So the Feds apparently have a database on all travelers

If you check my rating I have made 33 trips and have the feds yellow star frequent flyer next to my screenname. My most recent flight had a feedback of, "GREAT FLYER!!!! PROBABLY NOT A TERRORIST, BUT HAS LIBPIG TENDENCIES. OTHERWISE, WOULD LOVE TO HAVE FLY AGAIN!!!! AAAAAAAAA+++++++++++++"

I have a 96.9% rating, but that's only because I had one flight where the plane overbooked and I and several others complained and they called marshalls to restore order. We are working with paypal to get my money back and negative feedback will likely be mutually withdrawn.

 

always defending someone's rights to remain annoymous. Intelligence is all about finding patterns and identifying threats.

So they can't use race - and they use other data to find threats - and you still have issues with that? What on earth? You just are anti-CIA it seems, and that's really scary to me. We have to give them the tools they need in order to ensure our safety - this data doesn't infringe on anyone's right.

It's hilarious how paranoid everyone is. It's like you can't use behavior targeting in advertising because someone things you're being spied upon, and yet the same people are happy to let spyware on their machines. insane truly insane!

 

how is using their preference of meal not the same as using their religion?

i am absolutely not anti-cia. i am anti-infringement on my american rights that my constitutional gave me but do tell us why you hate the constitution.

and incidentally many times when these agencies overstep their bounds they lose their ability to actually go after the bad guys. if they're spending time checking out everyone who ordered a moslem meal they are hurting the chances of getting the real terrorists. this is a limited amount of resources and they should be targetted not just wasted via ineffective methods of profiling.

 

it is an infringement on the 4th amendment and the privacy act.

it also denies americans the right to see the evidence used against them or to challenge it - that is a basic right in this country. as this government has proved itself time and time again to be completely incompetent (or corrupt), i dont really trust them to be totally accurate with this program. innocent people will be blacklisted and not be able to see or challenge the evidence against them.

i also have a big problem with this quote -
"The government notice says ATS data may be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring decisions and in granting licenses, security clearances, contracts or other benefits. In some cases, the data may be shared with courts, Congress and even private contractors."

the government can share this data, which you are not allowed to see or challenge, with PRIVATE CONTRACTORS! or with a potential future employer. does this allow the government to sell our info to 3rd parties? it sounds like it does. and why would they need to share americans private data with foreign governments? and we (americans) cant even see it?

if this program is so good than why did the government hide it from the american people for 4 years?

the real criminals are running the show.

 

i am. they are terrorists.

 

Unless the person is being prosecuted, right? What does it matter if the person isn't prosecuted?

 

Islamic terrorrists aren't the enemy?

I don't understand what you're saying. Why is the profiling not effective in your opinion?

If you are being profiled, unless you're a terrorist, I don't see how your liberty is being taken away.

 

How is it an infringement on the 4th Amendment? It appears to be exempt from the Privacy Act (which isn't an essential liberty but a legislative act).

Actually there is a procedure to challenge your presence on the list. You traditionally had the right to see what evidence there is against you in a court of law - I'm not sure that extends to a terrorist watch list. Being on the list is not the same as being charged with a crime - it brings increased scrutiny. The 4th Amendment doesn't stop the government from scrutinizing threats.

Well, you can challenge it. Contractors and other employers play a large function in our security so that would be relevant information for them to know. This isn't private data anyway - what you eat, where you travel - this is information already in the public sphere.

Because we share intelligence with other countries in a joint effort provide for our security. That is not unusual or particularly scary.

If it is so bad why did they announce it in the Federal Register? That's just a dumb argument - it is the same as saying 'why did we keep a program to target terrorists secret?' Well, maybe so the terrorists wouldn't know about it? More accurately it is because the program didn't start to encompass individuals until this summer, not four years ago.

Honestly, I'm not particularly alarmed by this program but at the same time I can understand why it makes some people uneasy (and I'm not talking about the 'CIA are terrorists, terrorists are misunderstood good people' crowd). Since it incorporates some classified information into the profile I can understand a hesitancy to allow challenge through normal channels, but there should be some special judicial or Congressional forum to address specific instances where the information is incorrect.

 

are they not being prosecuted if they are denied to fly on a plane? and than they are not allowed to see the evidence that keeps them from flying?

 

it seems that it is an infringement on the 4th amendment by the fact that being on the list could lead to unreasonable search and seisure. call me a lib-pig, but i dont think your food choices should factor into whether or not you should be subject to a search.

on the privacy act, you are right - they did exempt the program from it, but that doesnt make it right. i suppose they are not technically breaking the law, but it is still very unamerican, imo.

i believe the article said that you can not challenge your presence on the list. you are allowed to file a complaint if you are being searched or questioned, but even than they are not obligated to disclose why you are on the list.

- Without notifying the public, federal agents for the past four years have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

The Homeland Security privacy impact statement added that "an individual might not be aware of the reason additional scrutiny is taking place, nor should he or she" because that might compromise the ATS' methods.

Nevertheless, Ahern said any traveler who objected to additional searches or interviews could ask to speak to a supervisor to complain. Homeland Security's privacy impact statement said that if asked, border agents would hand complaining passengers a one-page document that describes some, but not all, of the records that agents check and refers complaints to Custom and Border Protection's Customer Satisfaction Unit.

Homeland Security's statement said travelers can use this office to obtain corrections to the underlying data sources that the risk assessment is based on. "There is no procedure to correct the risk assessment and associated rules stored in ATS as the assessment ... will change when the data from the source system(s) is amended."

"I don't buy that at all," said Jim Malmberg, executive director of American Consumer Credit Education Support Services, a private credit education group. Malmberg noted how hard it has been for citizens, including members of Congress and even infants, to stop being misidentified as terrorists because their names match those on anti-terrorism watch lists.

not anymore though, right? god bless the military commissions act!

apparently it is public info to everyone but the person it is about.

has the cia not committed terrorism? by carrying out terrorist acts they are terrorists.

i agree w/ you there - that is probably the best we can hope for.

bottom line for me is that i dont trust the people running our country - they are liars and criminals who need to be put on trial for what they have done. every day that they are in office is dangerous for this country. i never imagined that america would go down the path it is going - spying on american citizens, torturing people (sometimes sexually) and such. these are things we heard about going on in the soviet union and thought how terrible it was - and now it is here!

i cannot support a government that thinks torturing people is good. george bush's former legal council john yoo argues that there is no law, treaty or act of congress that can keep bush from having a childs testicles crushed infront of his parents - any person who thinks they can do that is disgusting. this is bush's former legal advisor and one of the authors of the patriot act saying this.

 

OK, then even from your standpoint the existence of the program is not a violation of the 4th Amendment, but it may in the future create a situation that is a violation of the 4th Amendment. I think we're operating on incomplete information but I don't see anything unreasonable about greater scrutiny as a result of the program. Remember that a human officer still makes the determination on the ground. You are vastly oversimplifying by saying someone is going to be detained for their food choice. That is likely one of many variables ultimately crunched by the program. Of course, who trusts a vegan anyway?

You can challenge the underlying data on which your greater scrutiny was based, you can complain about the delays. I think that's enough considering the program just started and revisions are on the way.

You probably already know what you ate on the plane.

No, the CIA are not terrorists. I think your perspective blurs the concept of what a terrorist is. Under your interpretation the real question would be 'who isn't a terrorist.' Certainly every government would be, the UN would be (see the bombing of civilians in Serbia) and hence the 146 nation states that serve it, and thousands of groups and individuals. A state can terrorize but I don't think they can commit terrorism - that is the province of sub and supranational groups that exercise power mainly through small unit actions designed to instill terror in a general populace.

If you think our current situation is like the Soviet Union then you're just mistaken. I'm sorry but the two just aren't comparable. Our European allies like England and France and Germany have had similar surveillance and intelligence gathering techniques for decades and THEY are nothing like the old Soviet Union. Like I said earlier, I understand your concern, but the sky isn't falling. I also understand that you don't support the current administration - that is your right and no one is trying to say otherwise.

 

the data isn't used to try them or get warrants - just to indentify threats. It's not based on someone's meal. They take in 100 variables - do a multivariate analysis to indentify segments that are high-risk vs. low-risk, based on matching to known terrorist suspects.

It's not one variable. It's the combination that indentifies someone.

So it could be someone who pays in cash, has been to Saudi Arabia in the past 3 months, is unmarried, and choses a certain meal. It's that COMBINATION that identifies a threat.

You don't arrest someone like that - you just watch them more closely - why would anyone be against that? Now consider that 100's of variable are being considered, and you can see that this is a way of finding suspects without bothering most law abiding Muslims.

Isn't this what we want? To get the terrorists and let the innocents go through unbothered?

 

Just eat pork when you fly, it clears any negative connotations from your report.



DD

 

it is pretty simple. if you commit terrorism than you are a terrorist. the cia has committed terrorism - therefore, they are terrorists.

so when the cia carried out bombings in iran in 1953 to blame them on the elected leader mossadeq and set up the shah, you dont consider it terrorism?

of course it isnt comparable, but we are going down that road. the spying on citizens to the degree that this government now does bears a resemblance.

i dont care how europe treats its citizens - they are socialists! this is america and i hold it to a higher standard. and since when have bush supporters wanted us to be like france? no to crepes - yes to freedom fries!

 

or have pig races down the aisle!

 

Well, you can run in circles and shout 'everyone's a terrorist.' Kinda blunts the impact and makes the term useless.

Not at all (assuming your accusations are fact, which I don't conceed at this time). An act of war maybe, but not terrorism. To terrorize is not what defines terrorism. Area bombing by the Allies in WWII was designed to terrorize the German population into turning against the Nazis. That wasn't terrorism. The UN did the same to the Serb population. That wasn't terrorism.

What you're missing is what this fact does to the slippery slope argument. Our allies have had vastly more in depth surveillance/searches than we have for decades yet still are not police states ala the Soviet Union. While I agree these efforts should be monitored, the fear of a police state are unfounded.

 

In both cases you cite the goal of the bombing was not to cause general terror among the civilian population to create preasure for policy change. The bombings all had tactical objectives.

 

That's a false distinction. Even groups we all acknowledge are terrorists don't strike out to terrorize with no objective. International Conventions address how state's should act and what they are when they act improperly - that's why I think 'terrorism' should be defined starting with the actor - a sub or supranational non-state entity. There is no agreement on this view and I am not contending there is a consensus - merely giving my opinion as to how it should be defined.

Some definitions that lean this way:

The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins:

Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

 

First off I don't think there is a constitutional issue here. There is no right to fly and individualy all of this could be avoided by choosing not to fly. That said though I don't feel totally comfortable with this program. There are two is problems I see with it. The first is general incompetence and as I've said before it strikes me as odd that people who complain about government waste and bureaucracy in all sorts of things are willing to trust the government with keeping track of our movements. Its the same government that is building bridges to no where that you are trusting with this program. The second potential problem is potential abuse. The less accountability built into programs like these the more potential there is for abuse. Like it or not the people who run these programs are people who are just as liable to be petty and greedy like the rest of us which is why we should be hesitant about granting such broad powers with great secrecy and little accountability.

 

So under that definition then the Jews who fought back in the Warsaw Ghetto were terrorist while the Nazis weren't.