Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Secrets and Lies in the 'Friendly Skies'

By Bruce Schneier, Schneier.com. Posted July 27, 2005.


The airlines' Watch List has been a disaster in every way, and the federal agency in charge of it is operating with complete disregard for your privacy, the law and Congress.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Bruce Schneier

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last Friday, the GAO issued a new report [PDF link] on Secure Flight. It's couched in friendly language, but it's not good:

During the course of our ongoing review of the Secure Flight program, we found that TSA did not fully disclose to the public its use of personal information in its fall 2004 privacy notices as required by the Privacy Act. In particular, the public was not made fully aware of, nor had the opportunity to comment on, TSA's use of personal information drawn from commercial sources to test aspects of the Secure Flight program. In September 2004 and November 2004, TSA issued privacy notices in the Federal Register that included descriptions of how such information would be used. However, these notices did not fully inform the public before testing began about the procedures that TSA and its contractors would follow for collecting, using, and storing commercial data. In addition, the scope of the data used during commercial data testing was not fully disclosed in the notices. Specifically, a TSA contractor, acting on behalf of the agency, collected more than 100 million commercial data records containing personal information such as name, date of birth, and telephone number without informing the public. As a result of TSA's actions, the public did not receive the full protections of the Privacy Act.

Get that? The TSA violated federal law when it secretly expanded Secure Flight's use of commercial data about passengers. It also lied to Congress and the public about it.

Much of this isn't new. Last month we learned that "the federal agency in charge of aviation security revealed that it bought and is storing commercial data about some passengers -- even though officials said they wouldn't do it and Congress told them not to."

Secure Flight is a disaster in every way. The TSA has been operating with complete disregard for the law or Congress. It has lied to pretty much everyone. And it is turning Secure Flight from a simple program to match airline passengers against terrorist watch lists into a complex program that compiles dossiers on passengers in order to give them some kind of score indicating the likelihood that they are a terrorist.

Which is exactly what it was not supposed to do in the first place.

Let's review:

For those who have not been following along, Secure Flight is the follow-on to CAPPS-I. (CAPPS stands for Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening.) CAPPS-I has been in place since 1997, and is a simple system to match airplane passengers to a terrorist watch list. A follow-on system, CAPPS-II, was proposed last year. That complicated system would have given every traveler a risk score based on information in government and commercial databases. There was a huge public outcry over the invasiveness of the system, and it was cancelled over the summer. Secure Flight is the new follow-on system to CAPPS-I.

EPIC has more background information.

Back in January, Secure Flight was intended to just be a more efficient system of matching airline passengers with terrorist watch lists.

I am on a working group that is looking at the security and privacy implications of Secure Flight. Before joining the group I signed an NDA agreeing not to disclose any information learned within the group, and to not talk about deliberations within the group. But there's no reason to believe that the TSA is lying to us any less than they're lying to Congress, and there's nothing I learned within the working group that I wish I could talk about. Everything I say here comes from public documents.

In January, I gave some general conclusions about Secure Flight. These have not changed.

One, assuming that we need to implement a program of matching airline passengers with names on terrorism watch lists, Secure Flight is a major improvement -- in almost every way -- over what is currently in place. (And by this I mean the matching program, not any potential uses of commercial or other third-party data.)

Digg!

Security technologist and expert Bruce Schneier is the founder and CTO of Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Privacy vs Security
Posted by: jwg on Jul 27, 2005 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a computer scientist (that’s what my son calls me) I have followed the discourse over the years about computers vs. privacy. I have never quite understood what the flap is about. If you are a good guy and get caught up in the system a remedial investigation should be able to clear you. If you are a bad guy well you chose that path.

However keeping a massive data base for everyone is the wrong approach. It should be managed on an exception basis IE does the information you give to the airlines match the bad guys list. This reduces the scope of the problem, reduces search times and does not invade the privacy of the many millions of good people that have a legitimate reason to fly.

But hey what do I know, I just get pissed off at a massive TSA organization that keeps taking my little Swiss army knives, but leaves a more lethal weapon the ballpoint pen (or fingers for that matter) to the neck, eye or ear in place. In other words all of this airport security is just for show and big waste of time and money. However pre-screening passengers could at least be as effective and less invasive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Privacy vs Security Posted by: bornxeyed
Luisa
Posted by: LuisaO on Jul 27, 2005 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good points. Anyone who cares about this issue would do well to read this outstanding analysis , debunking the entire premise that aviation security will be enhanced by any computerized passenger assessment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For bureaucrats the computer screen is god
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 27, 2005 6:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if what the screen says makes no sense, officialdom has trained its users to stop thinking and obey.

The possibility that incorrect information has been entered (anyone who has done data entry knows how easily that happens) is a topic that trainers don't seem to cover.

And once the system has you identified with the wrong data, the only person able to correct it lives on a cloud somewhere. The fact that the In-basket is stacked a mile high is not accepted as an indicator that every system has as almost as much bad data as good data. The folks at the front desk only know what they can do when #7 starts blinking. "You'll have to fill out this form and you will hear from us in two to three weeks." Good luck.

And we send hackers to jail. It's the bureaucrats who belong under lock and key.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]