JetBlue Gave Passenger Info to Contractor

SierraPilot

New Member
In September of 2002, JetBlue Airways Secretly gave the Transportation Security Administration the full travel records of 5 million JetBlue customers. This sensitive travel data was then turned-over to a private security contractor for analysis, the results of which were presented at a security conference earlier this year and the analysis then posted on the Internet.

This comes after Wired News's Recent Article article on this matter, explaining that "...the proposed government system to prevent terrorism by color-coding airline passengers according to their risk level will be tested using old passenger itineraries from JetBlue", but quoting a TSA spokesman as saying that "currently only fake passenger data was being used."


Things that make me go hmmmmmmm....
 
Ok, I didn't read the whole thing cause it was really long, but by "color coding" passengers according to their risk, what on earth does that mean? And are they immune to the privacy protection act? What do they "gain" by doing this? What is the point of publishing that info for download? I don't get it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In September of 2002, JetBlue Airways Secretly gave the Transportation Security Administration the full travel records of 5 million JetBlue customers. This sensitive travel data was then turned-over to a private security contractor for analysis, the results of which were presented at a security conference earlier this year and the analysis then posted on the Internet.

This comes after Wired News's Recent Article article on this matter, explaining that "...the proposed government system to prevent terrorism by color-coding airline passengers according to their risk level will be tested using old passenger itineraries from JetBlue", but quoting a TSA spokesman as saying that "currently only fake passenger data was being used."


Things that make me go hmmmmmmm....

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Brother and those that secretly forward info to him..............
 
While I'm not exactly excited about the government having access to more information on my life, I'm not really worried about either. As long as the private companies don't take the data and sell it telemarketers or some such.

Basically, the government isn't going to be interested in your trip to Peoria to visit Aunt Tillie. They are going to be interested in people who fit a profile for terrorists. Even then, they aren't going to pick them up and take them off to an underground torture chamber. Probably the worst that would happen is that they go over them with a wand and search their bags.

All of this data is already available anyway. If you buy your ticket with a credit card, as most people would, where and when you fly is pretty much an open book.

Again, it's a matter of flying the airlines being voluntary. People who don't want to be screened don't have to fly.

[ QUOTE ]
Nearly all of the speakers at Monday's conference accused the proposed system of "mission creep," pointing to a provision to screen passengers for outstanding warrants for violent crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of being worried about this, I applaud it. If someone has an outstanding warrant, do I really want them on a plane with me?

If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out.
 
Agree with you Dave!

Only the guilty fear knowledge of their movements.

The innocent wouldn't care as much.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Agree with you Dave!

Only the guilty fear knowledge of their movements.

The innocent wouldn't care as much.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your papers please?

Beware the "prove your innocence" checkpoints that will pop-up soon with this 1984ish way of thinking.
 
[ QUOTE ]
People who don't want to be screened don't have to fly.

[/ QUOTE ] But shouldn't you still be told up front that your inforamtion will be given to so and so, and be given the choice to fly or not, knowing that?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Beware the "prove your innocence" checkpoints that will pop-up soon with this 1984ish way of thinking.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a different story. But what we are talking about here is a non-invasive check that most people will never even be aware of.
 
As a nation we must take extraordinary actions against the evils which face us, but eroding our freedom is not one of them. Hundreds of thousands of men have died to protect these freedoms which so many are now so willing to sacrifice. Im a lawful citizen....I never break the law, but I still dont want the FBI or any other government agency snooping around in my personal business without just cause. There are other ways to fight terrorism besides destroying the framework...the binding fabric......of this great country.

Sure give up a little freedom in the name of catching terrorist, then we give up a little more and a little more.. and soon theres no more to give up..

The only one who wins this is the terroist. They instill fear in the american public and in our rush to save the world we give up the one thing we have fought so hard to preserve. I'm not paranoid or worried the government is out to get me, personally I could care less, but that isnt the point!. However I dont believe we should allow the government to step all over us for whatever cause they are seeking to save. Thats why we have Laws.. Next your going to say we should throw out the right to the 4th amendment and allow police to not need a search warrent to enter someones house or place of business and go through your personal stuff after all only guilty people have something to hide. Our laws were designed to protect the innocent as well as the accused from government abuse. Its these laws like the MIRANDA rights that protect us, and I by no means am willing to throw the rule book out the window.

I believe that part of being in a free country is being free from the government intruding into our lives. It is only a small step from here to the "Papers, please." That so many governments have fallen into. Its not like our govt or law enforcement has never abused there power or miss used data that was aquired.

The right to privacy is a freedom when their is a expectation by a reasonably prudent person to that privacy. The right to privacy in our own homes is also a freedom. Thats why we require a search warrant to invade someones privacy, because there is a reasonable expectation to privacy in ones home. That's also why a third party "The Judge" is their to interpet the law and facts so he/she can decide if the police, FBI or whoever has enough probably cause to effect that search warrant and thats a crash course in criminal law for you.

Some of you don't seem to get the idea that if we lose personal freedoms and due process....we have torn and tattered our constitution. Due process is a basic tenet of American freedoms. If we allow Ashcroft and Bush to destroy these in the name of "hunting terrorists" You don't really believe we will get them back? In the US the government, FBI etc is not allowed to behave like thh Taliban or the Gestapo. If we don't make certain they remember this ...you won't have to move..you'll wake up one morning under the control of that kind of government. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Anybody who believes that if you are law abiding you have nothing to fear is nieve.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
 
[ QUOTE ]
But what we are talking about here is a non-invasive check that most people will never even be aware of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which doesn't make it any less scary...

And most people aren't aware that there are Americans being held prisoner without being charged, in direct violation of their Constitutional rights. But that doesn't make it right.
 
[on loan from the Squawk Box]

I seem to recall having to sign lots of releases and authorizations for my bank to find out the kind of information that's being aggregated here for profiling, but the worst thing they could do to me was only refuse a loan.

People should take an interest anytime the government goes about making a decision regarding their privledges.

[/squawk]


To develop this analysis system, the company probably needed iteneraries of people who also had credit cards, bank accounts, and cell phones. Fine, JetBlue volunteered information it had collected from paying passengers. I can't think of anything illegal about that offhand, but it sure stinks and I hope the customers let their money do the talking (so to speak).
 
Re: Big Brother or Who\'s Your Daddy?????

While we are on this train of thought, I would like to mention that a few months ago i saw an article of new regulations by the TSA. (newsweek or time one of those) It stated that the TSA can suspend the license and detain without trial any pilot that can be considered 'a threat to national security'. A little bit more wood to throw on the fire.
 
It's not unusual to limit rights in war time. And I don't think that we would even be having this conversation if 9-11 had been a normal day. Instead, on 9-11 we found that there was indeed a need to find the terrorists hidden among us.

[ QUOTE ]
I never break the law, but I still dont want the FBI or any other government agency snooping around in my personal business without just cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first place, I think that a lot of people overestimate the interest that the government has in their personal business. If you don't fit a profile, they have zero interest.

In the second place, this type of action is not unprecedented. Two examples of law-abiding citizens being checked out by law enforcement without probable cause are the screenings that TSA does every time you enter an airport and sobriety checkpoints where all cars are stopped and the drivers checked for impairment. I'm pretty sure that these have been determined to be legal.

I'm not even sure that this is a new threat to our freedom. This information has been available to the government for a long time as far as I can tell. If it weren't for computers, they could simply hire agents to monitor the boarding process, but it wouldn't be nearly as efficient.

[ QUOTE ]
If we allow Ashcroft and Bush to destroy these in the name of "hunting terrorists" You don't really believe we will get them back?

[/ QUOTE ]

If history repeats itself, we will. World war II and the Civil War are two examples in which rights were limited during a time of crisis. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (which requires the government to justify imprisonment) and even imprisoned Maryland's freely elected legislature. To find out about some other limitations on freedoms in past wars, click here. But each time our freedoms were limited, they were also always returned.


I'm not crazy about the idea of giving up freedoms either, but the best way to preserve them is to prevent another terrorist act and win the war. If the terrorists strike again in this country, the consequences for personal freedoms will be much worse

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you don't seem to get the idea that if we lose personal freedoms and due process....we have torn and tattered our constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced that we've lost anything in this instance. The information collected was put into the marketplace freely. I don't think that search warrants or due process is legally required.
.
 
And where do you draw the line davetheflyer??

Have any of you heard of Mccarthyism. To me the whole deal with the TSA could lead to the same kind of witch hunts. If an individual is willing to give up any of there rights in this country then they better be willing to give up all of them. Our govt. has been successfully taking away our rights for years. Ever hear the words Innocent until proven guilty?

I would like to point out that we are not at war! War can only be declared by congress. Everytime the president (whomever he is) decides he doesn't like something, we call it a war. War on poverty. War on drugs. War on crime. Yet, in the end all that ever happens is that we lose more of our rights in exchange for ... what? We still (40 years later) have poverty. 20 years later, we still have drugs. We still have crime. My bet is, we will still have terrorism. The steps taken are only feel good measures that will have little, if any effect on terrorism. Please don't think that giving up your rights will prevent terrorism. What it will do is erode your rights away until you wake up in a dictatorship.

A law enforcement investigation is not a search unless it intrudes on a person's privacy. In other words, if a person did not have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched, no "search" has occurred.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the government to make arrests; search people and their property; and seize objects documents and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law.Search and seizure law is constantly in flux and so complex that entire books are devoted to it. This acovers the basic issues that you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.

The Fourth Amendment: Protecting Your Privacy
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that law enforcement may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel or whatever, if:

they have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.

''In determining what is probable cause . . . we are concerned only with the question whether the affiant had reasonable grounds at the time . . . for the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched; and if the apparent facts set out are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant.''

Additional issues arise in determining the validity of consent to search when consent is given not by the suspect but by a third party. In the earlier cases, third party consent was deemed sufficient if that party ''possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.

When the Fourth Amendment Doesn't Protect You
As mentioned just above, the Fourth Amendment permits "reasonable" searches. But before getting to the question of whether or not a particular search is reasonable, and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment, it must be determined whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search in the first place.

The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched.

Did the person subjectively (actually) expect some degree of privacy?

Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, that is, one that society is willing to recognize?

Only if both questions are answered with a "yes" will a court go on to ask the next, ultimate question: Was the search reasonable or unreasonable?

For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has a subjective expectation of privacy) and most people -- including judges and juries -- would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.

On the other hand, when the police find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (a subjective expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).

A good example of how this works comes from a recent U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., No. 98-9349 (April 17, 2000).)

If, upon review, a court finds that a search occurred and decides that the search was illegal (unreasonable), any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal. This rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the "exclusionary rule." To this day, many commentators criticize it on the ground that it unfairly "lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred." But the rule's supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police won't conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant.

In addition to being excluded as evidence against the defendant, evidence resulting from an illegal search may not be used to discover other evidence under a legal rule colorfully known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "tree" is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the "fruit" is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are inadmissible at trial.

Our country is embodied in its people and the social framework defined by the Constitution. Altering of the framework by trial lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, special interests, and judicial branch activists is always a threat to the country. Regrettably we have of late been VERY lax in our disciplining of those who would modify the framework to their advantage.

Ryan
 
[ QUOTE ]
Agree with you Dave!

Only the guilty fear knowledge of their movements.

The innocent wouldn't care as much.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, seeing how everyone is supposed to be presumed innocent, I think there is a real problem with this system. What red flags will get you in the government database? What if you share a name with a criminal? Should you be subject to a protcological exam in order to fly?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, on 9-11 we found that there was indeed a need to find the terrorists hidden among us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. However, I don't think this will help us do that. This is another thing like the ADIZ around the DC area. It's something that, while well intentioned, doesn't do much to enhance our security and erodes our freedom.
 
That's just plain crazy. Okay, it came from the ACLU, but still.

If the computer system can't distinguish between a punk rocker with a very different name than a terrorist, then it is simply not performing up to snuff. And that means a lot of people who don't even have the same name as criminals or terrorists will be facing a lot more scrutiny than they should.

That's completely unacceptable.
 
Back
Top