Market Competition for Security Measures

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 10:52 AM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote:

> You seem to have left out the fact that the single largest player in the
> "market" today is the government.

That's the sea the fish swim in...so pervasive that no one needs 
reminding of it.

I am arguing for increased privatization, through simple measures.
>

> The security measures that are now in
> place for air travel are IMHO an abuse by regulators that amounts to
> using a private actor as a proxy for an illegal search : to whit names,
> flight numbers and dates. Feinstein was on the news this morning talking
> about using airlight flight manifests to develop databases for tracking
> movements.

I don't support this government role.

By the way, there are reports (maybe reposted here) that some hotel 
chains are "cooperating" in programs to link their data bases of hotel 
reservations with airline reservations with government files. So that 
"Joe Businessman" has booked a room at the San Francisco Hyatt Regency, 
Hyatt will link to his flight. Links to his company are next. The 
argument will be that this allows taking him off the list of suspects to 
scrutinize.

We are headed toward a fully-credentialized society. No doubt with 
European-type laws requiring identification for all hotel check-ins. 
(I've been forced to show my driver's license at hotels for the past 
dozen years or so. "Cash" has been discouraged, though it's not illegal, 
yet, for hotels and motels to take cash and no I.D. It likely soon will 
be.)




>
> As far as I am concerned an airline ticket should be a bearer instrument
> entitling the holder to passage. Their job is to get people from A to B.
> I should be able to travel as Ben Franklin with an ID I printed myself
> as long as the fare has been paid. The reasons for my travel, how and
> when I paid for my ticket and the date of my return trip are irrelevant.

You are welcome to look for a carrier that operates this way, in my 
scheme.

But if Tim's Airline wants your fingerprints and retinal scans and a 
hefty security bond, you are free to find another carrier.

>
> About the only implementation of a trust certificate that would be
> acceptable is one that was issued after convincing the issuer that you
> were a "good guy" and was tied to you by perhaps a biometric and a PIN
> attribute but for which all connections to your identity were not
> stored. IOW, "we don't know who you are but we believe the certificate
> belongs to you, we trust the issuer and they trusted you so off you go
> then."
>
> I'm sure there are protocols for proving membership without betraying
> identity.
>
> I want a choice in whether I leave a record of my travels or not. For
> estate reasons I may want to escrow my travel records for the duration
> of the trip. Bottom line : I want more control, more freedom, not less.

I don't disagree with your "wants," but the trends are not in our favor.

Privatizing security at least gets market forces back into the equation, 
which they've been out of for far too long.


--Tim May
"Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid.  But 
stupidity is the only universal crime;  the sentence is death, there is 
no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." 
--Robert A. Heinlein