"Whatever works, hon," said Beth Ehlers from North Carolina. "I'm willing to give up a little privacy so that we're never attacked again. Besides I have nothing to hide."

From http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,57909,00.html

Aaargh! Forget fusion power, and harness the rapid rotation of Ben Franklin's bones....

__x, I agree wholeheartedly.

The Achilles heel of many security proposals is the prevalence of false positives. Since there are (fortunately) very few terrorists, and a lot of innocents, even with a low rate of false positives, most of the positives (alarms) from any security check are going to be false positives (false alarms).

With a security screen that can be easily double-checked, that's not a big deal. If the bomb-sniffing dog barks at your shoes, or the x-ray machine shows a gun-like shape in your carry-on, the security officials can quickly investigate further (examine your shoes, open your bag) and determine whether the threat is real or not. A system matching personal characteristics against a "terrorist profile" doesn't allow such easy checks. If your credit rating makes you look like a terrorist, how do you prove you're not?

This move is troubling. While in earlier posts I noted that I was willing to in a time of war voluntarily wave some rights for security,(random searches) I find this "allowed to fly" measure not only, too intrusive, but not useful as a precaution. From my understanding the terrorists all had great credit ratings, and would have not been detained. It wouldn't bother me so much that they even checked this, but what is disturbing is a rating that says "not allowed to fly". Either your a terrorist threat and your picked up and detained for questioning and jailed, keeping you from flying, or you are a citizen. So they deterimine you cannot fly and you head over to the bus station with with your plutionium. What I see is a punishement for the poor and less fortunate, they get detained, or are not allowed to fly. The measure of a society is how they treat the needy.

So the obvious response to this by terrorists will be...


Identity theft.

Assume the identity of a lily-white card-carrying solvent Republican frequent flyer, breeze thru the checkpoints, and do your evil deeds unhindered by annoying searches.

Edited by author 03-02-2003 01:28 PM
Prior to 9-11, the airline industry did extensive lobbying against any increase in security precautions. Security measures slow down operations, and the airlines have to pay for them. (This is why baggage inspectors got minimum wages, no benefits, and no respect. Legally they had to be there, but the airlines weren't going to pay one cent more than they absolutely had to.) They knew it meant that sooner or later they'd lose a planeful of passengers to terrorism, but even so, they'd spend less money paying off the relatives' claims than they'd pay for decent security.

I'm wondering now whether the purpose of this proposed new system isn't to identify passengers who aren't going to get looked at closely. It would save the airline a lot of time and trouble, and ensure a better flying experience for those premium-class frequent flyers.

Just another way for Bush to stomp the Unworthy. Credit reports? Bankruptcy keeps you from riding on airplanes? Your landlord hates you?

So unless you like Amtrak a lot, don't be sayin nothin nasty about Asscrack or you'll get on the "watchlist" and be grounded for life. Back to the good ol' days of the FBI's dowager queen and his watchlist on ML King, Pete Seeger, and the rest of that era's axis of evil.

But not to worry -- Bush has a good heart.

See also the attempts to involve European airlines. El Reg has the story.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29492.html

I sorta get 'method of payment'. But credit reports? Account activities? What if they look at investment portfolios? They'll see half the country has TREMENDOUS potential to kill themselves and others.

Maybe Southwest will have a new seating system based on your threat level...