Post #254,340
5/3/06 9:17:20 PM
|
Non-linear logical leap
next paragraph after your quote blames this on government collected information. Don't understand how that follows from stealing a mans identity from an extremely poorly designed commercial airline site.
Otherwise...agree that screening is largely inneffective. It looks for patterns. Beat it by changing the pattern. And since we are forced to be PC and make searches random (lest we offend the profiled)...you may as well not bother.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #254,352
5/3/06 11:08:22 PM
|
Being PC is more secure than profiling
If there is a clear profile that is searched, all that bad guys have to do is find people who don't fit the profile to do the job.
See [link|http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm|http://swiss.csail.m...2-papers/caps.htm] for details.
In fact the terrorists did this in 9/11. A big reason why so many of the people participating were Saudi is that they knew that people from Saudi Arabia had expedited visa procedures. Secondly they actually did a dry run before the real one to verify that they wouldn't be caught.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #254,408
5/4/06 12:05:08 PM
|
There is random..then there is random
There are obvious times with the random aspect lands on a non-starter. Infant tickets, 80 year old grandma from Wisconsin, etc. Completely unecessary screenings.
There are also pretty solid statistics on age/sex profiles of suicide bombers and some pretty telltale signs.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/opinion/28sperry.html?ex=1280203200&en=4cc1386247dcd8f0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss|http://www.nytimes.c...suserland&emc=rss]
Our problem is that we can't keep our collective mouths shut. Of course, if we establish a profile, we will be compelled to shout it off the highest rooftop so that everyone knows EXACTLY what we are looking for...and then it will obviously be a damned simple exersize to subvert.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #254,422
5/4/06 1:19:36 PM
|
We don't have to tell anyone our profile
If we're using profiles, it is easy to figure it out from what we do. And then becomes easy to subvert.
Also 80 year old grandma isn't necessarily an unnecessary screening. You never know, she might be carrying an "interesting package" from her son-in-law. And if we're screening everyone else, don't think that terrorists won't think of that angle.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #254,450
5/4/06 4:57:31 PM
|
Not so simple
because your article also points out the other necessary ingredient...which is an intelligent set of screeners and a process that does stray from the profile often enough to make it less evident. Its essentially a combination of approaches.
And I'll take my chances on that 80 year old Wisconsin woman's son before I'll take a chance on an 18-26 yr old male smelling of flower water and being recently shaven.
In the meantime, we're all chatting about something that is irrelevent...because it is highly unlikely that this plot will be repeated, ever...basically due to the door reinforcements making it near impossible for a small group of people to gain control of the aircraft.
Bombs are the possibility now...and THAT we should be able to catch with current tech...but since we all think $99 round trip is a God-given right...its likely we won't see that tech fully deployed anytime soon.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #254,482
5/5/06 1:55:31 AM
|
Technology isn't the answer
Well-trained, motivated people is the answer.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #254,489
5/5/06 3:47:26 AM
|
Yeah, but that would mean that you'd have to
pay them well, and we can't have that.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #254,359
5/4/06 12:00:48 AM
|
Who owns Capps II?
"the newly founded Department of Homeland Security began inviting computer companies to develop intelligent systems that could "mine" data on individuals, whizzing round state, private and public databases to establish what kind of person was buying the ticket.
In 2003, one of the pioneers of the system, speaking anonymously, told me that the project, by now called Capps II, was being designed to designate travellers as green, amber or red risks. Green would be an individual with no criminal record - a US citizen, perhaps, who had a steady job and a settled home, was a frequent flyer and so on. Amber would be someone who had not provided enough information to confirm all of this and who might be stopped at US Immigration and asked to provide clearer proof of ID. Red would be someone who might be linked to an ever-growing list of suspected terrorists - or someone whose name matched such a suspect.
"If you are an American who has volunteered lots of details proving that you are who you say you are, that you have a stable home, live in a community, aren't a criminal, [Capps II] will flag you up as green and you will be automatically allowed on to your flight," the pioneer told me."
----------
Incidentally, I complained about being singled out unusually often to the screener - they offered to let me fill out a form that would result in a background search and maybe get me onto a green list. I declined.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #254,368
5/4/06 2:57:11 AM
|
That's wonderful.
So all the terrorists have to do is recruit disaffected white boys who have frequent flyer miles.
Can you say "retarded"?
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #254,404
5/4/06 11:46:48 AM
|
DHS owns that.
But that has crap to do with the stealing of someones info from a boarding pass. Thats the logical leap the article is trying to make. They are trying to tell you that poor security at BA.com is somehow related to the government collection of your information.
It doesn't follow.
And what you are going to see at most major airports within the next 6 months is the introduction of the "trusted traveler" program. This effort is actually private (not gov't developed or paid for) and is being piloted in Orlando now.
You will pay, and you will volunteer your info and be screened. The gov't will be polled and gets final say on your status..but they do not have access to the data you provide beyond this. This is going to eventually largely supplant the need for CAPPS2.
However, if you don't like to be screened so much...buy your ticket in advance from the airline site (cheaptickets doesn't save you much anyway). They even offer the last minute deals on their own in addition to giving them to the 3rd party folks...get the autoemails from their frequent flyer programs.
And for pete's sake...take off your shoes without a hassle when you get to the security line.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
