Government Is 'Reshaping' Airport Screening System By MATTHEW L. WALD Published: July 16, 2004 ASHINGTON, July 15 - The government is backing away from a plan to use commercial databases in its computerized system for determining which airline passengers might pose a security risk. But it is pressing ahead with a new computer system that will rely on government databases. The goal is a better screening tool that will select about 4 percent of all passengers for more intense scrutiny, compared with the 14 percent identified by the current system. Some travelers are now chosen for more intensive "secondary screenings" at random, and others are chosen for reasons that are supposed to be secret but are thought to include booking at the last minute, buying one-way tickets and paying with cash. The acting administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, David M. Stone, told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday that his agency was "reshaping and repackaging" the screening system, which was originally supposed to use commercial databases that sweep in data on credit, home ownership, telephone records and car registration as a way to evaluate whether the name given by a passenger was real. That plan, called Capps 2, for Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening, had been criticized as an invasion of passengers' privacy. On Wednesday the secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, was quoted in USA Today as saying that Capps 2 was dead. But a spokesman for his agency, Brian Roehrkasse, said Thursday that "the administration continues to move forward on an automated aviation passenger prescreening system to replace the existing antiquated airline system, to better manage risk and be more efficient." Mr. Roehrkasse said he did not know when the new system would be put into place. Much of it is still under development, he said. The law that established the Transportation Security Administration, passed by Congress in November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks, included a variety of requirements for the new agency. One was to screen all baggage. That destroyed the rationale of the original Capps system, which was established in 1998 in response to the possibility of a bomb in a checked suitcase like the one that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Another requirement was to develop a better screening tool to pick which passengers, with their carry-on luggage, should be scrutinized. The new system is supposed to rely on government databases. The government already has a so-called no-fly list, which is actually a list of people whom the airlines are not supposed to carry, and a larger list of people who are supposed to be put through secondary screening if they seek to fly. According to an administration official who asked not to be identified, those two lists have fewer than 10,000 names but the new computer system would integrate a list of names that is "dramatically larger." The official would not be more specific about either number. In addition, various government agencies maintain lists of names now, including the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. A federal agency established last December within the Department of Homeland Security, the Terrorist Screening Center, is supposed to integrate these lists. The agencies use a variety of bases for identifying individuals as suspect. The Capps 2 system was supposed to be based on passengers' names, addresses and phone numbers; the original proposal for the system would have required passengers to submit their dates of birth as well. The new system might still do that, according to the official. Laura W. Murphy, the director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that had been critical of Capps 2, said a system that relied solely on government databases could still be unfair, because the databases themselves would have errors. But she said she was glad that the government was no longer proposing to run every name through commercial databases. "We don't want to turn into a society where everybody is treated like a suspect and everybody is investigated," Ms. Murphy said. The recently released Senate Intelligence Committee report and the hearings held by the Sept. 11 commission have demonstrated shortcomings in intelligence, Ms. Murphy said, and no-fly lists based on flawed intelligence would mean a security system "built on what right now appears to be a house of cards." The government should improve aviation security by concentrating on simpler challenges, like access control at airports, she said. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/politics/16fly.html ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]