Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitas who wrote (119)	1/31/2004 12:37:13 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

you're pathetic Bush Administration Security Dreams By Stéphane Foucart Le Monde Friday 30 January 2004 When the new control measures for foreign visa holders in American airports came into force, they aroused keen protests. Giorgio Agamben figures among the personalities who objected to the implementation of the program called US-Visit (US-Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology). This professor of philosophy at the universities of Venice and New York refuses to submit to control measures which he feels illustrate a new relationship between the citizen and the state, based on "the inscription and filing of the most private and incommunicable element of subjectivity (…)bodies' biological life." Spectacular and obvious, these measures are, however, only the visible parts of the surveillance mechanism the Bush administration is in the process of deploying. The coming years will witness the transformation of the American airport network into a zone where every kind of personal information will be collected, handled, manipulated, consulted, and distributed within large data banks. And all this happens outside any consideration for personal privacy or the confidentiality of the data. The pieces of this great technological puzzle are being progressively put into place. For over a year, American customs authorities have required all airline companies serving their territory to provide enhanced access to their reservation records, all without arousing any significant protest. This is certainly not a question of "biological filing" or "biopolitical tattooing", as Mr. Agamben calls it. Still, this file, called the Passenger Name Record (PNR), harbors a considerable quantity of information. Every passenger's last name, first name, address, credit card number, food preferences (i.e. any requests for kosher or halal meals), details of any services provided by the airline (car rental, hotel reservation), any physical handicaps… are indexed and inventoried. In total, forty types of data are included in the PNR, even if they are not all required to be completed. Washington hasn't burdened itself with any preliminary negotiations with the European executive to access such a significant deposit of information. In the beginning of 2002, American customs demanded PNR access directly from the Old Continent airlines. Only at first the majority refused to comply- unlike their international competitors- and appealed to the European Commission. This appeal changed nothing in the current of events. Washington quickly brandished the threat of sanctions, a fine of several thousand dollars per passenger, even prohibition from serving the United States‘ market or flying over its airspace. Air France, Lufthansa and the others therefore complied. And, since March 2003, electronic stool pigeons have been installed in the reservation systems of European airlines which daily transmit whole chunks of thousands of people's private lives. In spite of agreements recently concluded between Brussels and American customs, this situation remains illegal with regard to European Union legislation. European countries seem to hardly care about such surrender of sovereignty. But all this, it is true, has happened noiselessly, without some obligatory passage in front of the forces of order, without fingerprinting or "biological tattooing". The transgression is elsewhere. The Transportation Security Agency (TSA), which belongs to the new department of "Homeland Security", doesn't hide its plan to integrate the data recovered about foreigners into an automated "profiling" system for airline passengers. Known as CAPPS II (Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System), it's supposed to allow data comparison and collation for each passenger to whom a risk potential will then be associated. This potential is converted to a color code (red, yellow, or green) attributed to each passenger before their embarkation. SPECULATION The nature of the personal data consulted this way remains partly unknown. Since the system has been deployed experimentally, the question of what this data may be feeds all kinds of speculation. The TSA recently denied Washington Post reports according to which the biometric data stored in the US-Visit program would be used by CAPPS II. The TSA has, however, never denied being in discussions with the European Commission to integrate the PNR files transmitted daily across the Atlantic into CAPPS II. James Loy, TSA chief doesn't hide it: the purpose of CAPPS II is to aggregate and cross-check a constantly growing quantity of data derived from constantly diversifying sources. This point is one of the principal concerns of movements like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which still hope that Congress will block deployment of CAPPS II. If the objectives are praiseworthy, the means employed seem disproportionate. They infringe significantly on the laws in force in Europe according to which a data file may not be used in a routine and systematic fashion except for the purposes for which it was originally constituted. To neglect this "finality principle" amounts to a de facto transformation of every data file into a police file. There may be even more important issues at stake. CAPPS II high degree of automation makes it the first quasi autonomous technological tool for sorting populations, since it's an information program that handles and compiles more data than can be evaluated by human beings. Rejection of this type of system goes back far. "No administrative or private decision involving a judgment about human behavior may be based solely on an automated processing of information providing a definition of the person concerned's profile or personality," reads the French law on freedom and data processing which was approved in 1978 and has now proven to be prescient. CC