U.S. to Require Passenger Lists for Flights

[Michael Hardner]

jd,

In this paper I am linking below, it lists what identity thieves are looking for when stealing your ID. They build on the data of name, birthdate and gender.

With that little bit of information, a thief can begin the process of redirecting your mail without you knowing. From there, they can collect other credit info, your driver's license info, etc.

http://www.cippic.ca/en/news/documents/IDT.../Techniques.pdf

Ok, I concede that they can start with that information, but it's not enough on its own.

But again, I'm wondering, what exactly the fear is about having personal information go out when it's pretty clear that it can lead to increased security and saved lives.

The only negatives I can see to this situation is 'false positives' - individuals who end up on the list by accident - and paranoid conspiracy scenarios that aren't real. As for false positives, any system has errors and although it's a shame, it's certainly no reason to NOT screen data for terrorists.

Wilber says he objects to other govts. having the information because they don't have the right to it. Well, they have the legal right to information within the US, including your Canadian banking information. Higgly, too, seems to feel uncomfortable giving that information away.

Well, I don't feel uncomfortable with it. I feel uncomfortable with the idea that untrackable individuals are trying to imagine horrible attacks on Americans. I think excessive privacy is useless, and unnatural.

But most don't agree with me. For some reason, people would rather risk thousands of lives than have their phone records searchable in a database somewhere and I personally don't see that that's a good trade-off.

[Guest American Woman]

jdobbin,

I can't tell you how many people have access to my full name, DOB, and gender. Do I worry about them stealing my identity? No. If I did, I wouldn't leave the house. Do you live in fear of people who already have this information stealing your identity? If not, why is giving it to the U.S. government of such concern to you? Surely you've traveled here in the past, in which case they have it already. I know countless countries have my information, including extended information on visa applications. I really don't know who you think is going to use this information to start gathering more information on you to steal your identity. It seems really far fetched to me.

[Wilber]

Wilber says he objects to other govts. having the information because they don't have the right to it. Well, they have the legal right to information within the US, including your Canadian banking information. Higgly, too, seems to feel uncomfortable giving that information away.

By other governments I mean any who demand a quid pro quo for giving up information on their nationals. That could be North Korea under certain circumstances. Anyone who thinks this will end with the US alone is dreaming.

[jdobbin]

Ok, I concede that they can start with that information, but it's not enough on its own.

But again, I'm wondering, what exactly the fear is about having personal information go out when it's pretty clear that it can lead to increased security and saved lives.

The only negatives I can see to this situation is 'false positives' - individuals who end up on the list by accident - and paranoid conspiracy scenarios that aren't real. As for false positives, any system has errors and although it's a shame, it's certainly no reason to NOT screen data for terrorists.

Wilber says he objects to other govts. having the information because they don't have the right to it. Well, they have the legal right to information within the US, including your Canadian banking information. Higgly, too, seems to feel uncomfortable giving that information away.

Well, I don't feel uncomfortable with it. I feel uncomfortable with the idea that untrackable individuals are trying to imagine horrible attacks on Americans. I think excessive privacy is useless, and unnatural.

But most don't agree with me. For some reason, people would rather risk thousands of lives than have their phone records searchable in a database somewhere and I personally don't see that that's a good trade-off.

I have no problem screening for terrorists but the government keeps those lists to themselves and no one knows whether they share a name with someone on the watchlist until they show up at the airport. Even a Conservative MP recently found out how difficult it is to find a way to avoid the constant hassle of being on that list because of a shared name.

The major problem I have with data mining is that you are completely vulnerable about what someone does with your data. You don't know how it is collected, you don't know how it is stored, you don't know who it is shared with. You don't know how to get off such a list or profile once you are on it. It can interfere with your ability to do your job, live your life and avoid being the victim of fraud.

[jdobbin]

I can't tell you how many people have access to my full name, DOB, and gender. Do I worry about them stealing my identity? No. If I did, I wouldn't leave the house. Do you live in fear of people who already have this information stealing your identity? If not, why is giving it to the U.S. government of such concern to you? Surely you've traveled here in the past, in which case they have it already. I know countless countries have my information, including extended information on visa applications. I really don't know who you think is going to use this information to start gathering more information on you to steal your identity. It seems really far fetched to me.

It isn't just the U.S. government that I worry about with my data. It is all governments, companies and organizations.

Nearly 70% to 80% of identity fraud comes from people working with information collected from the above institutions.

As far as far fetched, Israeli agents were caught spying on their enemies using Canadian passports. The passports were actually issued to the agents by the Canadian government because of data the Israeli government had collected on Canadian citizens.

[Michael Hardner]

Wilbur,

By other governments I mean any who demand a quid pro quo for giving up information on their nationals. That could be North Korea under certain circumstances. Anyone who thinks this will end with the US alone is dreaming.

What is the real impact on your life, though ?

jdobbin,

The major problem I have with data mining is that you are completely vulnerable about what someone does with your data. You don't know how it is collected, you don't know how it is stored, you don't know who it is shared with. You don't know how to get off such a list or profile once you are on it. It can interfere with your ability to do your job, live your life and avoid being the victim of fraud.

Risk of fraud is real, but I imagine that the risk of that happening is quite small. Besides, that's just an inconvenience, not a risk of injury or loss of live.

[Guest American Woman]

It isn't just the U.S. government that I worry about with my data. It is all governments, companies and organizations.

Nearly 70% to 80% of identity fraud comes from people working with information collected from the above institutions.

As far as far fetched, Israeli agents were caught spying on their enemies using Canadian passports. The passports were actually issued to the agents by the Canadian government because of data the Israeli government had collected on Canadian citizens.

All I can really say in response is while you have a fear that the information you give is going to be misused, the U.S. government has a fear of another terrorist attack; and since it's U.S. airspace, their fear would trump yours-- and others with similar concerns. That's really the bottom line.

[Michael Hardner]

Come to think of it, there is no way that the airlines and banks that you give your information to when you travel take anywhere near the amount of care with your data that a security agency would.

[Wilber]

What is the real impact on your life, though ?

I don't know and neither do you. That's the point.

What's the old Ben Franklin quote, "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" or something like that. But I guess he's so yesterday.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

All I can really say in response is while you have a fear that the information you give is going to be misused, the U.S. government has a fear of another terrorist attack; and since it's U.S. airspace, their fear would trump yours-- and others with similar concerns. That's really the bottom line.

If the U.S. needs all that data and rules in place, they need to protect the citizens who have no choice to submit. Protect our baggage that has to be stowed in cargo from the theft rings world-wide who regard the new rules as an emporium of goods for them to take. Protect us from airlines who might sell our data that we must submit to giving them from using it for sales purposes or sharing with those who might use it against us.

September 11, in addition to the thousands killed, caused billions in financial losses. Let's not let those financial losses continue because data has become vulnerable to fraudsters using the guise of security to rob us.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know and neither do you. That's the point.

What's the old Ben Franklin quote, "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" or something like that.

W,

Sure thing. I don't think Ben could have anticipated identity theft, though, and if you could have explained it to him, he probably would have agreed that having your name in a database somehwere isn't a real loss of liberty. Maybe you could call it a vulnerability to loss of liberty.

I work in IT, and I can tell you that your information is everywhere, all the time. It's kept by organizations that you don't even know exist, and that have more motivation to intrude upon your life than the US govt. does.

I'm trying to explain this fact to people so that they understand that they're not losing much by allowing the government to monitor them - and they're potentially gaining a lot.

[jdobbin]

Risk of fraud is real, but I imagine that the risk of that happening is quite small. Besides, that's just an inconvenience, not a risk of injury or loss of live.

Since terrorists have been known to use commercial fraud to fund their operations and ID theft to move about the world, the issue of security of information and who has it and how it is gathered and who shares it does indeed cost lives. A cursory look at the FBI, RCMP, CSIS and CIA reports will attest to this.

[Michael Hardner]

jd

Since terrorists have been known to use commercial fraud to fund their operations and ID theft to move about the world, the issue of security of information and who has it and how it is gathered and who shares it does indeed cost lives. A cursory look at the FBI, RCMP, CSIS and CIA reports will attest to this.

That sounds so convoluted.

It sounds like you're saying:

"I don't want to give the government access to information that they can use to prevent terrorist acts because it might lead to identity theft and commercial fraud that will be used to fund terrorist acts."

I think it makes more sense to allow security services to monitor as many transactions as possible. The terrorists can get funding from many sources. 9/11 didn't cost that much to execute, from what I have read.

[Wilber]

W,

Sure thing. I don't think Ben could have anticipated identity theft, though, and if you could have explained it to him, he probably would have agreed that having your name in a database somehwere isn't a real loss of liberty. Maybe you could call it a vulnerability to loss of liberty.

I work in IT, and I can tell you that your information is everywhere, all the time. It's kept by organizations that you don't even know exist, and that have more motivation to intrude upon your life than the US govt. does.

I'm trying to explain this fact to people so that they understand that they're not losing much by allowing the government to monitor them - and they're potentially gaining a lot.

I think Ben had it right in any age.

You may well be right but I get the feeling we are rationalizing ourselves into Orwell's 1984 an inch at a time because we are afraid of our own shadows. This little thing doesn't matter, that little thing doesn't matter and all of a sudden they add up to something that really does matter. What better way to make it happen than to manipulate and capitalize on that fear.

[jdobbin]

That sounds so convoluted.

It sounds like you're saying:

"I don't want to give the government access to information that they can use to prevent terrorist acts because it might lead to identity theft and commercial fraud that will be used to fund terrorist acts."

I think it makes more sense to allow security services to monitor as many transactions as possible. The terrorists can get funding from many sources. 9/11 didn't cost that much to execute, from what I have read.

What I am saying is that the government requires this information and still makes me vulnerable to fraud which funds terrorism. Where is the protection?

[Michael Hardner]

Wilbur,

I encourage everyone to keep an eye on the government, yes, absolutely let's do that.

jd,

Personally, if my credit card is cloned, I can get a new one the next day. Not so with my own personal body. I'm not sure what else I can say about that.

[jdobbin]

Personally, if my credit card is cloned, I can get a new one the next day. Not so with my own personal body. I'm not sure what else I can say about that.

If your credit card is cloned, it can end up sending millions to terrorist organizations who end up killing people anyway.

http://www.canada.com/cityguides/winnipeg/...d17&k=76134

criminal cell operating across Canada is funnelling millions of dollars to Dubai to fund terrorist activities through a sophisticated credit/debit card fraud scheme, says the head of Alberta's Integrated Response to Organized Crime unit.

It is but one of a number of ''extremely prevalent'' organized crime groups reaping huge profits from an old crime with a new twist, says Insp. Joan McCallum.

''You can make a million dollars a weekend in Calgary,'' said McCallum, noting the group also travels a ''circuit'' from Vancouver to Calgary to Toronto to Montreal. ''For one of the groups, it (cash) goes straight to terrorism in Dubai and some of the other countries. They live on nothing and send all their money to fund terrorist activities.''

Edited October 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Hardner]

jd,

From your link, it appears that this is happening now though. What doesn't seem to be happening is more attacks, thank goodness, but that can change at any time.

[Wilber]

All I can really say in response is while you have a fear that the information you give is going to be misused, the U.S. government has a fear of another terrorist attack; and since it's U.S. airspace, their fear would trump yours-- and others with similar concerns. That's really the bottom line.

Not to get into another debate but I find it ironic that a country which figures every citizen should be armed to protect itself from its own government feels it is OK to give that same government any information it wants in order to protect those same citizens safety. Can you appreciate my dilemma?

[Wilber]

Nation states do not have "friends"...they have interests. Nobody is forcing anyone to get a passport or make overflights of US air space.

It might be worth remembering that more Americans spend more time in other country's airspace, Canada's in particular.

[bush_cheney2004]

It might be worth remembering that more Americans spend more time in other country's airspace, Canada's in particular.

Not sure what you mean by this....visa travel, tourism, immigration,etc. would certainly challenge your assertion for world-wide airline travel.

[Wilber]

Not sure what you mean by this....visa travel, tourism, immigration,etc. would certainly challenge your assertion for world-wide airline travel.

It means that if our respective countries were to close our airspace to each other, you would lose the most.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Adding to my last post, I am referring to overflights. Flights between our two countries are not an issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

Adding to my last post, I am referring to overflights. Flights between our two countries are not an issue.

Either way, I am not convinced your claim is true. Overflights of Canada certainly support great circle navigation, but Canadians actually need/want connections through not only US airspace, but airports. Just ask Mr. Arar.

[Wilber]

Either way, I am not convinced your claim is true. Overflights of Canada certainly support great circle navigation, but Canadians actually need/want connections through not only US airspace, but airports. Just ask Mr. Arar.

Try flying to Asia if you don't live on the west coast. Try flying to Europe if you don't live on the eastern seaboard. Most inconvenient. Want to go to Anchorage? Go to Seattle then go another couple of hundred miles west then turn right. Ya it would be a pain in the ass for us to get to Mexico and South America but most of our traffic is from either coast so not that difficult and it would also be inconvenient for Canadian carriers to stay out of Alaskan airspace on their way to Asia but not as inconvenient and you have far more flights.