouldn't a more appropriate question be "What is the relevance of this kind of data?"
i dont know. i would not make an assumption that it is not relevant just because i am afraid, dont like it, dont like Bush, Ashcroft or Republicans.

i am not law enforcement, CIA, FBI, ATF, IRS, Immigration, local police or a librarian, but it would seem that a plan for security that made it through the House and Senate was both, well questioned and well defended.

"Transportation officials say CAPPS II — Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System — will use databases that already operate in line with privacy laws and won't profile based on race, religion or ethnicity.

"What it does is have very fast access to existing databases so we can quickly validate the person's identity," Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said. "

Are Isrealies racist? I was pretty blown away walking through Heathrow and passing the El-Al boarding area last month and seeing all the screening, x-ray and bomb detection machines. I would feel better about traveling El Al than any other airline in the world. Certianly better than i would if i was flying on an airline that is more concerned with offending people or hurting peoples feelings by raising the rediculous notion that most terrorists are not 70 Year old fisherman from Iceland.

[Peaches]

It's going to be interesting to see how they plan on stretching the FCRA as having a legal right to access everyone's credit report. Not to mention that every time your credit report is accessed, your credit score goes down. If Mr. Frequent Flyer is turned down for refinancing his home, it ain't gonna go over well in suburbia. I'm betting the credit report access will be nixed.

Wouldn't a more appropriate question be "What is the relevance of this kind of data?"

Exactly. From what I remember, at least half of the guys on 9/11 had valid passports/visas as well as addresses and jobs. And with the problem of identity theft at an all time high, it would take about 3 keystrokes for a terrorist to become a model US citizen.

[PornoDoggy]

Where did the "assumption that it is not relevant just because i am afraid, dont like it, dont like Bush, Ashcroft or Republicans" come from? Why are you assuming I view this as a partisan political issue?

And where the hell did racist come from? I assume that there are some Israeli's who are racist; I assume there are others who are not. I believe the same arguement could be made about Eskimos, Kurds, Laotians, and Jamacians. I'm glad you were impressed with the security of el-Al. I wasn't talking about the security of non-U.S. carriers. I was talking about privacy issues.

You responded to my question with a bunch of very inflamatory buzzwords, but didn't address the issue I raised.

Yes, JR, I do worry about privacy. I worry about privacy under Ashcroft, I was worried about privacy issues under Janet Reno, and I would be worried about privacy issues if the ghost of William Kuntsler was appointed AG.

This is a time for people concerned with privacy to be vigilant. Our nation is fighting a very real enemy - the alQaida terrorists. History shows that the last time our nation was fighting a real enemy (communism) or perceived enemies (the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movement), the government (under both political parties) went too far in their efforts to protect Americans. Not wanting to see that happen again doesn't mean I'm pro-Iraqi or even against efforts to stop them.

[*KK*]

One would figure they'd be using the address matching feature of the credit report only -- which STILL DOES NO GOOD for people using a business address for their tickets... it really makes no sense to me.

What they SHOULD do is offer people the chance to be investigated and certified for some sort of pass that would allow them to bypass the security lines and go straight to the metal detectors... alot of very frequent flyers, including myself, would probably go for that no problem.

[Almighty Colin]

This reminds me of a debate regarding insurance premiums. Is it ethical to charge someone more for insurance premiums based upon their race? Medical/life insurance companies can charge more based on age, whether one smokes, and a number of factors. Is it ethical to charge someone a higher rate because their race is at higher risk on average? Why should an 18 year old pay more for car insurance than a 26 year old?

There are obvious difference in a comparison but enough similarities to warrant an interesting discussion also.

Is it ethical to racially profile for security OR insurance reasons?

If not, why is it not ethical to racially profile people for their insurance premiums but it is ethical to consider one's age?

Furthermore, what if a DNA test at birth could determine susceptibility to a variety of illnesses? Should someone more at risk to a deadly disease have insurance premiums so high they might br able to afford them? Should that information be given to insurance companies? That could be a privacy issue too. But ...?

[*KK*]

I think it all boils down to disclosure Colin -- that being that the consumer/end user/whatever you call it is aware of the information being collected and what the purpose is for it -- then the end user can decide to either submit the info or not.

It might mean that some insurance is unavailable to people who won't submit their info, it might mean that certain people are stopped at security every time they are in an airport since they won't submit their info...

That's the biggest thing as I see it. If I know the information they want is more than I want them to have, I simply don't participate. That's the way it already is with mortgages, credit cards, stuff like that... what should be different about anything else?

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 1 2003, 11:58 AM


And where the hell did racist come from?
sorry, i was referring to the arcticle and the issue of racial profiling... the notion that its actually not young, Arab, Muslims from the Middle East that are trying to "kill infidels" or "fight a holy war"... but could just as well be reindeer herders from Lapland or 80 year old Aleut women from St Lawrence Island in the middle of the Bering Sea.

asking the question "why is this information relevent" is not the same as proving its not. or making the case that it is not.

just like credit card fraud... its not about any one piece of information. its about putting several pieces of information (any one of which on thier own offer very little) and building a profile that makes its possible to assess the level of risk.

should all credit cards be accepted... without regard to country of origin of the card, IP of user, should we not ask for zip codes, CCV2 numbers or the full address as shown on the billing statement?

any of that info on its own can be argued that it is useless too right? yet together it all clearly builds a picture that can help determine to some extent the level of risk of the transaction.

[JR]

i think PD, its important that i point out that i dont see these things as "partisan issues". most do. i think that most of us automatically assume a person has a position since we all seem to be familiar enough with each other and the history of everyones debates, arguments or in most cases, online therapy to make that assumption.

as i have said in the past, i believe in the system of government that we have. i trust the system. I dont trust George Bush or Bill Clinton. I trust in the system of checks and balances in government. I trust in legislation that has made its way through the House and Senate and past the President, because that is the system we have and it has proven to be very effective. i also know that believing that, means that i have to accept a lot that i dont like. i do. I know that even though i may not like some particular piece of legislation, it still requires a majority opinion to change it so if i am going to stand by the principles of democracy, i have to either accept it, or fight to change popular opinion. life for me is too short to spend my time worrying or fearing my own government. i will leave the country forever, before i will live in fear of it.

i will be dead in 50 years. i would prefer to spend that time with my wife... happy, smiling and waiting. in the end, nothing else will matter. the world will not remember me, the sun will burn out, the galaxy will implode and the very existence this planet will have been nothing more than a happy coincidence of what amounts to less than a microsecond on the cosmic timeline. its only ego and insecurity that makes us feel like our existence is any more significant than it is.

in my opinion, abuses or alleged abuses in the past of the FBI, CIA, J Edgar Hoover or anyone else also has to be looked at in its proper perspective... that being that when those policies and laws became unpopular with the majority of people, they were changed as well.

our government is not perfect. no government can be. no political decision can be 100% popular in a country generally divided into two halves politically. Government is one of our greatest necessary evils.

[Carrie]

KK, I wouldn't even go that far - I don't want them accessing my credit report; there's no reason for them to do so.
Peaches said it would take 3 keystrokes for a terrorist to become a model citizen - turn it around. It would also take 3 keystrokes for a model citizen to become public enemy #1. All you need is a typo or a cranky gov't airport screener who thinks she's being cute and has no concept of what the simplest entry into that person's profile might do.

Regardless of human error though - it's all about privacy. There is no reason for Delta OR the gov't to go snooping through my credit report and my bank account activity (did you guys miss that part?):
"which will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists. "

Will check SUCH THINGS AS - those two are listed, but what else isn't? The two of those are bad enough!
The *only* persons who should have access to that info are people I specifically give permission to access it for monetary purposes - such as a loan or a mortgage.

How the hell can you determine someone's possibility of being a terrorist by looking at their credit report?
How the hell can you determine someone's possibility of being a terrorist by looking at their bank account activity?!?

Okay - terrorists will most likely have large deposits made and large cash withdrawals... hot damn, Bill Gates must be a terrorist! Netpond pays me from an overseas account - I must be a terrorist!
It makes no sense.
And credit reports?!? What the fuck? That's not relevant at ALL. Never mind the fact that the top three credit reporting agencies *usually* have incorrect information in their databases. Hell, they had me living in California, Florida, New York and Maryland *all at the same time* - when I had lived in MD all my life and had just moved to New York a few months earlier. (I had never lived in FL at that point and still have never set foot in Cali.)
Gee, TRW says I have bad credit and multiple addresses - I must be a terrorist!

And once they DO establish a "threat level" - what are they going to do with that information? Deny me a plane ticket? Tell me I can't fly?

How is this going to hinder terrorists whatsoever? Last I knew, the Oklahoma City bombings had nothing to do with planes - most of the bombings in Israel and Ireland have nothing to do with planes...

It is completely unnecessary invasion of privacy *THAT WE HAVE NO WAY OF OPTING OUT OF*. Period. If you want to fly, you MUST go through this privacy invasion. You can't simply deny the background check and opt instead for a full baggage search and detailed security screening at the airport. You buy a ticket, you're in the database and your info is being searched - whether you like it or not.

JR, you put far too much trust in Congress. Just because it passed both the House and Senate doesn't mean it's good for us. More likely is that it was a nice quickie way to go back to the Constituents and say "Don't worry, I'm keeping you safe" and get more votes.

[Winetalk.com]

this is the BIGGEST
"over 5 lines posts" thread I ever seen!
;-)))

[JR]

Originally posted by Carrie@Mar 1 2003, 01:48 PM

JR, you put far too much trust in Congress. Just because it passed both the House and Senate doesn't mean it's good for us. More likely is that it was a nice quickie way to go back to the Constituents and say "Don't worry, I'm keeping you safe" and get more votes.
it could also be fairly said that you give far too little credibility to the average voter.

[PornoDoggy]

"Racial profiling" is a powerful phrase. There are a lot of doctrinaire liberals out there who would equate paying closer scrutiny to an individual or group of Arab men boarding an airplane in today's environment with stopping a person driving down the streets of a suburb just because they are black. I'm not that niave.

I have shoulder length hair, am usually dressed in jeans and a T-shirt/flannel shirt, and I have, um, a medical condition :) in my left foot that sometimes results in my car exceeding the speed limit. Out here in the boondocks where I live, I get the "yes-sir, no-sir, sorry to bother you sir" routine when I'm driving my Cadillac. When I am in my pickup truck, which has been rode hard and put away wet more often than I have, the stops last longer, they are more likely to search the car, and tend to regard me as a possible methamphetimine dealer. Irritating, aggrevating, of course - but understandable in an area where meth is increasingly becoming a problem and I "look the part" at least to some cops.

I repeat what I said before ... I'm not sure how my credit report or traffic record is going to assist the airlines in assessing my "threat potential."

Frankly, my biggest fear about all of the emphasis on the security of air travel isn't the invasion of privacy of this database, the idiocy of pilots carrying weapons, or the harrassment of some travellers - it's the worry that we are addressing yesterday's problem.

[PornoDoggy]

in my opinion, abuses or alleged abuses in the past of the FBI, CIA, J Edgar Hoover or anyone else also has to be looked at in its proper perspective... that being that when those policies and laws became unpopular with the majority of people, they were changed as well.
Agreed - when those policies, laws, and illegal practices became unpopular (or became known), they were changed or abolished. Today, however, some of those changes are being undone; some would change/undo more. As someone concerned with privacy rights, with abuse of govermental authority, and with the politicization of law enforcement/national security issues, that alarms me.

It seems to me that, as a citizen, I have an obligation to make my voice heard if I believe that my government is taking the wrong course. It took people like me aggitating back in the 70s to bring the abuses to the light of day. That sort of activity is part and parcel of the system we live under, and every bit as vital as the Congress, the courts and the executive. I have as much faith in the American system of governemt as you do - perhaps I view how to express that faith and fulfill the obligation I have to it somewhat differently than you.

Government is one of our greatest necessary evils.
Agreed. Government is a 900-pound gorilla sitting in the corner. I for one intend to keep my eye on it.

[RawAlex]

Carrie, I think you miss one point - I don't think the system will actually give all your personal information to the airline - they will ask a question ("is this person a risk") and a risk assessment would come back. It would be used to spot people who have no real records, people attempting to travel under and assumed name, people who shouldn't be in the US (illegal aliens, expired visas, etc).

I didn't read anything that said the airlines would obtain or retain your personal information.

Alex

[originalheather]

but it would seem that a plan for security that made it through the House and Senate was both, well questioned and well defended

Ha...lots of stuff have made it through Congress that's been in-fucking-sane. McCarthy case in point. There are innumerable other examples. And sorry to disagree, JR, but I don't trust my government, per se, either. One thing that supposedly made a conservative a conservative in times past was the ojbection to BIG GOVERNMENT. They should keep their noses out of a lot of stuff they're stuck in already, not be invading privacy under the guise of security.

I have a BIG problem with anyone checking my credit or bank accounts simply because I want to fly to Phoenix. There's a reason why I don't have a SENTRI pass (the little card that lets you skip the lines at the border). I'm not willing to let Big Brother know every single freaking thing I do.

I agree with everyone so far that's said that this has a big potential for error. Just think of how a little screwup could get you banned from planes for life. They're talking about the possibility of retaining this information for 50 YEARS?? Just imagine if you have the same name as a bad guy, what happens to you?

The quotes about Hitler were right on. Am I more likely to be a terrorist if I owe Macy's 140 bucks? What if I just sold my domain (I wish), porn.com and got 100K deposited in my bank account. Does that make me a potential terrorist? Who is going to be analyzing this data?

I'm starting to wonder if I'm really as conservative as I'd always thought, cause I have serious Big Brother concerns with this.

And just to lighten things up, I caught this in PD's post:

in my left foot that sometimes results in my car exceeding the speed limit

Yeah, you have a medical condition if your left foot's on the accelerator, PD :P

[Peaches]

Here's an interesting true scenario:

I was born one name, changed it when I got married and when I got divorced, my stupid divorce attorney screwed up and now my legal real name is my old middle name, my old last name's first initial as a middle name, and my old last name (i.e. I was born Jane Anne Doe, married name was Anne Doe Smith, now my legal name is Anne D. Doe). All three names are on my credit report.

Some dolt in the GA. department of revenue mistyped my SS number and made it into that of farmer in S. GA about 12+ years ago. Since then, I've had a MASSIVE amount of problems. So many that I couldn't even close on the last house I bought until I wrote a check to the closing attorney for $500+ for the "tax lien" against me (oops - it was against the OTHER SS#), even though I had offered to pay the damn thing for years, just to get it off my report. But since that's not REALLY my SS#, no one could even tell me where to pay it. 3 months after closing, the attorney sent me the check back because THEY couldn't find out where to pay it. It's STILL on my credit report and I STILL can't get a state tax ID for my company because of this screw up even though I've been trying for 5 years. The state of GA swears that my social security number isn't mine - even though I've had it since I was 10 and I've been paying taxes with it in GA since I was 16. For 12+ years, I've apparently had 2 SS#'s.

My credit card bill that I use to pay for my plane tickets and my plane tickets all go to a different address than is shown on my credit report as my home address.

I'm not going anywhere anytime soon, am I? :cryin:

[originalheather]

it could also be fairly said that you give far too little credibility to the average voter.


I missed that one before my last post.

The average voter hasn't read a book since High School.

I've always thought that Alexander Hamilton was right...rule by the masses isn't a great idea, because the masses are idiots. That's a really loose paraphrase, but sorry, it's accurate.

I didn't think much of Clinton, I don't think much of Bush. Politicians are pretty much all cut from the same cloth. The average voter puts these people in office, remember?

Joe Average Voter doesn't have the education, the insight or the intelligence to be making critical decisions. I'm sure I'll be blasted for that opinion, but who said I wasn't an asshole? :D

[Peaches]

Originally posted by originalheather@Mar 1 2003, 07:42 PM
but who said I wasn't an asshole? :D
Well.......you ain't on THIS list! http://www.isjustanasshole.com

:nyanya:

But it's a new month - I'm sure that once Billy recovers from Mardi Gras (which should be sometime next weekend, now that Vick's going down there....) you'll be reconsidered :okthumb:

[originalheather]

Must be one of those clerical errors

Billy, you ASSHOLE..why aren't I on the list???

:grrr:

[PornoDoggy]

Golly gee wilikers, heather, nobody understands the "heavy left foot" syndrome that I suffer from. Really, I don't mean to exceed the speed limit, officer ...

My oldest daughter swears it is genetic ... she turns 30 this year, and for the first time since she has her license she is not within one ticket of getting it taken away.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR@Mar 1 2003, 04:46 PM
as i have said in the past, i believe in the system of government that we have. i trust the system. I dont trust George Bush or Bill Clinton. I trust in the system of checks and balances in government. I trust in legislation that has made its way through the House and Senate and past the President, because that is the system we have and it has proven to be very effective. i also know that believing that, means that i have to accept a lot that i dont like. i do. I know that even though i may not like some particular piece of legislation, it still requires a majority opinion to change it so if i am going to stand by the principles of democracy, i have to either accept it, or fight to change popular opinion. life for me is too short to spend my time worrying or fearing my own government
JR - you just outlined our new party charter.

Unfortunately, we can't really create a party based on these beliefs because our political views encompass parties themselves. Parties are just part of a system that we believe works as is and that system has been and can change in response to changing conditions.

Errrr .. Anyone wanna join "The Party that thinks things are pretty much ok"?

Enough flexibility to change.
Enough to stability to continue.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by originalheather@Mar 1 2003, 06:42 PM
I've always thought that Alexander Hamilton was right...rule by the masses isn't a great idea, because the masses are idiots. That's a really loose paraphrase, but sorry, it's accurate.

HaHa. I'm sure Hamilton would have endorsed that paraphrase.

I would have been a Jefferson/Madison man myself. Hamilton would have had "us" bowing to King George instead of electing George Washington.

[originalheather]

Oh, I'm not saying I agreed with him 100%, but that one thing stuck in my mind. I can't even remember exactly what it was he said anymore. When I read it, I thought, ok, he's saying the masses are morons..I agree :)

I'm most certainly not in favor of non-elected government, not even in favor of abolishing the current system. It's depressing to think what the average voter is, but I don't claim to be smart enough to come up with a reasonable alternative.

I've seen Mexico's brand of "democracy"..I'll take the US' any day.

[JR]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 1 2003, 05:53 PM

Errrr .. Anyone wanna join "The Party that thinks things are pretty much ok"?

Enough flexibility to change.
Enough to stability to continue.
hahaha... Colin, imagine daring to suggest that things "are just ok". we would be lynched in the town square and our houses burned and our familes exiled.

Fear is a natural thing. people are driven by emotion. primarily fear and insecurity. its what keeps you worrying about safety, security and well being. Sociologist Abraham Maslow offers some great insight into why "things are never ok" for people. Right after we eat, drink and fuck - fulfilling our most basic and immediate physiological needs ... minds are freed from worrying about the most mundane things, so that we can start worrying about black helicopters circling overhead again.

me? i dont care. i dont think its rational to compare our government to Hitler. some dont think so. i sincerely doubt however that Austria or Poland is getting nervous... or that we will be starting a program for euthanizing crippled kids anytime soon.

people that truly scare me, are the people that are afraid and start making such extreme comparisons.

[cj]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 1 2003, 08:53 PM
Errrr .. Anyone wanna join "The Party that thinks things are pretty much ok"?

Enough flexibility to change.
Enough to stability to continue.
yes please!!!