more on What about CAPS numbers? (Fliers to Be Rated for Risk Level)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:44:58 -0400
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com>
Subject: Re: What about CAPS numbers? (Fliers to Be Rated for Risk Level)
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc:Lee Tien <tien () eff org>


Dave,

        I did some more digging on the TSA site for the primary
sources. I found another document which suggests the "extra-screen"
mentioned is claimed not to be much:

  http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=8&content=631

 "Most passengers will be identified as "low risk" and simply pass
  through ordinary screening. A small percentage of passengers may
  present an elevated or uncertain risk, requiring a secondary
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  screen using a handheld wand.  A statistically negligible number
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  of passengers are expected to score as a "high risk" and be
  brought to the attention of law enforcement."

        Regarding:

>>It is worth pointing out that as in the last sentence, this system will be
>>used for other purposes like making sure you don't sit next to a
>>delinquent father , a pornographer and then someone who disagrees with the
>>powers that be. Just how will accountability and errors be handled. Will
>>being cleared by the local police ever show up in the system (bet not).All
>>the dangers of systems built to do one thing and expanded djf

   Well, they say in http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=250

  "When CAPPS II is implemented an independent ombudsman will be
   available to address concerns of individuals who believe they have
   been incorrectly singled out for additional screening."

        This sounds like a classic data integrity problem. And
remember, the system is going to also use *private-sector* data.

 "Subsequently TSA's CAPPS II will receive scores generated from
  commercial databases which are routinely used millions of times a day
  by private enterprises in connection with job candidates or market
  research and which are already subject to legal and privacy protections."
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        Umm ... that sounds, err, optimistic. This strikes me as
an excellent practical argument for very strong "legal and privacy
protections" regarding *commercial* databases.

        Maybe everyone should be warned to check their credit-bureau
reports? Do you know where your permanent record is?

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf () sethf com  http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations - http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/