EU Agrees to Give Passenger Data to U.S. 825
de la mettrie writes "The EU Commission has agreed in principle to make airlines provide U.S. Homeland Security with detailed passenger data for flights to the USA. Things Uncle Sam would like to know about passengers include their itinerary, their credit card number and whether or not they asked for a meal without pork. The data are supposed to help prevent terror attacks and are to be 'handled appropriately'." The U.S. is collecting the data for a massive passenger database, intended to increase passenger profiling.
riight (Score:5, Funny)
So, being an vegetarian makes me a TERRORIST! Damn.
Re:riight (Score:5, Funny)
Re:riight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:riight (Score:5, Funny)
Re:riight (Score:3, Insightful)
You may be right, but I seem to remember that the ones who hijacked the planes on 11/7 lived in the US, even if I don't remember wether they were actual US citizen, or they only had a visa or something like that.
Re:riight (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be official US policy these days. And they wonder why the rest of the world hates them.
Re:riight (Score:3, Informative)
You got that right!
I'm an American citizen who has been living in Mexico for the last 7 years. I have a special document given to me by the Mexican government which is essentially my Visa. It has my picture, my Mexican address, my fingerprint, the specific business which I may conduct in Mexico, and for how long. And every year I have to go in to the Mexican INS and renew it. When I got married, I had to inform Mexico. When I moved after getting married I had to tell Mexico within 30 days what my new address was. If I change employers, I have to tell them.
This is pretty standard stuff, guys. Borders must be protected, even before 9/11. What scares me isn't that the INS is asking for this information now, what scares me is that they WEREN'T before. It appears that MEXICO keeps better track of foreigners in their country than the INS was keeping track of within the U.S.
Sheesh!
Re:riight (Score:3, Insightful)
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Source : Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is to answer to all who says 'ok, right' to the above poster ... while it has been correctly moderated as 'funny'.
Re:riight (Score:3, Insightful)
No offence. But where do you get this idea from? There are quite a few other contries that have more freedom than the US. You the US doesn't even have a real democracy for starters.
And I do agree with you point, that the US is not like 1984. But I think the original poster's point was that's the way it's heading at the moment.
Re:riight (Score:3, Insightful)
I can even GO to Cuba. Can YOU?
In Russia, it's totally acceptable to walk around on the grounds of the Kremlin sipping a beer. Could you imagine doing that on Capitol Hill?
I don't think most Americans really have any idea what freedom really is?
I don't think most Americans really have any idea just how much of their beloved "freedom" they have lost in the War on Terrorism...or the War on Drugs, for that matter.
Don't you think there's something a little wrong with being made to pee in a jar just to keep your job? omething about innocence over guilt, and the burden of proof? This has been all but forgotten in the drug war, and will be even more so with all the extra security and paranoia put into place post 9/11.
Re:BEEF (Score:3, Informative)
Re:riight (Score:5, Funny)
Re:riight (Score:2)
Let's not forget about all of those Jewish terrorists either!
Re:riight (where's the pork?) (Score:3, Informative)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:riight (where's the pork?) (Score:5, Informative)
Yours truly found the religious profiling info in the swissinfo report [swissinfo.org] compiled by the Swiss Press Agency sda. It's in German, but a translation might pop up on the english page [swissinfo.org] soon.
I will provide a rough translation of the relevant part:
(...) Some issues remain open, however. It is unclear whether US investigators will also get access to credit card numbers or special dietary requests of the passengers. Asking for a meal without pork could indicate to U.S. authorities that the passenger in question is a Muslim, a Brussels spokesman said. (...)
Re:riight (where's the pork?) (Score:4, Insightful)
Or suffers from hypertension, or takes anti-rejection drugs, or is on a low-sodium diet.
Credit card number? Did you agree with your bank to allow the merchant to summarily provide your account info to a foreign national authority?
Re:riight (where's the pork?) (Score:3, Funny)
Now, I'm not positive on this, but I think that was intended as a joke. You know, humor, "Haha, that's rich, they'd keep a list of what foods we ate!" Not necessarily a FUNNY joke, but an attempt nonetheless. Just incase there's been a rash of pig-related terror attacks recently that I was unaware of, I asked one of my Israeli friends to confirm it. He just replied an attack like that wouldn't be very kosher.
Re:riight (where's the pork?) (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article:
"In return, the United States gave assurances about the "appropriate handling" of the records, which include not only names but also the passenger's itinerary, contact phone number and other details, such as credit card numbers."
Now, unless "other details" somehow morphs into "food eaten en route", I daresay that the submission contains just a wee fragment less pure embellishment then the standard anti-M$ submission.
Literacy. It means so little to some people...
Kierthos
Re:riight (Score:2, Funny)
Here's Why: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, the 2000 election was the first election I could vote in, as I'm a young one, and I tend to align myself with more democratic policy. However, there were two things that led me to vote for Bush.
- After the lying bitch that Clinton turned out to be, I wanted someone who I felt I could trust and respect. Now, you may argue that Clinton lying about some girl isn't a big issue, but I was amazed that he could say with a straight face to all of America one thing while clearly having done the exact opposite. Now, part of what makes me trust Bush more is his strong religious conviction. I don't care if he's Christian or Muslim, but if he's held to a higher moral standard by his religious convictions, then not only will that effect decisions that he himself has to make, but also ones that impact our entire country.
- Also, one problem I had with Gore/Lieberman is that having a Jewish person as VP would have created very interesting situations in the Middle East. As it is now, we have Christians trying to sort out a Jewish/Muslim issue, but imagine if we tried to step in with a Jewish person -- we'd get no respect from the Muslims. I'll agree that Bush isn't really the sharpest international figure, but I believe the team he has under him: Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice etc. are incredibly competent and have the background and respect to deal with other nations.
I feel the Democratic party is going to have to pull off something real special for their candidates for '04 in order for me to switch, it seems John Edwards or even General Clark would be impressive candidates, so we'll have to see...Re:Here's Why: (Score:4, Insightful)
Son, if you read the Starr report, you will see the remarkable self-control Clinton exercised to avoid coitus, because he had decided that sex was coitus and not-coitus was not-sex. He knew he was misleading the American public. He considered misleading different from lying.
The unfortunate counterpart of religiosity is self-righteousness. He's a small-minded man with a narrow worldview. What he thinks is God's voice may well be his own small mind's mean mutterings.
It's hard to imagine how Lieberman or anyone else could be more supportive of the right-wing in Israel than Bush is. Bush has expressed his indifference to the peace process, while courting the Jewish vote he knows he needs to win Florida for real next time. Lieberman or another Jew might have actually cared enough to work for peace. And while you were watching the salacious and hypocritical soap opera being produced by the House Republicans, Bill Clinton was busting his butt for peace in the mideast, and almost succeeded.
Sorry, but Bush's team is not all that impressive. They're mostly Republican party apparatchiks, aided by right-wing academics who are foaming at the mouth to fill Bush's intellectual vacuum with their own extremist theories. Point to a single notable achievement of any of them. Besides Powell, who helped to conduct a successful (as measured by its limited objective) military campaign, there's scant evidence of effectiveness.
George W. Bush is the worst president of your lifetime, or mine, or my parents'. He is simultaneously wrecking the economy, enriching the rich while impoverishing the poor, fomenting war while undermining the processes and institutions that are the best hope for international peace, and both stripping Americans of their freedoms and breeding terrorism by his heavy-handed and vain efforts to destroy that terrorism. Be glad for just one thing: the worst vote you will ever cast, is behind you.
Re:riight (Score:5, Insightful)
On a more serious note, what this proves is that the Department of Homeland security is willing to line people up by their races and religions when assigning suspicion. Following Islam or Judasim makes you more likely to blow up a plane or a skyscraper.
Good example, guys. It's real easy to beleive that some of us are trying to crawl into the 21st century when we say 'It's not Islam that's responsible, but the acts of a few, twisted inviduals' but then target all Muslims as potential terrorists. Thanks for making the rest of us white Americans look like racist assholes.
*sigh*
Re:riight (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell me, (hypothetical stats here) why should we be investigating Buddhists with as much vigor as we investigate Muslims, if Muslims account for 90% of terrorist attacks, and the other 10% is spread out evenly among other religions? Probably the same reason why we need to give grandma with 6 grandkids a good twice over at the airport, and go through all her luggage, while that nice middle-aged single man who is travelling alone walks right on through.
Profiling isn't racism. Pretending that all people of all demographics are equally likely to perpetrate certain crimes is utterly ludicrous. When there's a serial killer on the loose, who do the police begin looking for? A white, middle aged male. Why? Because an overwhelming majority of serial killers are white middle aged males. Somehow, though, no one complains about racism in those instances. I guess it's only racism if you are suspicious of a minority.
If we were arresting people because they're Muslims, or because they're Arabic, then yes, that would be unjust of us. However, keeping a closer eye on a demographic that is well-known for perpetrating the vast majority of terrorist incidents is hardly racist; rather, it is prudent.
It's not terrorists that will doom this country, it's political correctness.
Re:riight (Score:5, Informative)
Until Sep 11 2001 the worst act of terrorism perpetrated in the U.S. was by a God-Fearin', fought-for-his-country, Christian. Say what you will about folks from the mid-west...
The worst act of terrorism perpetrated in Canada was by a Seikh. Before that, Irish-Americans.
The worst acts of terrorism in Ireland and England, by Christians again.
In India, Hindus have torn down mosques.
In Korea, it was the Japanese.
We all know when the only actual use of a true "weapon-of-mass-destruction" (as opposed to an illegal weapon) was.
The nerve gas attack on the people in the Tokyo subway was a local cult (apparently not the first attempt, either), although all those gallons of "weapon-of-mass-destruction" seem to have been a hell of a lot less dangerous than a lone homeless Korean looney with a milk carton of gasoline and a lighter....
Re:riight (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the "Al Qaeda" demographic, which is NOT the Muslim demographic. One could argue that the majority of people in the Al Qaeda demographic ALSO are in the "Muslim" demographic, but to punish those in one demographic, because there are an infinitestimally small minority that are also in some other demographic is racist.
The message that profiling sends (Score:5, Insightful)
Right on!
The important thing to realize about profiling, is that, while it may be practical for finding the bad guys, it is always sending a message. And that message is: these people are the good guys (including these white mid-western survivalist types), and you brown people with religious beliefs we don't quite understand, you are the bad guys. You are setting up a pretty strong definition of who is us and who is them. So yes, it is racist.
Different totalitarian regimes have done a lot of harm in the name of getting things done efficiently. It looks like that is the road we are taking.
Also, once (if ever) the terr'rist threat is over, we will still have to live with all the precedents set and the messages sent.
Re:riight (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:riight (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, the Republicans? Al Qaeda had ONE attack on US soil. Nothing before. Nothing since. We've had more shit blown up by Americans than by Muslim extremists. Don't forget that. On the other hand, the current government wants extreme profiling, they want TIA, they want the largest deficit budget EVER, they want massive tax cuts for the rich, they want religion in schools, they've eliminated support for foreign groups that discuss abortion (even if the funds were not used for abortion), they've reneged on millions of acres of protected lands in Alaska and elsewhere, and they're suing California for promoting alternatives to oil. I fear Bush a hell of a lot more than I fear Bin Laden.
More importantly, what demographic 1) hates the united states,
Everybody. And it's not because "they're crazy, and they hate freedom," which is the biggest cop-out I've ever heard.
2) follows a known terrorist who preaches to them that they should kill Americans, priod,
How is that different from Ari Fleischer saying that a bullet with Saddam's name on it might be the best solution? And repeating that, just so you know it's not a stupid, heat-of-the-moment thing to say.
3) has training camps specifically set up to teach them to do this,
http://www.cia.gov/cia/employment/operational.htm
and 4) is more than just a nuissance?
Well, judging from our UN reputation, the US fits that pretty well.
Re:riight (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me, (hypothetical stats here) why should we be investigating Buddhists with as much vigor as we investigate Muslims, if Muslims account for 90% of terrorist attacks, and the other 10% is spread out evenly among other religions?
Hmm... lesse:s /gc ities/g
s/Islamic Faith/African American ethnicity/g
s/Buddhists/Asian/g
s/Muslims/Black
s/terrorist/drug-related/g
s/religions/ethni
s/faith/ethnicity/g
Result:
Start looking at the statistics. The number of drug related incidents perpetrated by followers of the African American ethnicity is dramatically higher than any other ethnicity out there.
Tell me, (hypothetical stats here) why should we be investigating Chinese with as much vigor as we investigate Blacks, if Blacks account for 90% of drug related attacks, and the other 10% is spread out evenly among other ethnicities?
Profiling isn't racism. Pretending that all people of all demographics are equally likely to perpetrate certain crimes is utterly ludicrous. When there's a serial killer on the loose, who do the police begin looking for? A white, middle aged male. Why? Because an overwhelming majority of serial killers are white middle aged males. Somehow, though, no one complains about racism in those instances. I guess it's only racism if you are suspicious of a minority.
If we were arresting people because they're Muslims, or because they're Arabic, then yes, that would be unjust of us. However, keeping a closer eye on a demographic that is well-known for perpetrating the vast majority of terrorist incidents is hardly racist; rather, it is prudent.
Agreed. Profiling is a bit different than racism, per se, although they are strongly related... and it's got its own set of issues:
Ultimately since you support profiling, why not on a neutral statistic? I mean, if race/religion are just statistics just like height, weight, or criminal record, why not use those instead, and get the best of both worlds?
Re:riight (Score:5, Insightful)
Race and religion isn't only logically a sound basis for someone's personality, its doesn't make any sense to say otherwise.
Do you think the concept of it being wrong to kill is something in our genetics? Far from it, its the natural state of affairs, and systems of belief are the biggest factor in actions like that being considered wrong. Not even "society" as a nebulous concept has any real impact -- its those religious beliefs that drove the rules behind society after all.
So what happens today when you've got religious leaders telling a small faction of followers of a few fringe sects of a major world religion that they will (at the risk of projecting beliefs on a more familiar western framework) go to heaven if they kill those who threaten other followers of that religion? You get the *vast* majority of people who take actions that we consider terroristic being members of that religion. And its ABSOLUTELY valid to make use of that FACT.
Do you think it was any different during the Crusades? Christians were the ones in the wrong, then... something too many people forget these days. Our enemys today didn't invent the concept of twisting religious belief to control followers for selfish reasons -- our ancestors were pretty damn good at that, too.
If, as the original poster says, 90+% of the direct current risk to our country is from people of Islamic background, and we have a finite amount of resources to use looking for terrorists, using profiling to target our resources where they will do the most good isn't racism. Its common sense.
How many (to pick a stereotype) sexy british punk chicks are going to be flying over here to target our country? Not enough to make it worth expending anything more than the most cursory of efforts.
The program is doomed to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Statistics" .. "dramatically higher" .. "lies" (Score:3, Informative)
I think you've missed the whole point of this terminoligy. There is a very easy to see distinction between "collateral damage" and terrorism, intent. If you are aiming for a weapons factory, but it kills a person who happened to be outside at the time, that person is collateral damage. You were not aiming to kill a civilian, you were aiming at a valid military target. One which directly affects military activities.
On the other hand you have those cases where the intent is to kill civilians. For example, aiming for and hitting a shopping mall with a bomb. There is no military value in that shopping mall. The intent was to kill civilians. And thus we call this terrorism.
To get more specific, lets look at the events of 9/11. Start with the WTC. Did it have any military value? No, it did nothing to directly support military command, control, or supply. The attack was intended to kill civilians, thus its terrorism. Next, the Pentagon, now there is a building that does have military value, it is part of the command structure of the US military. The attack on it should be considered an act of war, and thus the civilians were collateral damage. Now, it could be argued that the attackers were criminally negligent in that attack, but that is usually something that gets sorted out after a war.
Oh yeah: "Freedom fighters" is what the U.S. gov't called the contras it illegally supported in the 1980s. Euphemisms are everything. The IRA sometimes called themselves freedom fighters, employed bombs at times on civilian targets, and today as a result have accomplished some of their goals of moving toward self-rule. When a group (Palestinians, for example) are oppressed, and don't have an army or the funds for one, guess what? Guerilla tactics get used.
You are blurring a line that should be paid attention to here. Guerrilla tactics have their place in war. The idea of "hit and fade" type tactics, and covertly bombing military installations can be very useful. But again, there is a distinction between aiming to destroy militray targets, and aiming to kill civilians.
Allow me to give a real example: As background, my father was a WISO in an F-4 Phantom during the later stages of the Vietnam war. During one instance, he and his pilot were in an aircraft in a hanger getting ready to take-off. At the same time the VC launched an attack on the airfield. A sapper reached the entrance to the hanger, which housed the plane, with the intention of detonating a satchel charge, which would have destroyed the plane and killed the crew. Now, quick quiz, in this instance, would this have been gureilla tactics or terrorism?...if you said guerilla tactics you win the prize. For the Bounus prize, if a reporter was caught in the explosion, we would call this?...Collateral damage, the civilian was not the intended target, but an unluck bystander. The target was military in nature, a fighter/bomber and several soldiers. Now, lets move this scenario, if the hanger was on a civilian airport, and the aircraft was a Cessna, loaded with a family getting ready for a joy-ride. And someone threw a satchel charge in, aiming to blow the plane up and kill the people what are our answers now?...Terrorism, terrosist victims.
Oh yeah: The US of A got its start as a guerilla army, employing then-unsoldier-like tactics against the British. Got them where they are today.
Yes, you are correct. If you've been paying attention up to this point you should be able to notice the important distinction. It was against valid military targets, a.k.a. the British Soldiers.
Oh yeah: Flechette shells are outlawed by international treaty which Israel is signed on to. It still employs them.
I'll admit, I am not familiar with this incident, so cannot comment. But as for using an outlawed weapon (which is a silly concept, but I digress). This is one of the purposes of the UN, to determine if anyone didn't play nice during a war, and seek restitution. If this is the case, there will probably be some sort of resolution against Isriel eventually for it. (Not that any action would be taken, the UN does little more than talk these days.)
Leave it to Monty Python to explain all this... (Score:5, Funny)
Pork (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pork (Score:2)
The same can be said of Christians or Hindus or pretty much any group if you only look at the worst examples of the group...
Re:Pork (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pork (Score:2)
Besides, why would they want to follow acidic juice in the first place? ( Yes, I was actually asked that question once. Presumably the asker went home to search for his "any" key)
KFG
Hasidim already get harassed (Score:5, Interesting)
Even before 9/11, the San Jose, California airport started insisting that everybody take off their hats before going through the metal detectors, ostensibly because they might have weapons in it, but basically because some administrator figured it was a good way to keep the rabble acknowledging their obedience to the government as well as being a good way to harass people who wear turbans. Most of the people who wear hats in that airport aren't Jews or Sikhs, they're Mexicans wearing cowboy hats or Anglos wearing baseball hats, who don't have any religious objections to taking them off -- but if a bureaucrat had tried making the same rule at LaGuardia, the Lubavichers would have had him fired in about 15 minutes, either for being deliberately anti-Semitic or for being so clueless that he didn't notice what such a rule meant. But because it's discriminatory and rude, I felt it was important to complain to the supervisors about it, and a few of them understood that they had was an issue, though the practice spread to the other San Francisco area airports for a while anyway.
As it happens, I am a Quaker, and while the guy-on-the-oatmeal-box hats weren't required religiously (just traditional style from places with lousy weather) Quakers do have a history of getting thrown in jail for refusing to take their hats off on principle, back in the 1600s/1700s. The English government insisted that commoners had to take off their hats and bow to their betters, whether they were nobility or appointed officials, and Quakers believed in equality of everybody and wouldn't cooperate with this. The airline-inspector's insistence on everybody taking off their hats was really the same thing; it's not like a terrorist trying to smuggle a hand grenade in his hat is going to get it through the metal detector anyway. I'm not going to let them keep me off my airplane flight just because of that, but they did need to be reminded of what they were doing. These days, they're mostly trying to pretend that you might be a shoe-bomber (Birkenstock buckles often trip the metal detectors...) or making you take your belt off, or doing lots of extra metal-detector-wand probing of women wearing underwire bras, or mishandling laptops and crumpling paper in briefcases, or harassing parents who don't want to be separated from their small children.
And then there's my friend Dave, who seems to attract trouble at airports anyway. It wasn't just the hat or the beard or the attitude or the fact that he was flying to Amsterdam, it was the backpack with five or six laptops in it that really was too far outside the pre-TSA airport-rent-a-cop's experience band...
hmmm... (Score:2)
I swear, this country is tearing itself apart with self-induced paranoia.
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know I've been wondering about this, because that average person that I talk to is much more sane. Well, not as much as would be nice, but certainly not so bent on bombing and policing everything like Bush and the general media seem to be. The paranoia is being spread by from the top down, it certainly isn't grassroots. What bothers me is that so many people seem to just eat it up and don't pause to think about the reality of the situation for a minute.
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
But where does this information come from?
Does the EU also invade passengers privacy?
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
Including things like ticket, method of payment, meal choice etc..
Its the fact that the EU is agreeing to allow airlines pass that information to the US. It is essentially a temporary deal until proper legislation can be brought in to support it. Unlike the US the EU has Data Protection laws that make it illegal to maintain personally identifiable data on someone without:
a) registering with the data protection registrar,
b) having good reason for having that data (and permission),
c) maintaining security of that data,
d) keeping the data no longer than necessary and
e) not sharing the data without permission (aside from legal considerations)
Also data on you is available for a nominal fee and should they have no reason for holding the data then they can be prosecuted (I believe it can be a criminal offence - although I'm not sure, that might just be if you don't register...), and you have the right to alter inncorrect data (although you might need a court to decide what is correct).
This tends to allieviate privacy concerns, and without this deal / legistlation the information could not legally be passed to the US.
Being a citizen in a country that is a member of the EU, I much prefer the Data Protection laws to nothing, it gives me a legal recourse into my credit record, into idiot companies sharing personal data on the web, etc.
Z.
Just one of those sacrifices... (Score:2, Funny)
Meals without pork? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure that airlines serve meals with any sort of meat, nevermind pork!
Re:Meals without pork? (Score:3, Informative)
--jeff++
Reasonable expectations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reasonable expectations? (Score:2)
Re:Reasonable expectations? (Score:2)
it's not about privacy, it's about discrimination (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem in this case is not with the fact that one's meal preference is public, the problem is that the US government potentially uses it to subject people to extra hassles at airports. That's discrimination. And, in fact, my "reasonable expectation" is that if I type my meal preference into Expedia, the flight crew knows it, and the guy sitting next to me on the plane knows it; nobody else has any justification to correlate what I eat with who I am.
It may be costly, it may be time consuming, but the only way a society that wants to be free and open can do passenger screening is by applying non-discrimination uniformly. And, yes, this means more luggage screening. But the alternative in which some people are waved through security because they are of the appropriate racial, ethnic, and religious background, and others are subjected to interrogations will tear a society apart. Do that for a few years, and you will be creating terrorists at home as second class citizens become more and more resentful.
Of course they want that... (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's much more useful than that - if they're able to collect all that information, they can correlate it with people who give money to the Green [politechbot.com] Party [counterpunch.org] or peace groups [burning-wheel.org] or environmental [alternet.org] groups (some of whom are already on the TSA's not-allowed-to-fly [inthesetimes.com] lists because of their political incorrectness.) Also, the increased "information sharing" between the US civilian police agencies, spook agencies, and military, plus the redefinitions of lots of forms of vice as "national security" issues means that they can use those hotel bills from Humboldt County, California to decide to give your luggage a lot of extra attention when you're flying back from Amsterdam, or ask the Internal Revenue Service to check out your tax returns after that trip to Las Vegas just in case you might have been "money laundering" or passing some cash to that suspicious Penn [pennandteller.com] fellow.
This sounds like the movie Airplane. (Score:3, Insightful)
If only *this* were a movie, I might find it funny.
Ahhhhh..... (Score:2)
And corner the pork market!
Re:Ahhhhh..... (Score:2)
Coffee time!
No pork (Score:2)
weird.. (Score:2)
It's going to be really hard trying to not make nazi references about this one, considering they are being so anti-sematic. Or maybe we should just be scared of vegitarians as well as jews and muslims.
Wish I were rich... (Score:2)
For those who didn't read the article... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm glad terrorists don't read /. (Score:2)
Re:I'm glad terrorists don't read /. (Score:3, Funny)
On the one hand (Score:2)
So, here's what you do... (Score:2)
If you're a terrorist, make sure to order a pork meal...and don't eat it. Sheesh. Talk about a stupid parameter to search by.
*shakes head*
Just another reason I think this homeland security office is a joke...
Re:So, here's what you do... (Score:2)
Just another reason I think all the knee-jerk armchair politicans are a joke...
There is NO MENTION of pork... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, this can be seen as an invasion of privacy. While this is terrible and unfortunate, the fact of the matter is there currently exists some very terrible, murderous people in this world that are willing to do things that have never really been done before, in order to accomplish their task of murder.
I dislike the facts of this modern reality just as much as the next person. Unfortunately, there isn't much that the US Government can do to protect its citizens (which is a big component of government) and preserve the way life has been.
There simply is no other way to rectify this issue. Even if the US pulled out of the Middle East and swore off the oil habit and simply ceased dealing with that part of the world. The minds behind these murderous fundamentalists would not change. They would still plan their assaults and still carry out what they are able to carry out.
Living in this day and age is simple one of those most frustrating of times to live in.
Re:There is NO MENTION of pork... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Never been done before? I'm sure the people in Europe and Israel will be pleased to know that terrorist are just now starting to target innocent civillians in ways that cause increasing casualties and fear. The only remarkable things about the September 11 attacks were that A) The scale of damage was more than even they had planned, due to the towers collapsing, and B) it was a rare attack on US soil, whereas before we'd been able to get complacent due to the fact that most targets were "US interests overseas."
I dislike the facts of this modern reality just as much as the next person. Unfortunately, there isn't much that the US Government can do to protect its citizens (which is a big component of government) and preserve the way life has been.
You know what? There's not much the government can do. Even if you turned the US into an Orwellian nightmare, a determined person could still find a way around the system to kill people and cause damage. In fact, given the government's historical record, it's likely that its current path toward police-state policies will only serve to feed the corrupt elements in the government, and provide little to no actual increased safety to the citizens. Remember, every generation, we give the government more and more powers that our grandparents would have found alarming, yet we don't get any safer. Curious, that.
There simply is no other way to rectify this issue. Even if the US pulled out of the Middle East and swore off the oil habit and simply ceased dealing with that part of the world. The minds behind these murderous fundamentalists would not change. They would still plan their assaults and still carry out what they are able to carry out.
You're right - no matter what we do, those murderous fundamentalists will always be able to find a way to carry out their plans. We'll catch them some of the times, they'll succeed some of the times. The US is too big to guard all of the borders and coastlines. As a cultural melting pot, it's very easy for anyone to blend into the background.
Here's a little fun activity: Take all of these new "security" ideas that are being proposed (Dept. of Homeland Security, easy wiretapping, secret operations, loss of privacy), and describe them to your grandparents and others of the WWII/Cold War generation. Then ask them if you're talking about the United States, or those godless commies in Russia. I'd be willing to bet that most of them will think you're talking about Russia.
We're in the process of destroying America in order to save it. Judging from the people we keep sending to Washington, the popular opinion is that if we just give the government some more power, everything will be alright, but I'd rather accept the fact that there will always be a chance that terrorists could strike than watch the continued erosion of our civil liberties in favor of an ever-more-powerful federal government.
In the end, though, the people want to give more and more of their rights and responsibilities to the government, so you'll probably get your wish soon. We'll see if it actually solves the problem, though. I have my doubts.
Government power is far more dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
But I find increased government power far more scary. Remember that more than 90% of all mass killings have been done by governments, including the US federal government.
If that gets out of hand, and anything that has unchecked power will abuse that power, we will long back to the rosy happy innocent days of only fearing a rag tag band of deranged lunatics.
Re:There is NO MENTION of pork... (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, this was brought on by years upon years of terrible foreign policy and a reliance on oil products. If we could have sworn off oil decades ago, we likely wouldn't be experiencing the terrible reality that we are experiencing now.
When before in history has a group allying itself with no country just their religous beliefs gone to such lengths to murder and cause mass destruction?
Your statements make it seem as though you think it is alright that they committed those acts of murder. Furthermore, like its okay for a fundamentalist religous group to target and murder a nation of people simply because of the policies of a government body that most of those people disagree with.
All of this disagreeing, leading to mass murder crap is getting the human race nowhere. We all generally have the same needs. We all generally laugh the same, cry the same and bleed the same.
The wholesale slaughter of any people, regardless of the reasons, is never justified.
Meals with pork (Score:2)
Besides, I wonder if this terrorist might think to leave the pork to one side, or choose the alternative that is always served.
Passenger list? Yes. CC numbers? NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
Name
Airport of departure
Airport of destination
and that is IT. The government doesn't need my credit card nuber, and my meal preference is none of their damned business!
Besides, one doesn't have to request "no pork" to eat "no pork." I can just as easily get the meal with pork and not eat it, just the salad or crackers or whatever else I bring on board.
And yes, I agree that we are shooting ourselves in teh foot with all these knee-jerk reactions. At first I always said that this wasn't about being against Muslims/Islam, but our beloved executive branch is making that argument harder and harder every day.
Re:Passenger list? Yes. CC numbers? NO! (Score:2)
And I would also like to think you for your very own knee-jerk reaction--the article didn't even mention the word pork! Thanks for playing
I just do not get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And when will governments realize that these terrorists DO NOT use technology. The problem is that when you use technology to figure out profiles, it assumes that others are using technology as well.
Of course the current administration cannot be blamed alone, the EU is going along lock stock and barrel.....
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Wait a fscking minute!! (Score:2)
Who gave them the right to give my flight data to Ashcroft??!!
WANKERS!
Carnival Booth Attack (Score:2, Interesting)
You get food? (Score:2)
Anyone else remember a time before "Meal" meant "cracker with micro-slab of cheese"?
Fly first class (Score:2)
More carry on baggage too, which might come in handy....
At least their ecumenical! (Score:2)
Well, that covers Muslims and Jews! See, Bush is the great bringer together guy!
Passenger Profiling (Score:2, Informative)
I'm _NOT_ a terrorist. Is it just me, or have most airport security guards seen a few too many bad movies? Here's a tip for you guys: the terrorists will PROBABLY not be dressed or otherwise look anything other than ordinary. People who are going to do bad things generally try not to draw attention to themselves.
I think we could all save ourselves a lot of grief if airport security was given a vaguely realistic training session.
Granola crunchers! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is an interesting data point to want to collect, but how much does it really mean? Both Islam & Judaism shun pork, but only the former are "known" to be the bomber type. And if someone was going to do something, couldn't they take the generic meal & not eat it? (I know that personally I wouldn't want to have my last meal be a tray of warmed over airline food -- yuck.) Or if they really want to avoid suspicions, just not eat the part they find offensive? That seems best for someone that assumes thie meal choice is going to raise suspicions & wants to keep a low profile.
It seems to me that the meal choice is something that a person who is up to something would either [a] be too preoccupied to worry about, or [b] would think of & take a non-obvious choice (like the default meal, or a vegetarian meal) in order to avoid suspicions. Either way, the "bad guys" aren't going to do the obvious thing, and you end up with a crude form of racial profiling for thousands of honest people. How is that helpful?
The George Buh [sick] security doctrine: grasp at enough straws & throw out enough civil liberties and maybe, just maybe, you can trick the public into believing that these policies are going to do a whit of good. Remarkably, it seems to be working, if only domestically...
A warning about "profiling" ala the 47 Samurai (Score:5, Interesting)
Could not a really devout terrorist do the same too? Ordering pork (its not like they need to actually eat it), appearing anything BUT a terrorist,so as to infiltrate these security methods and commit some act?
Re:A warning about "profiling" ala the 47 Samurai (Score:4, Insightful)
If I recall, this is exactly what the nineteen hijackers of 9/11 did; at least insofar as drinking beer, attending strip clubs, shaving their beards, etc. This sort of instruction was also found in the al Qaeda training manuals our folks found in Afghanistan. They know what the stereotypical terrorist is, too, and they strive to avoid that.
Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been a number of cases since 9-11 where would-be hijackings etc. have been stopped by the PASSENGERS. The equation is changed.
This is so true it isn't even funny. I have said to friends that the people who should really be pissed at the terrorists should be the other political groups that hijacked. Why 9/11 worked is because everyone expected a standard hijacking, were you'd be redirected and delayed for negotiations but had a high probability of survival. Now? Well, fuck, the assumption is that you're dead if you don't act. The whole "stay calm and everyone will be OK" line just won't work anymore.
This does not make sense. (Score:3, Informative)
None of the posted links suggests that food profiling would be used. Also, the third link to the CAPPS II program is misleading because it hasn't been approved yet.
I am just curious is all. On my last trip home from England, British Airways mistakenly classified me as a vegitarian.
Enjoy,
Slowly showing us their faces (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing has changed in the minds of our administrators and generals. They have always done this in the past. What has changed is that they need not apologize anymore. They can cut corners and costs. The information that they once had to collect covertly is now available on demand. So now that they demand information publicly, what new depths of covert intelligence is being collected? If this is what they get willingly, what are they taking under cover?
I see the fnords.
their credit card number (Score:3, Funny)
"News for Nerds" (Score:5, Informative)
As a number of folks have mentioned, the article notes nothing about requesting pork. To enlighten our slashdot editors such that they might device not to embellish future stories, let me explain why.
Yes, muslims do not eat pork. And yes, anyone who is sufficiently religious to consider it a good idea to die in a suicide bombing for one's faith is very likely to be sufficiently religious not to eat pork.
That said, nobody cares about pork. There's two reasons. The first is false positives. While it takes a pretty screwed up fanatic to be a suicide bomber, there are many people who actually do follow the peaceful teachings of Islam who aren't screwed up but don't eat pork. [0] Couple that with the fact that Jews also eat no pork, and there's a haystack of people who don't eat pork. A religious extremist mad suicide bomber type would be one hell of a hard needle to find.
The other reason is that religious extremist mad suicide bombers are misguided, not stupid. If somebody knows that porkless meals are a red flag, he's not going to order a porkless meal. When the stewardess shows up, he's simply going to say, "no, thank you. I'm not really hungry today" or he'll hand it to the fifteen year old kid in the next row. If you're planning on going to meet Allah tomorrow, well, he's not going to mind if you're a little hungry when you get there. Besides, I'd bet a guy like Allah's got a heavenly catering service.
Since it doesn't take a hell of a lot of thought to realize that pork's irrelevant, it really makes one's position look weak when one has to make stuff up to bolster it. While journalists have been slanted since journalism began, please do realize that your point is driven home much better when you simply present the facts, and don't feel a need to make them up.
[0] Yes, I know. "Aren't screwed up but don't eat pork." Yes. Even bacon. It sounds insane, doesn't it? But I assure....
mmmmmm.... bacon....
A question... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) If so, should they check out every single person? If they are unable for some reason to check out every single person, how should they decide who to check out?
It seems to me that people want to bitch and complain about any attempt identify possible security problems before they occur. I'm curious if these are the same people who criticize the U.S. government for not stopping the 9/11 attacks which, just as a side note, were committed by men who probably would not have eating pork on the way over here.
I was going to leave it at that, but let me throw out an example of why this complaining pisses me off so much: suppose you administered a mail server and wanted to make sure that your machine was not used to send spam. You have noticed in the past a pattern in which accounts were opened with similar information and from a particular IP block, and then those accounts were used to send huge blocks of spam. If one day you see a few new accounts opened following this pattern, is it really that unreasonable to take a few simple steps to check and see if those people start sending spam? Maybe check the logs a few days later, or write a simple script that monitors their port 25 traffic? You haven't kicked them out, you haven't blocked their port; you really haven't done anything other than keep an eye out, based on a known pattern.
The bottom line is, this information is a STARTING POINT. No one is in trouble. No one is prevented from travelling. But you have to start somewhere. Unless, that is, you want to sit back, do nothing, and complain about everything done by those who are actually responsible.
Randomness? (Score:3, Interesting)
By profiling people - in any way whatsover - all you are doing is telling a potential hijacker what not to do.
The 9/11 hijackers did a number of flights to determine what would trigger the "alarms" and what wouldn't. Exactly the same thing will happen here until we reach a point where the only people to set off a search alarm will be honest citizens. The real criminals will have made sure that they have faded perfectly into the background.
However, if you search people randomly then the criminal will never know if he can sneak past or not.
Comments due by Monday on the DOT's proposal (Score:5, Informative)
PrivacyActivism (http://www.privacyactivism.org) has a page (http://www.privacyactivism.org/Items/63) with more information and a sample comment letter.
Why a retained database of travel violates rights (Score:4, Interesting)
" All this personal information -- more than 30 data elements including every destination to which we travel, who we travel with, how we pay for the tickets (sometimes including credit card numbers), what contact numbers we provide, even any dietary preferences or health-related requirements we communicate to the airline -- will be available for an almost limitless range of governmental purposes under the broad information-sharing provisions of the Customs Act. ..."
" This is unprecedented. The Government of Canada has absolutely no business creating a massive database of personal information about all law-abiding Canadians that is collected without our consent from third parties, not to provide us with any service but simply to have it available to use against us if it ever becomes expedient to do so. Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society. ..."
" It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant disregard for the rights of Canadians. This database is legally wrong and morally wrong. If the Government can get away with systematically logging and analyzing all the foreign travel activities of every law-abiding citizen, then no other private activity will long be safe from being included in the same personal dossiers -- our shopping, our banking, our communications, our movements within the country. The "Big Brother" society will be irrevocably upon us. ..."
Unfortunately we in the US don't have anyone in a comparable position as this guy-- an ombudsman of privacy-- so its unlikely this proposal will be revamped to take privacy into consideration. I'd worry that complaining about it will get you on the list, and once there, you can't get off (or even correct data about yourself). Does this new system actually get us additional security for its great loss of privacy? Quoting once more [privcom.gc.ca]: "...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:
Re:Credit Card #s? (Score:2)
Fund the war against terror?
[paranoia mode: off]
Re:Credit Card #s? (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously though, I'm surprised European governments are allowing such infriction on the privacy of us, its citizens, and by a foreign government no less, who has no business whatsoever sticking its nose into my personal data.
If they want the information, they should go get it on their own soil. Demand all passengers landing in the US to disclose their credit card numbers, for example. That would lead to passenger uproar, you say? So where is the difference between candidly asking a passenger his credit card number, and sneakily procuring it from his airline company behind his back and without his explicit consent or even knowledge?
Re:Credit Card #s? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Orwell is alive and kicking... (Score:3, Informative)
Get YOUR Bush-Orwell 2004 campaign sticker! (Score:2, Flamebait)
- A.P.
Re:Meals W/O pork? (Score:2)
Re:Useful data (Score:3, Interesting)
Noticing that isn't useful -- anybody with recurring business in the same city and a more-or-less routine schedule is going to repeatedly fly on the same flight.
Start accepting that taking reasonable actions in collecting intelligence could help in preventing another terrorist attack.
This begs the question of what is "reasonable". Identifying passengers on an airplane and checking them against a watch list of people for whom grounds of suspicion have been established is reasonable. Poindexter's one-stop dossier project is not. Depending on the exact extent of the "passenger data" being provided by the EU, the step described in this story may or may not be reasonable.
Re:Sick folk (Score:4, Informative)
Many of us are getting tired of it as well.
Re:Homeland security = stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of spending billions on securing something that just needed tweaking they should be spending the money identifying weaknesses as seen through the eyes of a terrorist.
The next attack probably won't be on American soil. The next attack won't be using a plane.
The IRA in Ireland used these methods for years. If you attack using a car bomb once, next time use a mortar. Time after that call in a bomb hoax - don't need to do anything, but everything gets closed down anyway. Time after that drop a bomb in a litter bin. Time after that use a sniper. Each time security gets changed they attacked a different way.