Travel News - Great News! TSA assures us that CAPPS ll is designed to catch foreign terrorists!

Finally some recognition from the brain trust at the TSA that our primary enemies at the airport are foreign terrorists.

The tough part, of course, will be designing an algorithm that narrows in on the young non-citizen male muslim extremist terrorist who wants to kill us and destroy our way of life without also ensnaring the patriotic (but credit-impaired) US citizens who aren't terrorists. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">U.S.: Airport screening is no threat to privacy

Susan E. Peterson, Star Tribune

Published March 5, 2003 SECU05

The CAPPS II airport security screening system that has rung alarm bells with many civil liberties activists isn't actually screening passengers yet, a spokesman for the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said Tuesday.

Robert Johnson, director of communications for the TSA, said tests being conducted by Delta Air Lines at three undisclosed airports are testing only the system's infrastructure. He declined to say when CAPPS II screening will start or when other airlines, such as Eagan-based Northwest, will start using it.

But when official screening does start, he said, it will be narrowly focused to catch foreign terrorists, with lots of privacy safeguards. The TSA has said CAPPS II won't profile passengers based on race, religion or ethnicity.[/b]</font>

www.startribune.com/stories/535/3734191.html (http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/3734191.html)

Those who frequent FlyerTalk probably know that for several months now I have lumped Robert Johnson (the TSA spokesman quoted above) in with the leaders of the Taliban. He has up to now represented what is reprehensible about this organization.

But today he finally sees the light and tells the press that FOREIGN TERRORISTS are the intended target of our TSA madness.

This is really great news. He may not be a decision-maker, but at least the public affairs office ot the TSA reads the mail I have been sending them. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Praise God - our government is finally going to look for the foreign terrorists who are our real enemies. What's it been now, 18 months??

[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 03-05-2003).]

Anyone know how they are planning to get hold of foreign bank account details?

As I foreigner I'd be interested to know what my bank is planning on telling the US Government about me.

Tell him to stick his assurances where the sun doesn't shine. I don't trust him or anyone else in government today to use this information only as they say they will.

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

And what about white foreign terrorists? Will it catch them?

And what about Americans who are terrorists?

This "narrow focus" on one segment of terrorists would be great if the TSA wanted to be a niche player in some kind of market, but I'm going to be just as upset if Americans crash a plane into me as if muslim extreemists do the same.

d

Well, this is the point I have been making pretty much since the beginning. The press has no knowledge of what the system really will or will not do, and absolutely no incentive to write any story that is not hysterical in tone. Given that, the TSA does do a very bad PR job.

Frankly though, I dont think it is either their job or their responsibility to speak to the 1/100 of 1% or so (my opinion) of the population that is completely alienated. Why focus any energy at all on people who are completely fixed and unwavering in an anti-governemnt position?

So they can see the future?? How do these morons think they are going to find sleeper cells where operatives are already US citizens.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:


Frankly though, I dont think it is either their job or their responsibility to speak to the 1/100 of 1% or so (my opinion) of the population that is completely alienated. Why focus any energy at all on people who are completely fixed and unwavering in an anti-governemnt position? </font>

Following your insistence, Brian, that we all submit data to support our opinions, would you please provide a link for the quantification of those "completely alienated"? Thanks very much.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SeAAttle:
Following your insistence, Brian, that we all submit data to support our opinions, would you please provide a link for the quantification of those "completely alienated"? Thanks very much.</font>

Please don't be snide, and reread what I wrote.

I have said, many times, that opinions are fine, when they are labeled as such. It is opinions masquerading as assumed facts that drive me crazy.

Additionally,people whose sole form of debating ability comes from name calling are incapable of making an argument, and are pretty much ignored by the big kids at the table.

Hopefully you can keep these differences clear. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 03-06-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Markie:
Anyone know how they are planning to get hold of foreign bank account details?

As I foreigner I'd be interested to know what my bank is planning on telling the US Government about me.</font>

A joint intelligence hi-tech team has already worked on European banks if people from the financial fraud task force of the FBI are to be listened to. They are having issues with Middle Eastern and Asian financial institutions due to both language and paper-orientation of many of these banks and multiple people with similar names, often with no bio-data on file.

And let us not forget countries with banking secrecy laws.

And as posted elsewhere on this board, if you do not have a US address and SSN, you will not get credit cards issued in the US, and therefore no US credit history.

Just minor details....

It is not far-fetched to see how this will be used to determine if you should be watched:

The info will be shared with other government agencies (they have said this.)

If you are a "yellow" (and thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands will be "yellow", nobody knows the real number) there will in all probability be a machinery to spy on you, which means wiretaps and internet taps and monitoring all your friends and associates.

If you are a "red" you can't even travel. So a bureaucrat is empowered to prohibit you from traveling.

And this is only going to be done for non-citizens? First of all, I don't believe it. Second, that makes no sense because the Powers That Be know that many suspects are citizens. Third, how do we know that? Everything about this program is a secret.

Sorry to realize this, but just not having a US address or SSN will not help. If you have an overseas issued Visa, Mastercard, AmEx, Discover, or any other US-based credit/debit or ATM card network, the US govt. will cross-check, names, addresses and purchasing histories to identify people who may be avoiding taxes. Also, a task force, including people from the NSA in Maryland, is looking at pulling and pooling data from foreign computer networks as well related to finance, travel, telco, etc.

IIRC, a recent court case was deciding in favor of the IRS and its ability to access records of Visa and Mastercard and ATM networks to identify Americans who were using foreign-based cards.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 03-06-2003).]

I think there must be a lot of push-back to this idea.

Why else are these assurances being uttered right now?

Let's keep pushing back. Perhaps the program will be killed.

Although the majority of Americans might be in favor of this "increased" security, it is us travelers who pay the bills. And I do not actually think most Americans would support CAPPS II anyway -- it seems intrusive to most people I think.

Perhaps we can kill it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by eMailman:
And let us not forget countries with banking secrecy laws.</font>

The Financial Times did a piece talking about how new US regulations (or pending regulations) are now posing serious risks to hedge funds around the world, as the regulations require way more disclosure than most of the hedge funds and their investors want.


I agree with richard. The more "assurances" I get from the government about something sounds suspicious in the first place, the more skeptical I get. Without any evidence and knowing how things are these days, I'm not very optimistic about things that I can't see any proof of.

d

BA now has an option on the UK booking line to 'find out how BA will give your information to foreign governments, press *'

Basically they tell you that they can hand any information they have about you or your travel plans to any government en-route. In view of the fact that they have 15 years data in their frequent flyer scheme about me - this could be lots of information!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Please don't be snide, and reread what I wrote.
.
.
.
.
Additionally,people whose sole form of debating ability comes from name calling are incapable of making an argument, and are pretty much ignored by the big kids at the table.

Hopefully you can keep these differences clear. Thank you.

</font>

If that wasn't snide .... ???

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Please don't be snide, and reread what I wrote.

I have said, many times, that opinions are fine, when they are labeled as such. It is opinions masquerading as assumed facts that drive me crazy.

Additionally,people whose sole form of debating ability comes from name calling are incapable of making an argument, and are pretty much ignored by the big kids at the table.

Hopefully you can keep these differences clear. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 03-06-2003).]</font>

I am sorry Brian but this does not jive with your insistence that we provide support for our opinions, or "feelings" as you call them. Here is a quote from one of your posts:

"I am chock full of opinions, some very strong, but I do not attempt to transform them into facts. When I state an opinion, I also state my support for it, which allows the reader to make their own determination of its validity.

I get honked off when people state something they belive as though it is an established fact, then refuse or are unable to back it up with any evidence at all. "

The key part of this statement is "when I state an opinion, I also state my support for it....."

You're welcome.

My support is that I believe it, which is all the support I need for my opinion.

And Samantha, if you have something to say on the topic, I am delighted to hear it. If you are so fascinated by me that you want to start a thread about me, that would be in Omni. Thank you.

Quite the little self-promoter, I see ... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
My support is that I believe it, which is all the support I need for my opinion.
</font>

Please see my post above in which I quote you:

"I get honked off when people state something they belive as though it is an established fact, then refuse or are unable to back it up with any evidence at all. "

I will have nothing further to say but will simply let others judge whether your comments are consistent.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SeAAttle:
Please see my post above in which I quote you:

"I get honked off when people state something they belive as though it is an established fact, then refuse or are unable to back it up with any evidence at all. "

I will have nothing further to say but will simply let others judge whether your comments are consistent.</font>

Well, I do have something to say. I could not have been clearer in establishing what was my opinion, but this is either unclear to you or you are intentionally obfuscating.

If the difference between opinion and fact is unclear to you, there are many sources where you can educate yourself as to the difference. If you are obfuscating, you are not doing a good job of it.

Until then, you would be wise to steer clear of conversations on the topic. Better to talk about the issue, which you have managed to completely ignore my points on, in order to talk about me.

Making friends everywhere you go I see, Brian. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif



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

back to the thread topic, please

--richard, moderator

San Jose is one of the three airports!

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1865%257E1213532,00.html

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by VanMan:
San Jose is one of the three airports!

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1865%257E1213532,00.html</font>

I just flew out of there with a friend. I didn't check any luggage and was pulled to the side and wanded (kept my shoes on and they didn't search my bag on). Free to go about 10 seconds later.

My friend was pulled aside, wanded, told to remove shoes and had his bag searched. Given the info in this article, I wonder why? He has no record and has pristine credit.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
So they can see the future?? How do these morons think they are going to find sleeper cells where operatives are already US citizens.

</font>


Unfortunately, our government has already proven that it cant find it's ... with both hands.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mikey1003:

Unfortunately, our government has already proven that it cant find it's ... with both hands.</font>

LOL. So utterly untrue. Lost in all of the name calling hijinks around here are the real capcities and protections built into CAPPS II:

"Privacy experts have expressed fears that the system is intrusive as the government combines private data on passengers with information it already stores. Not so, contend TSA officials, who say the system has no data mining capabilities and won't be designed to create files on individuals. “The system will have no capability to do its own intelligence sweeps,” says Chet Lunner, a spokesman for the Transportation Department, which oversaw TSA until last week. “It's fairly analogous to credit-card transaction, using the same logic and algorithms.” No permanent records will be maintained.

So anxious are officials about privacy concerns that the government is sending its top brass--including Admiral James Loy, undersecretary for security at Transportation--to speak with civil-liberties and privacy groups in the coming weeks about CAPPS II."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=74&e=8&cid=74&u=/cmp/20030228/tc_cmp/iwk20030228s0003

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 03-10-2003).]

The statement which Brian quotes, which seems to imply that CAPS II won't maintain any permanent records would appear to be a lie (by the person quoted, not by Brian).

How could you have "red" (do not travel) simply based on credit card like algorithims? Doesn't the existence of "red" imply some permanent files?

Let's review the facts:

1. CAPPS II is a profiling tool designed to assign a threat level to each person travelling.

2. The CAPPS II system will use information such as the traveler's credit rating, and banking information to come up with the thread level.

Okay, now let's say the CAPPS II system is purely transactional in nature, like a credit card transaction. It will still maintain a dossier on individuals. The dossier will be in the form of on-demand compilations of information from many different sources. So the dossier is on-demand, big deal. Technically all you are saying is that the data is stored elsewhere and compiled on demand. There is still a dossier on each traveler, this is simply semantic hair-splitting.

And my point is that it must contain even more than what Richard says. I would be willing to make a significant wager that "Red" (Do not travel) will not result from a mere review of CC transactions. And, if it did, it would be stupid. Notwithstanding what side of the argument I am on (and I haven't decided yet), I think just about everyone would agree that the people listed on the "FBI Wanted Terrorist" list should be flagged as "Red", even if their credit card transactions are normal.

In other words, the public statements about how CAPS II will work are untrue.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">the public statements about how CAPS II will work are untrue. </font>

And incomplete. Omission is a form of untruth.

CAPPS II also I am sure draws from government run databases, for instance FINCEN I would imagine. It isn't just based upon a credit check.

And remember how hard it often is to change something that is incorrect on your credit reports? Imagine how hard it will be if there is an untruth and you are not allowed to fly:

"Why not?"

"We don't know. They don't tell us. It just says you can't fly."

"How do I find out why?"

"Write this address."

Sure. Just like the TSA's famous toll free number http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

The government itself said (in the Federal Register, where new regulations are announced) that CAPPS II records that will be retained for 50 years. 'Nuff said?

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by eMailman:
And let us not forget countries with banking secrecy laws.

And as posted elsewhere on this board, if you do not have a US address and SSN, you will not get credit cards issued in the US, and therefore no US credit history.

Just minor details....</font>

On the negative side here, the US Government (aka Big Brother) will be filing lawsuits as necessary to force Visa, MasterCard and Amex (all US companies) to disclose transaction data regardless of the location/jurisdiction of the member bank...thus negating bank secrecy laws.

On the plus side here, there are reasonable ways around this. Anyone familiar with offshore banking will tell you it is easy to create a small offshore company/trust, and have credit/debit cards issued with the company/trust name.

These transactions are not "transparent"...they can be tracked and reported via Visa or Mastercard...but if you do things properly, they cannot be traced back to you, only traced back to the company you setup.

The properly chosen jurisdiction will not release any information to the US about the company ownership without a court order issued in that jurisdiction.

There are quite a few stories about US agents flying into foreign jurisdictions with written demands for account information, only to be escorted back to the airport and sent home empty-handed.

Where people have gotten into alot of trouble with this stuff, is opening an offshore bank account in their own name (dumb), getting cards issued against the account (dumber), then using the cards here in the USA for transactions easily attached to their name, such as travel (dumbest). This has triggered alot of IRS audits for "failure to report".

Even with the company/trust set up with nominee directors and strict non-disclosure, you can still be caught if you use the credit/debit card to buy things (either in the US or abroad) which have your name attached (such as travel tickets, hotels, rental cars, etc). The way around this, is to use the cards to get cash out of the account, and then use the cash to pre-pay for "name-sensitive" merchandise so there is no link.

If anyone wants to truly protect their privacy and personal financial information from prying eyes (not just the Government, but private investigators, litigants, creditors, etc.), then going offshore is the way to go...as long as it is done smartly, and with good professional advise...which, unfortunately, does come at a price. I dont advocate it as a means to avoid taxes...just as a means to enforce privacy.

It is alot of work, and takes abit of monetary investment to pull off properly, but if you are truly interested in fighting back against this massive information and privacy grab, it is the easiest way to quietly remove yourself from "the system".

Well said, bocastephen http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

My concern with CAPPS II is that it will be used to try to catch people in things like tax evasion. IMHO the "war" on drugs was an excuse to invade people's financial privacy, pressure banks to reveal what they know, and extend the IRS's reach overseas. CAPPS II can be used similarly.

I think the right to travel is a human right and always under threat...

I wonder if any of our group's attorneys could make a case that the creation of rules which could cause a potential traveler to be deterred from taking their trip are a direct interference to interstate commerce, and thus violate the acts prohibiting interference with interstate commerce. Any takers on that theory? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
My concern with CAPPS II is that it will be used to try to catch people in things like tax evasion. IMHO the "war" on drugs was an excuse to invade people's financial privacy, pressure banks to reveal what they know, and extend the IRS's reach overseas. CAPPS II can be used similarly.

I think the right to travel is a human right and always under threat...</font>

My bigger concern, which has been echoed here before, is these initiatives will turn airports into "virtual borders" and turn all airline employees into de facto government agents, scanning their CAPPS enabled systems for any flags...such as open warrants, unpaid traffic violations, unpaid child support, etc. etc...and then call for local authorities to pick you up on the spot. Maybe not now, in the early stages of the program, but after CAPPS becomes common-place and accepted, it will become easier to "enhance it".

I echo the sentiment on the so-called war on drugs, which was simply an excuse to strip away what financial privacy we had left...and utilize asset forfeiture as a new method of police intimidation and abuse.

These new aviation programs could usher in an even worse environment, where the very act of entering an airport runs your identity through a huge dragnet of related systems, setting you up for an easy arrest; or constant tracking of your movements for potential use against you in any criminal or civil action.

Of course, the apologists could always chime in with..."if you have nothing to hide...".

bocastephen as usual you say it much better than I.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bocastephen:
Of course, the apologists could always chime in with..."if you have nothing to hide...".

</font>

Here's an article where nearly every pax interviewed gave the sheople-apologist answers. To be fair to them, however, they were standing in the security line at the airport and probably didn't want any more scrutiny. ("They're listening.")

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Airport security: For some, rating air travelers is taking it too far

9:22 PM 3/08/03

Brenda Ingersoll Wisconsin State Journal

Rush hour at the airport.

At 6:30 a.m. Thursday, 150 people waited patiently in a line extending from security checkpoints at the heart of the Dane County Regional Airport all the way to the outer doors on the northern side of the building, past the baggage carousels.

"This probably is a little worse than normal, but I put up with it," said Steve Suratt, 48, a sales director from Middleton, who flies about once a week. "I allow some more time and I don't get excited."

Talbott, 48, doesn't object to the post 9-11 airport security precautions, even though he's been singled out for "random" searches. "It's more annoying than anything else," he said. "As a frequent traveler, it would be nice if you could go right through."

"This is just part of our life right now," said Mike Markgraff, 60, general sales manager for a Belleville Ford dealer.
"If it keeps us safe, it's OK," she said. "But innocent people might get called a suspect when they're really not, and that's a big hassle. They probably know all that about us anyway. They already have your Social Security number, and if they have that, they can look up everything on you."

Pearson, who flies twice a month, does not object to CAPPS II. "I have nothing to hide," Pearson, 53, said. "If it expedites the process, I'm for it. We don't live in the same world anymore, and let's face it, people can get all kinds of information on you anyway."</font>

www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/44192.php (http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/44192.php)

If you have nothing to hide then I'm sure you won't object to random warrantless searches of your home. We might find a criminal (maybe even a terrorist once in a blue moon) that way.

If you think this keeps us safer, perhaps you won't mind getting a TSA permit to fly. Simply apply (in person) and wait 4-6 weeks for us to get back to you. No permit, No flight. Next!