Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Government United States Politics

DHS Passenger Scoring Almost Certainly Illegal 181

Posted by Zonk
from the i-feel-safter dept.
Vicissidude writes "At the National Targeting Center, the Automated Targeting System program harvests up to 50 fields of passenger data from international flights, including names, e-mail addresses and phone numbers, and uses watchlists, criminal databases and other government systems to assign risk scores to every passenger. When passengers deplane, Customs and Border Protection personnel then target the high scorers for extra screening. Data and the scores can be kept for 40 years, shared widely, and be used in hiring decisions. Travelers may neither see nor contest their scores. The ATS program appears to fly in the face of legal requirements Congress has placed in the Homeland Security appropriations bills for the last three years." From the article: "Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said he was unaware of the language but that it clearly applies to the Automated Targeting System, not just Secure Flight, the delayed successor to CAPPS II. 'Bingo, that's it -- the program is unlawful,' Rotenberg said. 'I think 514(e) stands apart logically (from the other provisions) and 514 says the restrictions apply to any 'other follow-on or successor passenger prescreening program'. It would be very hard to argue that ATS as applied to travelers is not of the kind contemplated (by the lawmakers).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS Passenger Scoring Almost Certainly Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • by gvc (167165) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:01PM (#17151962)
    I hope that the new Congress will put its foot down on yet another intrusion into American personal liberty. The old one -- even the Democratic members -- did not.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plopez (54068)
      Not to worry. Even if congress does act all the president has to do is issue yet another signing statement.
    • by nels_tomlinson (106413) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:09PM (#17152114) Homepage
      I hope that the new Congress will put its foot down on yet another intrusion into American personal liberty. The old one -- even the Democratic members -- did not.

      Meet the new congress ... same as the old congress.

      The last part of your complaint really puts things in perspective, doesn't it? I could have voted for a republican candidate if he had been willing to shrink the powers of our government. I could have voted for a democrat who was willing to do that. Sadly, I've never seen a serious candidate for national office (except Ron Paul) who could plausibly claim that he was willing to reduce federal power in any practical way.

      I hope that over the next two years, we will all learn that, just as voting republican in 2000 didn't solve our problems with government, voting democrat in 2006 and 2008 won't either. I wish that we had a viable alternative, but I'm afraid that we won't see one until after we all see that we need one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      While I'm sure that this particular set of power hungry control freak millionaires will prefer a type of intrusion different from that of the previous set of power hungry control freak millionaires, why look a gift horse in the mouth?

      The previous set did most of the dirty work, all that talk about frogmen plotting to poison our water supplies or how some guy somewhere might be thinking about trying to blow up or otherwise damage or hijack an aircraft using maybe a gel or liquid possibly concealed in some ev
    • Don't fly. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I haven't set foot in an airport since this insanity began, and I refuse to do so until this insanity ends.

      Traveling by bus, train, or car is not as fast or comfortable, but at least you can do it with some of your privacy intact.

      Just say no.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Kagura (843695)
        The previous post was likely posted AC because the actual poster doesn't actually refuse to travel by plane. Rather, he hopes to convey a message that there are people that think this way, because he is not strong enough to send such a message himself.
        • There ARE people who think that way. I'm one of them. I've already passed up two busines trips for this very reason and when I take my family to Disney this summer, we're traveling by highway. I refuse to consciously put myself in a situation where I'm almost ASKING to be treated like a criminal. I'll take that airline ticket money and give it to someone else.
      • by Builder (103701)
        I would say no, but I just can't swim that well. Plus, 9000KMs to see the family is a BITCH of a drive :(
    • by Guppy06 (410832)
      "The old one -- even the Democratic members -- did not."

      And what planet do you live on?

      With our wonderful 90%+ incumbency rate in federal and state elections (more likely to be indicted and "retire to spend more time with family" than to actually lose an election), this is the old Congress!

      I mean, in 1994, there was a net change of 54 seats out of 435, slightly more than 10%, and they called that a "revolution." So what will we call this shift of ~30 seats, a "civil war?" Perhaps a "military coup?" And t
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kpharmer (452893)
      > The old one -- even the Democratic members -- did not.

      Note that much of the support for the erosion of our personal liberties occured while this country was in a patriotic & fearful frenzy. Anyone in congress that took a moment to say, "um, could we talk about this for a minute?" was attacked by:
      - president bush & his administration
      - senate & house leaders
      - media pundits
      - etc
      - about 50 million americans
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This passenger scoring thing denies rights based on a secret law. Making it impossible for a citizen to know what actions may result in the loss of these rights. A perfectly law abiding citizen who happens to dress a certain way and prefer a certain food (all in compliance with law) can get denied the ability to fly, whereas as people who have served time for multiple felonies are allowed on planes (not that they shouldn't be allowed either).

    WTF.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DrVomact (726065)
      So? Where do you think you live, America? This is The Homeland, buddy--the place that just repealed habeas corpus by an overwhelming majority vote comprised of both political parties. Stop your whining and show me your papers, Mr Anonymous. Now!
    • by B.D.Mills (18626) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @07:06PM (#17154364)
      This passenger scoring thing denies rights based on a secret law.
      This bit scares me the most. It is a common principle in law that ignorance of the law is not a defense against breaking that law. However, such a principle is founded on the assumption that the people can find out what the law is. When a state has secret laws, this is no longer possible. So we have a situation where citizens may break a secret law and have no plausible way to determine for themselves what they need to do to stay on the right side of the law, yet citizens who are charged with breaking such laws may not be able to use ignorance of the law as a defense in a court of law.

      Somehow I find that rather scary.
  • For Hireing?
    It is publicly available or is it only available to the government?
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:18PM (#17152286)
      > Okay... How can this be used
      >
      >For Hiring?
      > Is it publicly available or is it only available to the government?

      It's a government database, much like the databases that hold criminal records, etc. Access to it is sold to data brokers such as Choicepoint.

      When Company X wants to hire you, they ask Choicepoint if you're "a good risk".

      Choicepoint crunches the numbers by means of a proprietary formula, one of the ingredients of which your credit rating (for sale by other data brokers), another of which is your criminal record and/or arrest history (for sale by other arms of the government), and another of which is now your Terrorist Score.

      Neither you (nor Company X!) ever finds out what your Terrorist Score is. Company X takes a look at Choicepoint's evaluation and combines it, with your resume, and how well you did on the job interview, and whatever else it wants... and decides whether or not to hire you.

      So if your Terrorist Score is too high, you might not get the job, because Choicepoint or the other background-checking firms have decided that it's important enough to make you a risk... or maybe not. You'll never know. That's both a feature (everyone has plausible deniability, so nobody can get sued), and a bug (you may be denied a job because of a bogus data point in your Terrorist Score, just as you can be denied a job due to bogus data on your credit history -- but you can at least fix the errors in your credit history.)

      Now that that's out of the way, can we stop calling it a Terrorist Score? If I keep using that term, your score goes up. Probably the only way to fix a bad Terrorist Score is to start calling it a Freedom Score. At the rate I'm going, I'm gonna have to donate at least $1000 to both the RNC and the DNC before I can get hired again, let alone fly anywhere.

  • Won't be too long (Score:4, Insightful)

    by balsy2001 (941953) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:03PM (#17151992)
    Until they start sending people with a score that is too high to secret prisons without the right to know why they are being charged or the evidence that is being used to convict them. All of this crap is getting way out of control.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573)
      All of this crap is getting way out of control.

      Getting? Please. It's been more than "way out of control" for longer than I can remember. There shouldn't even be any fucking discussion about this sort of shit. People who "may" be locked up currently shouldn't have to wait for the lopsided Supreme Court to overturn this.

      It's a sad time for our nation.
      • by balsy2001 (941953)
        Well, you said it much better than I did.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:04PM (#17152028) Journal
    if you use a fake boarding pass :-)
  • by straponego (521991) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:08PM (#17152092)
    Illegal?

    Where is it that you guys are getting the idea that the rule of law applies to this administration? That wouldn't be in their interests at all. And since they're in charge of enforcing the laws they break...

    And if you think that Congress, aside from a couple of freaks like Feingold and Leahy, are going to do anything about this at all... well, I hope you're right, but I'd bet against it.

    PS: I like those freaks. I wish they weren't the exception.

    • Good point. Where do folks get the idea that blame applies only to the Administration? Last I checked, the "Other Branch" that was supposed to balance (Congress) rolled over.

      "Hey, all of this monitoring stuff the bureaucracy's lusted for for years sounds like a great idea".

      Now supposedly Congress is going to grow a set? I'll believe it when I see it. They won't give a damn until this is used against one of them as a political tactic (not if, when).
  • by NaCh0 (6124)
    It sounds like a slightly modified spam-assassin with baysian filtering.

  • positive matches (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DreamerFi (78710) <john AT sinteur DOT com> on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:12PM (#17152174) Homepage
    From the article:
     
      Paul Rosenzweig, a high-level Homeland Security official, told Congress in September that the system had "encountered 4801 positive matches for known or suspected terrorists." However, it is unclear how many of those were correct matches.
     
    No, it's very clear. Zero. Zilch, none, nada. If there were any correct matches, they would trot them out and use them to demonstrate the "success" of the program.
    • by jd (1658)
      No, the matches were all positive, but they were all in Reed's matchbox. The dangerous thing with unspecifics is that it's not always obvious as to what the unspecifics are unspecific about.
      • by DreamerFi (78710)
        That's what the word "oversight" was invented for. Something the current administration seems to hate...
        • by jd (1658)
          Oversight has several possible definitions, one of which the current administration is extremely good at.
  • by Wee (17189) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:13PM (#17152188)
    And if the law is changed (again) and this is made illegal (again?), how will we know the scores aren't being used for some other purpose? How will we know the databases have been purged? Says the gov't: "Ok, ok... our bad. We won't do it anymore, honest!" How exactly will we know they've stopped? All manner of rights can be swept under the table when it's "potential terrorists" who are involved. And what politician will vote against something that is ostensibly in place to prevent harm to the citizens of the US? One small bomb goes off and it's political murder for everyone in the "Nay" column on that vote.

    I think some sort of new check and balance needs to be put in place against the executive branch. We're supposed to have the Congress and the Supreme Court to protect us from potential abuses, but they haven't obviously served us very well in the past 6 years...

    What we need, I'm not sure. But we need something.

    -B

  • it should be used for Netflix or Slashdot instead [slashdot.org].
  • by cje (33931) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:22PM (#17152358) Homepage
    The one bright spot to all of this is that starting next year, you'll be able to log into www.FreeTerrorReport.com and get a free copy of your score from all three of the main terror bureaus.
  • pet peeve (Score:3, Funny)

    by Secret Rabbit (914973) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:24PM (#17152394) Journal
    One of my pet peeves is the word "deplane". It is NOT deplane, it is DISEMBARK!!!

    Jesus, when did the airlines have such a low opinion of their passengers that they think that they don't know what disembark means?

    Seriously, deplane? Sound more like delouse. AAAAAHHHHH, get these planes off me!!!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chris Mattern (191822)
      They get their vocabulary from Herve Villechaize. "It's deplane, boss, deplane!"

      Chris Mattern
    • by Feanturi (99866)
      "Boss! Boss! Deplane! Deplane!"
    • One of my pet peeves is the word "deplane". It is NOT deplane, it is DISEMBARK!!!
      Preposterous! They were not in a craft propelled by sails or oars, but in a plane!

      Next they'll be attempting a sea landing... oh. Wait.
    • by B.D.Mills (18626) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @06:47PM (#17154030)
      We don't need a word for entering and leaving different kinds of vehicles. "Disembark" should cover all forms of mass transit - ships, planes, trains, buses. We don't have words like "deship", "detrain" or "debus", so why must we have such nonsense as "deplane"?

      Deplane sounds like what I do to a piece of paper when I make it into a ball and throw it in the rubbish, or deform any other planar surface so it is no longer a plane.

      Or, as the parent poster suggested, it sounds like we are being cleansed of an infestation of tiny parasitic planes. Deice - remove ice, degauss - remove gauss, delouse - remove lice, deplane - remove planes. Makes more sense to me.

      • Boss, it's de plane!

        What was the name of that show again? That's the only appropriate use I can think of. Or maybe it's the opposite of the verb "to plane" as used in carpentry. Instead of leveling a wooden surface, you gouge it and make it wavy.

    • by SamSim (630795)
      Maybe we should say that the plane is being depassengered.
  • can't see it? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rolyatknarf (973068) *
    Data and the scores can be kept for 40 years, shared widely, and be used in hiring decisions but the traveler is not allowed to see it? Why would a prospective employer have access to this info but the prospective employee can't? They can say "we can't hire you because something showed up in your file but we can't tell you what it is". This has got to be bullshit if anything is.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by durdur (252098)
      Welcome to the new USA, where "rights" are things that the government and corporations have.
  • It seems to me that we all want to be kept safe from terrorist attacks but are unwilling to allow profiling. I can't help but believe that if you use profiling you will be getting better results with the limited resources you have. The fact is that ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were radical Muslims. How does it help to pretend that this isn't so? I'm not being prejudice just realistic. If there were a militant hristian movement complete with suicide bombers I would hope that for my safety Christians would
    • Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by benhocking (724439) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [gnikcohnimajneb]> on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:44PM (#17152832) Homepage Journal
      Yes, but how many of the Oklahoma City terrorists were Muslims? How many of the abortion clinic bombing terrorists were Muslims? How many of the Columbine terrorists were Muslims?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        ...how many of the Oklahoma City terrorists were Muslims?

        All of them - just check the database.

        How many of the abortion clinic bombing terrorists were Muslims?

        All of them - just check the database. And don't tell me you can't!

        How many of the Columbine terrorists were Muslims?

        All of them - just check the database. And don't whine about it being exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests. After all, we're protecting our country... or at least all except for the statistically insignificant number who are

      • by ArcherB (796902)
        OK. How many people died in Columbine? How many died in abortion clinic bombings? How many died in Oklahoma?

        Now, take those numbers, add them up and get a total. We'll call it WhitieCaused.
        Add up how many white people committed these crimes. We'll call that number Whities.

        How many did on 9/11, and the first WTC bombing. We'll call that number MuzzieCaused.
        How many Arab/Muslim males caused it? We know the number to be 19.

        Finally, factor those numbers with number of the particular profiles.
        Let's say th
        • by ArcherB (796902)
          Crap, I forgot to include the casualty numbers. Well, we know that 3000 or so died in the WTC. We know that one has died in abortion clinic bombings since 2000 (source [religioustolerance.org]), 168 died in OK City (source [wikipedia.org]) and 12 died at Columbine (source [cbsnews.com]). This totals 181, but we'll skew the numbers in your favor and say 200.

          If you want to factor these numbers in to further my case, that's fine with me. By my quick math, that means that Muzzie terrorists have killed 150 people to every person killed by a Whitie, while only ha
          • and B) I hope you're familiar with the concept of over-generalization? I.e., you can't extract very much meaningfully predictive information from a single example.

            Normally, I'd be happy to argue the actual politics with you (rather than just the logic), but I know it would be fruitless (and that's not intended to be an insult in any way - it's admittedly fruitless in both directions), and I'm a little tired.

            Not that I really expect the logic/math argument to be that much more successful... :)

        • Finally, factor those numbers with number of the particular profiles. Let's say the Whitie number is 20. (I'm being conservative) Now divide that number by the number of white people who fit the profile of the Whities. That's 20/100,000,000. Now let's take the number of Muzzies and divide them by the muslim male population or 25/1,000,000. This means that a muslim male is more than 100 times more likely to commit a terrorist act than a white male.

          So, I'll agree with your assessment if you'll agree that f

          • by ArcherB (796902)
            First, I included the first WTC bombing as well as Zac Moussoui (misspelled, I'm sure) to come up with my 25 number.

            Next, I was trying to point out to the OP that even though there are white terrorists, when you factor in the number of white people that live here, the number is insignificant to the number of Arab/Muslim terrorists when the ratio is factored in. While I think that profiling should be used only sparingly (see the recent Muslim Cleric story in Minnesota for a good example of when profiling sh
            • I said we should argue the logic (i.e., the lack of meaning in the denominators) rather than the politics since we definitely won't agree on the politics (at least not completely). If there are X terrorists of type A, and Y terrorists of type B, then the proper sampling would be X/Y regardless of how many total people there are of types A and B - unless you have additional information that we didn't even discuss.

              Here's the basic logic: let's assume you have the accurate P(T|A), where T=person is terrorist

              • by ArcherB (796902)
                While you won't discuss politics with me (like beating your head against brick), I know better than to contest math with an astrophysicist. That said, with your explanation, I see the whole in my logic. I was assuming that an equal number of A and B fly. Still, by this logic and my uncorroborated numbers, one group should stand a higher probability of being searched than the other, but the overall risk from either group is much closer to equal, depending the number from each group that actually fly, at l
    • by faedle (114018)
      While all the 9/11 terrorists were "radical Muslims", not all terrorists in general are.

      Timothy McVeigh was not a "radical Muslim". Plus, as has been pointed out repeatedly, once you start profiling, the terrorists will just start to pick people that don't "fit" the profile.

      Profiling also potentially violates the rights of people who may fit the profile but not be involved. Just because most people who commit violent crimes are black males doesn't mean we start jailing all black male men in the US. Peopl
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by aalegado (168251)
        Osama's won. Our society's changed for the worst and the current Administration has helped keep us in fear of ourselves. All Al Queda has to do now is threaten to hack the server of the kid selling lemonade on the corner and the TSA puts us on Orange alert and we all have to be on the look out for strange people doing strange things while holding 3.1oz. of fluid in hard to see-through bags. God help us if a TSA agent drives through North Hollywood, CA on his way to work one night. He'd lose his mind and we'
    • by cdrguru (88047)
      Yes, but it would offend some people.

      Just the word "profiling" is offensive to African-Americans because of their extensive history in being "profiled" in the past. For example, the Florida State Police were prevented from such "profiling" back in the 1980's. They had identified a trend that expensive cars being driven at high speeds by African-Americans had a strong correlation to there being significant quantities of drugs in the car. This was viewed as completely unethical and such profiling was ended
    • by lymond01 (314120)
      You can make a perfectly safe car, but it's really cost prohibitive as well as limiting to what the driver can do. Same with a perfectly safe America. The government and its systems can't protect Americans from everything. Americans should do their part as well: keep aware. If you're on a long flight, be a little anxious. Don't freak out, but be aware and consider your options if something did happen. You do it for crash landings, you may as well add:

      "In the event some lunatic stands up in the aisle
    • Woot! Woot! You've identified a very specific group of people after they've announced themselves as being part of that group. Congratulations.

      Now tell me - how do you tell a radical Muslim from a just somewhat nutty muslim? How do you tell a radical Muslim from a radical nut? How do you tell a radical Muslim who is planning on bombing you from Joe Zaki down the street?

      Profiling is a great idea. However, profiling based on racial characteristics or common choices like meal selection and prayer habits is fuck
    • by Peyna (14792)
      So, if we use profiling and pull all the Muslims out of line and inspect them, what's to stop the evil doers from hiring a white guy to do their work for them? I imagine there are plenty out there willing to do so.
    • If there were a militant Christian movement complete with suicide bombers I would hope that for my safety Christians would be profiled.

      With over 1 billion Christians in the world and somewhere south of 1,000 terrorists, or say even 10,000 in "supporting roles" you've just narrowed your search down from 1 in 500,0000 to 1 in 100,000 -- not really effective when you consider it is at the cost of aggravating the other 99,999 non-terrorist Christians.

      Even worse, since you really need those other 99,999 Christia
    • And after you get finished profiling Tamils (world leaders in suicide bombings), Sikhs, Chechens, Nepalis, Peruvians, Germans, Irish, and Americans (remember how many terrorist groups there have been in the US) you might as well be doing universal screening.

      One other problem is the base rate fallacy (look it up).

      The conclusive problem is the fact that our enemies are adaptable. If they see dark-skinned people getting screened, or people getting yanked off airplanes for praying, then they'll simply send the
    • by mutterc (828335)

      You've got to make sure that at least some of your screening is random, though.

      Otherwise, if you only screen the Arab guys (yes I know Arab != Muslim, but you can see Arab, and can't see Muslim, so that's the way profiling would actually work), if The Terrorists recruit one white guy, he slips right through.

  • The purported expert quoted in the article appears unaware that CAPPS and SecureFlight applied to domestic US flights. Those programs are accordingly more restricted - and subject to things like the "Section 514" mentioned. This program relates only to International Flights and thus has a whole different set of rules (unless I missed the imposition of Customs checks on domestic flights).

    Once again ignorance is no bar to blanket assertions of illegal acts.
  • by businessnerd (1009815) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @06:00PM (#17153150)
    Wait, so let me get this straight...

    The Department of Homeland Security actually wrote something that would PRESERVE our Constitutional rights?!?!

    Who are you and what have you done with our fascist overlords?
  • by ehasbrouck (539420) <edward@hasbrouck.org> on Thursday December 07, 2006 @06:02PM (#17153188) Homepage
    The link in the Wired New story is broken -- Regulations.gov doesn't use static URL's for individual documents.

    The Identity Project comments, including as an appendix the text of the relevant law, are at:

    http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-ATS-comments.pdf [hasbrouck.org]

    Those comments also expain how the "Automated Targeting System" would include information on domestic flights and travelers, in addition to international travel records.

    There's more background on my blog, and the Identity Project blog:

    http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001184.html [hasbrouck.org]

    http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/12/05/every-travel er-is-a-target/ [papersplease.org]

  • DHS has received a whopping 59 comments about the system before the December 4th deadline and so they extended the deadline for comments to Dec 29th. Details are in this WIRED article [wired.com]
    • by finkployd (12902)
      Yeah good idea, we KNOW for a fact that they use the no fly list to harass people they don't like, I am sure anyone who responds negatively gets a couple points added against them on the score. I mean really, why not? There is no oversight, no way to view or attempt to correct it. Why on earth WOULDN'T they use it on a whim to punish those who disagree with them. Look at it from their perspective, they feel they are protecting the country and everyone who disagrees with them wishes them to be out of a job a
  • I know 6 Imans who ought to be scoring pretty high on this list right about now.
  • by ozbird (127571) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @07:00PM (#17154278)
    Not knowing what DHS is (I'm not an oppressed American), the headline read like:
    a) DHS is an airline (or similar),
    b) one of their passengers got lucky, but
    c) they got busted.
  • by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @07:13PM (#17154482) Journal
    Every amendment in the Constitution deals with what Congress shall or Congress shall not do. Like it or not, but flying is not a right and the Constitution does not apply to airlines. Every citizen if free to vote with their pocket books and take the bus, boat or rail.

    • by PitaBred (632671)
      Nor is driving. But they don't check whether I'm a terrorist to see if I can drive, and they don't consider whether I have a driver's license when considering me for a job (when it's not germane to the job). They should not consider some random score used by airlines and the government, secretly and uncontestably in any kind of serious fashion such as for hiring, or for flying. This is someone's life you're messing with here... it's well within their rights (IMNSHO) to want to be able to review the infor
    • Every amendment in the Constitution deals with what Congress shall or Congress shall not do.

      False. Counterexamples include Amendments II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XXII; additionally, a number of others deal only tangentially with what Congress shall or shall not do, granting particular individual rights, often enforceable against the states, but stating that Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment by appropriate legislation. Come to think of it, the

  • Call me crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fear the Clam (230933) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @07:45PM (#17154964)
    When passengers deplane, Customs and Border Protection personnel then target the high scorers for extra screening.


    But wouldn't it make more sense to give those high scorers extra screening before they got on the plane?
    • by hcdejong (561314)
      You realize that this is about international flights, right? Flights that do not originate on US soil? I.e. where the takeoff point is NOT under US control?
  • My fantasy of the U.S. becoming more and more like the Minority Report utopia is being foiled by pesky civil-rights laws.

    BTM

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...