U.S. assigns secret 'terror scores' to millions of traveling Americans, foreigners

[Marshall]

And yet the next terrorist attack is unlikely to involve airplanes or air travel at all.

But isn't this scoring for the purpose of tracking potential terrorist and their movements, regardless of how they plan to attack? Monitoring their comings and goings and trying to get an idea of whom they may be as well?

If a 1 gets entered as a 0 by a government employee programmer who could care less, suddenly you're a terrorist.

This a good argument, no doubt about it. All I would add is, it's a plan. I think we all expect our government to try to do what they can to prevent terror attacks here in the USA. I can't think of any plan that is fool proof and error free. Maybe there is one, but I'm not thinking of it.

I didn't read anything that says if you're on the list, any action against you is taken, other than being on a list. But, I do agree, I wouldn't like being on the list by mistake.

I read these types of threads all the time, where the government is implementing something and we all shoot holes in it. What I don't read often, if at all, are people offering up better plans in their place. I'm sure there are those on this board that would say no plan fine but I don't think that is an option.

Anyone have better plans?

 

[Lucky]

I told you a better plan. Everyone who wants to feel safer wears a football helmet, 24 hours a day. That way they are safer and they look as stupid as the laws they propose are.


Fried Chicken kills more Americans than terrorists by a thousand-fold. You are unsafe. I recommend the government zealously prosecute a war on chicken, immediately.

Or do you have a better plan?

To hell with freedom and liberty, everyone needs to feel safe.

 

[Manedwolf]

I read these types of threads all the time, where the government is implementing something and we all shoot holes in it. What I don't read often, if at all, are people offering up better plans in their place.

I have one. SECURE the ports and borders!

Secure the border with Mexico. With Canada. Secure the coastlines and ports. Put radiation detectors on ALL cargo cranes, scan boxes as they're removed from ships, and even have a helicopter with a sensitive radiation detector overfly incoming container vessels before they enter the port areas.

Make sense? If anything "happened", I'd think it'd be something like a U-235 collision device in a cargo box from nowhereistan on the deck of a rusty freighter, coming into NY or Boston or San Diego and lighting off, wiping out the port and a chunk of surrounding city.

Secondary, cargo planes coming in from overseas. Minimal crew, who knows what on board. Hundreds come in every day, especially into Miami and cities in Texas from South America. Banged-up old cargo 727s that could be carrying tropical fruit and coffee...or a couple of jihadists and a nuclear weapon to airburst over downtown, or over Texas refineries. Picture allllll those oil tanks rupturing in an atomic blast wave.

Passengers airliners? No, never again. Passenger compliance is out, now. All someone has to say is "hijack!" for a good portion of the passengers to beat them halfway to allah, so to speak.

 

[Marshall]

Secure the border with Mexico. With Canada. Secure the coastlines and ports. Put radiation detectors on ALL cargo cranes, scan boxes as they're removed from ships, and even have a helicopter with a sensitive radiation detector overfly incoming container vessels before they enter the port areas.

I'm in agreement with this. It's not fool proof but I am still in agreement.


Lucky, I guess we don't need Police or Military either. We don't need the FBI or CIA do we? Just a football helmet.

 

[bclark1]

I'm not worried about this kind of stuff. I do what I want, when I want, and I think people who think that could change by time time our grandchildren are old may be a little paranoid. Paranoia is good, but c'mon, a terror score affecting you in any way? Assigning numbers is efficient. Computers are efficient. If it makes us even a tiny bit safer, I don't care. Just like I don't care if some perv behind a TV screen is getting turned on watching me to make sure I'm not "shoplifting" in a dressing room. It doesn't affect me or how I live my life in any way. I'm not doing anything wrong. If he comes out of the security office and grabs my butt, he's losing some teeth, but until then, I could care less. The only reason I care if the CIA is reading my email is because it's a waste of tax dollars to read the pointless crap I write to my family and friends.

I know we've got a lot of privacy advocates here, so that may not be a popular notion. I'll defend most of my rights tooth and nail. But I just don't see how having a computer give me a 17/100 threat score - or even if it screws up and gives me a 99/100 - will make my life harder. I typically show up well less than an hour until my flight. I've done this when checking guns before. I sprint through security. Sometimes I get frisked. Big whoop. I get on my flight, eat some gross peanuts with a cup of coffee, and I get off my flight. And then I forget about it all and do it again a couple weeks later.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I can't believe some of you. "I don't care if the government has databases filled with my personal habbits, as long as them Arabs don't get another shot."

Good lord, when did America die? When did we become so scared that we now think it is a great idea of the government spy on us and keep secret rating lists of each of its citizens who happen to travel?

 

[MrTuffPaws]

It doesn't affect me or how I live my life in any way. I'm not doing anything wrong.

You Sir are a mor...........Nope, this is the high road.

 

[bclark1]

Oh, I'm sorry, is the unreleased computer model going to take your job away when your employer finds out you got a 48?

If it's kept confidential, it's nothing more than cutting down on the amount of work ineffective screeners can do anyway. I suppose you're going to smash through the dressing room mirror and break the camera before you try your sport coat on? They're trying a lot of different things, and to me, this seems far less obtrusive than some of the other ideas that have been pitched around to make things safer. Whether or not you like it, that's their goal, and all the moaning in the world is not going to change them from trying to accomplish it. But if you want to go make a stink in the airport about having to hold your arms up for two seconds while they wand you and get arrested, have at it. It's just not my way.

There are bigger fish to fry. That's how I feel, and I'm not a moron for thinking that way. You don't have to agree But kneejerk reactions like your's do little more than show insecurity and misunderstanding on your part, which is why calling someone else stupid in this context is always so ironic!

 

[Waitone]

Weeell, that oughta change pickup lines in a bar!

 

[ceetee]

I didn't read anything that says if you're on the list, any action against you is taken, other than being on a list. But, I do agree, I wouldn't like being on the list by mistake.

We didn't get to read the whole report issued by the TSA. Here's what those who did read it say:

But to David Sobel, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group devoted to civil liberties in cyberspace: ``It's probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected.''

...In comments to the government about ATS, Sobel said, ``Some individuals will be denied the right to travel and many the right to travel free of unwarranted interference.''

Sobel said in the interview that the government notice also raises the possibility that faulty risk assessments could cost innocent people jobs in shipping or travel, government contracts, licenses or other benefits.

The government notice says some or all of the ATS data about an individual 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.

In the Federal Register, the department exempted ATS from many provisions of the Privacy Act designed to protect people from secret, possibly inaccurate government dossiers. As a result, it said travelers cannot learn whether the system has assessed them. Nor can they see the records ``for the purpose of contesting the content.''

In other words, you might go to buy that new Remchester you've had your eye on, fill out the form correctly, be denied due to faulty information from this system, and have no recourse for contesting that denial. "Nope. You're a terror suspect"...

 

[JohnBT]

"When did we become so scared that we now think it is a great idea of the government spy on us..."

I think it was May 10, 1924 when J. Edgar Hoover got the head job at the FBI.

John

 

[Geronimo45]

"Fried Chicken kills more Americans than terrorists by a thousand-fold."
You're comparing apples to oranges... or apples to broccoli, to be more precise. Fried terrorist, even with BBQ sauce, isn't nearly as tasty as fried chicken.

 

[Cowboybootnut]

I am sure the victums of 9-11 would have rather died from eating fried chicken then the way they were killed. Put yourself in their shoes, and in the shoes of their loved ones who are grieving, then decide how much government intervention should be allowed to fight terrorists.

I can only protect my family, myself and my country within the reach of a bullet or a fist. If it is any farther, I need someone else to help.

 

[saltydog452]

The deal is, we are a target.

There are a few million poeple out there who are willing to die to end the way of life as we know it.

We, as a nation do not, and have not, had a consistent foreign policy. The wind seems to change directions every 4-8 years or so and we ,so far, fotunately have muddled our way through.

Thats changed.

We have sent the world a msg that we aren't United in any way that you'd care to define that term.

We really, really ought to stop sitting on our hands and become more pro-active.

I'm not advocating any kind of Nationalistic lock-step posture.

But pro-active measures seem to make as much sense viewed from a National viewpoint as it does from your own front porch.

Why not consider similar preventive measures for our national defenses as you'd consider for your home and family?

salty.

 

[wiredwrx]

I told you a better plan. Everyone who wants to feel safer wears a football helmet, 24 hours a day. That way they are safer and they look as stupid as the laws they propose are.


Fried Chicken kills more Americans than terrorists by a thousand-fold. You are unsafe. I recommend the government zealously prosecute a war on chicken, immediately.

Or do you have a better plan?

To hell with freedom and liberty, everyone needs to feel safe.

How utterly rediculous, comparing a persons CHOICE to ingest "dangerous" food to the INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF DEATH on the unsuspecting innocent.

Wow, so, are gun makers just as bad as terrorists because many more people die of gunshots per year (I have read that up to 9 times the amount of people) then the total amount killed on 9-11.

As for the list, just because some alarmist lawyer thinks that EVENTUALLY it will be used that way is just chicken little crying that the sky is falling. Just because in the FUTURE the list MIGHT be used in an inappropriate way doesn't make the use of the list in a permissable way wrong. It becomes our job to stop it from getting there, BUT, having a lead on the people that need to be further screened at the border to our country, and on airplanes which are particularly vulnerable places, since there is no where to run, no way to get away, and certainly you can't call your local police department to send the guys with the big guns to save you, is perfectly fine.

Since no individual has the resources and ability to protect themselves from such things as 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, this protection falls on the government.

Michael

 

[Marshall]

In addition,

It would be rather ignorant to have a list a let the terrorists know if they're name is on it. Bottom line is, we have to have a decent handle on who these people are. And for those that are worried about the government, posting on this board is more than likely getting you noticed more than any list will.

 

[joab]

`It's probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected.''

It's all in how you word it.
In terms of people affected is not the same as in terms of severity of the loss of privacy.

The most invasive government system by far is the drivers license system, except maybe the social security system. In terms of the number of people affected

 

[Lucky]

This thread is done, too bad there's no brain bleach I can use.

Cowboybootnut
I am sure the victums of 9-11 would have rather died from eating fried chicken then the way they were killed. Put yourself in their shoes, and in the shoes of their loved ones who are grieving, then decide how much government intervention should be allowed to fight terrorists.

I don't think dead people have an opinion, one way or the other. Sorry, but I'm not the emotional type, more of the cynical calloused ******* type. You can try and play on my emotions, but you're wasting your time.

I can only protect my family, myself and my country within the reach of a bullet or a fist. If it is any farther, I need someone else to help.

Pop Quiz - What are the 10 scariest words in a row?
Answer - "We're from the government and we're here to help you."

Remember how people on the Gulf Coast were helped? The government set up roadblocks and forbid aid to enter. And they went door-to-door confiscating firearms.

I suggest you stop Feeling and start Thinking. Didn't Ayn Rand warn specifically of this type of behaviour?

wiredwrx
How utterly rediculous, comparing a persons CHOICE to ingest "dangerous" food to the INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF DEATH on the unsuspecting innocent.

Lol, plan B, when emotional appeals fail turn to scare tactics. I'm quaking .

Let me see, this type of behaviour is quite predictable, emotional appeals (for the children), then scare tactics (the streets will run red with blood) and then I expect a complete denial of logic to ensue (registration makes us safer).

Hey, here's that mockery of intelligent thought, the trio of propaganda is complete:

Just because in the FUTURE the list MIGHT be used in an inappropriate way doesn't make the use of the list in a permissable way wrong.

Good system, can be used to convince the weak-minded of pretty much anything, gun control, invade Poland, monitor all citizens and sort them in predileciton to insurgency, you name it. Good stuff if you're into that, but I find it offensive.

FM2Wildcat
Ok, here's a good start, Banning ALL Arab nationals and people of the Islamic faith from flying on all aircraft of U.S. registry and/or in U.S. airspace.
Islam is incompatible with American values and society.

I believe you meant to say Jews, didn't you? No? What's that, that would be a horrible thing to say? Oh, sorry, well this is embarrassing. You're right, it would be wrong to make those laws against Jews. But the Arabs are different, just a little less human than the rest of us.

What, you don't like it put that way?

I kind of dream that some day I can live under a constitution like what Americans had, but I sure hope to God that I'll never disrespect it like you do yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[JohnBT]

Well I guess you told him. Feel better?

John

 

[FM2Wildcat]

I believe you meant to say Jews, didn't you? No? What's that, that would be a horrible thing to say? Oh, sorry, well this is embarrassing. You're right, it would be wrong to make those laws against Jews. But the Arabs are different, just a little less human than the rest of us.

What, you don't like it put that way?
I believe you meant to say Jews, didn't you? No? What's that, that would be a horrible thing to say? Oh, sorry, well this is embarrassing. You're right, it would be wrong to make those laws against Jews. But the Arabs are different, just a little less human than the rest of us.

What, you don't like it put that way?

oh, your one of those..
well keep hiding in Canada perhaps things will get better someday

 

[fjolnirsson]

ceetee nailed it in post #35. Last year, I remember one of our Congress critters making noise about denying people firearms purchases based on their being on a no fly list. What happens when that idea is embraced? Suddenly, a random analysis of patterns can result in you or I being denied a new glock.
Reminds me of a recent article I read from England, where they are using psychoanalysis to predict future crimes of violence. Why, you ask? So they can direct potential offenders into treatment or decide whether to make an arrest. I'll see if I can dig up the link. Here it is:http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20828596-1702,00.html

Experts from London's Metropolitan Police's Homicide Prevention Unit are creating psychological profiles, compiled through statements from previous partners, information from mental health workers, and details of past complaints.

Simply put, both programs have too much potential for abuse.

 

[wiredwrx]

At least I can feel secure in the knowledge, that in that guys head, the government is iminantly at his door to beat him over the head and drag him to a concentration camp, while here in reality, the governement can act within the law, and we must never allow it to operate outside the law and the constitution.

So if the goverment can't attempt to effectively protect us, and mind you, I am not talking about a single group of people, except terrorists of all types, what should we all do. Lay down and play dead till we are killed.

And the difference between Arabs and the situation in germany is that the jews had no land or nation or state sponsor, and had done NOTHING to warrant the persecution, other then the rantings and ravings of a madman genius who blamed the Jews for ALL the ills in Germany, aside from his delusions of a single German empire of the world. While extremist muslims have actively murdered people in the name of their religion, using the religion as the source and justification of their actions. And poor baby, no one is targeting all arabs, only the terrorists. Since it is impossible to protect everyone while only inconveniencing the bad guys, the innocent will be impacted. Freedom has it's price.

Michael

 

[springmom]

Ok, here's a good start, Banning ALL Arab nationals and people of the Islamic faith from flying on all aircraft of U.S. registry and/or in U.S. airspace.
Islam is incompatible with American values and society.

Hey, genius...not every Arab national is a Muslim. There are ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN Arabs. There are ROMAN CATHOLIC Arabs. There are MARONITE CATHOLIC Arabs. And there are also NOTHING AT ALL Arabs.

Besides which, the bombers who took out the London Tube last summer were BRITISH born and bred. IOW, they were citizens of the same country they attacked. Terrorists are no longer training in Afghanistan and coming to other countries; they're being grown and trained IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

What that means, if you can't figure it out, is that it will most likely be AMERICAN CITIZENS who attack America next, not Osama's second cousins flying here from there. So banning Arabs from our airspace will gain exactly...zip.



Springmom

 

[wiredwrx]

I don't know about English law, but in America, EVERY crime requires an action. Thinking about, or the potential to commit a crime, is NOT punishable.

Oh let me guess, you fear that will change, cause Bush will remove that axiom of our jurisprudence.

So, since the law is made by people, and our democratic society is based on the branches of government being run by humans, tell me, how should the country be run. What, pray tell, is the proper form of governance that should be employed.

Michael

 

[st_albert]

Well, I have just skimmed through the two or so pages of responses and while most seem to recognize the outrageous downside to this policy (a generation ago this could only be imagined in dystopic fiction such as Orwell's "1984"), I am disappointed to note that there is one obvious question that has not been raised.

As Bruce Schneier ("Beyond Fear -- Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World") constantly preaches, security is a tradeoff. Previous posts have identified some of the costs. Now I ask: what is the benefit? Is there any assurance that this will indeed reliably identify terrorists? I submit that there is no data to answer this question in a positive way, nor is there likely to be any made public. How many terrorists are missed vs. those caught? Indeed even if it caught them all, in a situation where millions of people are subjected to the risks, in order to catch perhaps tens of terrorists (who could also be caught by other means as well), is it really a good bargain?

I think not.

Just my $0.02,
Albert