Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

New Airport Pre-Screen

28 Feb 2003 by Scott Upton

Delta is planning to test a new security screening plan at a few major airports during the month of March. How does it work?:

Transportation officials say a contractor will be picked soon to build the nationwide computer system, which will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists.

Seems like a relatively smart way to check for potential threats (as opposed to screening and detaining everyone and their grandmother equally), but what about the privacy and civiil liberty implications of this measure? Would you be willing to give up a little privacy for a nice green stamp on your boarding pass?

21 comments so far (Post a Comment)

28 Feb 2003 | pk said...

No. Guess I won't be flying Delta.

28 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

I don't have a problem with the system checking my name against government watch lists.

I do have a problem with the rest. I can't get on the plane because I was out of work for 2 years and had to declare bankruptcy? Um, no.

Hey, how about just requiring everyone to get finger-printed/eye-scanned/etc, then using that to let people on/keep people off. I think that would go over really well.

28 Feb 2003 | Vek said...

In a word? No fucking way.

28 Feb 2003 | Carl Beeth said...

Would this not just push the potential terrorist to steal an identity? Maybe picking someone with a perfect record to insure minimal checks.

28 Feb 2003 | Joshua Kaufman said...

I know the government has the right to check credit card statements and bank account activity, which by the way is unconstitutional. Now, Delta too? Is there a new unconstitutional law that gives any company with a curiosity and enough money the ability to find anything they want to know about me?

I fucking hate John Ashcroft.

28 Feb 2003 | steve said...

"Nine to 11 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were flagged by the original CAPPS, but weren't searched because the system gave a pass to passengers who didn't check their bags, Hudson said. People without checked bags are now included."

Damn. If this system is so great, why didn't it recognize that multiple groups of flagged individuals were all buying tickets for the morning of September 11, 2001?

28 Feb 2003 | barry said...

people that usually worry about their invasion of privacy usually have something to hide.....

I would gladly give up some privacy for that nice green stamp..

28 Feb 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

"people that usually worry about their invasion of privacy usually have something to hide....."

In my experience, the people who assume that other people have something to hide have something to hide themselves.

28 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

dont think that they dont violate your rights already. If they want to check you, they will. I have a friend who couldnt come to our wedding because she was suspected, along with a few others of smuggling drugs onto the plane. They watched and hassled her for weeks until she was found to be clean. All her phonecalls and e-mails were screened and she couldnt tell us any of it. She was also forbidden to talk about it with anyone in any kind of detail afterward. It scared the shit out of her. if they want to know something about you, its not a problem for them. The question is should it become a standard for everyone and I would say no. Terrorists have thier "secret services" too and can invent identities.

28 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

28 Feb 2003 | Bob O said...

This is scary stuff.
What happened to the old world order, when Republicans were the one railing against government intrusion?
And don't give me that crap about having nothing to hide.
Anyone with a minimal knowledge of American history knows that the government can and will use information against individuals, often for political ends.
Even if you discount ulterior motives, mistakes will be made. These are government bureacrats, after all, not necessarily the best and the brightest.

28 Feb 2003 | pk said...

It's funny that you mention that Bob O. In my state, when Clinton set in motion the creation of a national ID card, people went apeshit. Now it's style!

01 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

*sigh*
Don, I am not lying-
it really happened!

01 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Alisha, I believe you. And THAT is some scary ... poop.

But the same people that want our government to ban, say, smoking in a restaurant shouldn't complain. They're FEEDING Big Brother.

Me? I'll move to some South Pacific island, because I can afford it. But everyone can't. It sucks ... 'specially for my children's generation.

01 Mar 2003 | dmr said...

The notion of 'giving up a little privacy' in order to gain more illusions about 'security' is bullshit. No, I'm not willing to give up anything, things are fine the way they are. How many 'terrorist' attacks have we encountered since Septemper 11th, 2001? Exactly. What's the point?

01 Mar 2003 | dmr said...

On George Carlin's behalf, what exactly is 'pre-screen'? To screen before you screen?

02 Mar 2003 | SU said...

At Midway airport on Friday, I encountered some of the most horrendous lines I've ever seen at any time of the year (stretching through the terminal and into the parking garage outside). The culpritterrorism, insane travellers, new security measures? Nope. None of the above. In this case, it was poor design.

Given the chance to redesign an aging airport, the designers of Midway created the bottleneck of all bottlenecks instead. With all 3 concourses stationed just beyond the single security station, the entire airport depends on the speed with which the screeners operate. Worse still, if there ever were a serious threat, all flights in and out of the airport would cease, creating a domino effect at other airports across the country. On the best of days, Midway travellers can hope for medium to long lines. On the worst, prepare for a long wait at baggage claim. (Ironically, the fancy new restaurants and magazine stores are on the other side of the security checkpoint they saw little business on Friday).

Why airport designers seem unable to plan effectively for contingencies is beyond me. The same groupthink that results in cars like the Pontiac Aztek continues apace in our most important transportation hubs.

Sidenote: The guy next to me in line for that 1-1.5 hours worked for a company that helps design baggage handling systems. At one point, he said to me "if you had doubts that all of this [security] was for show, you wouldn't believe what goes on in the baggage claim area. No security checks, no background checks, nothing. Just last month, we found 15 illegals working at Dallas-Fort Worth who had forged Social Security Cards. No one at the airport or any of the federal agencies had run checks on any of them." Now, that's confidence-inspiring.

03 Mar 2003 | Eric Scheid said...

Any system that doesn't screen and detain everyone and their grandmother equally is susceptible to being gamed by those with the most interest in doing so.

Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System

You think the 9-11 terrorists didn't have baggage to check by chance?

03 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

You can't argue three things: Facts, Religion, and Taste.

Some people like the Aztek. It's handy. It does work well, meaning it's highly functional. You want gorgeous? 2004+ Mustang.

14 Jun 2003 | Deborah said...

Most people who are worried about invasion of privacy do not have something to hide as barry contends. Many of us simply believe in defending our civil rights, and privacy is a right just like freedom of speech, religion, and so forth. Rights do not get taken away all at once, but a little at a time. Today, it's a little privacy, tomorrow I wake up in a dictatorship with no rights at all and no gun to defend myself.

For many, guarding privacy means simply trying to avoid becoming a target, keeping telelmarketers from interrupting dinner, or keeping personal info out of the hands of friends, enemies, family members, stalkers, or identity theives.

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^