On Thu, 05 May 2005 22:56:01 GMT, Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>Oberman said having passengers' full names and birth dates will make it
>>less likely that they'll be confused with people who are known or suspected
>>terrorists.
>
> It's worth noting that when people HAVE presented this information
> after being denied boarding, they were still stopped. How is this
> going to change things?
>
>>
>>"Far fewer people will be inconvenienced than they are today," Oberman said
>>Wednesday.
>
> Bullshit. Pure and simple.
Complete BS. Nothing is going to change, there will be more keystroking =
more time, all they want is the data. "Less likely to be confused as
terrorists", LOL.
>>
>>Such confusion has brought the TSA much criticism. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
>>(news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., is among those whose name matched
>>someone on a watch list.
>>
>>Congress passed a law last year that said the system couldn't go live until
>>the Government Accountability Office reported it met 10 criteria, including
>>adequate privacy protections, accuracy of data, a system of redress and
>>safeguards to ensure the system won't be abused or accessed by unauthorized
>>people.
>>
>>In March, the TSA flunked nine of the 10 criteria.
>
> Not surprising.
>>Bruce Schneier, a security expert who serves on the TSA-appointed oversight
>>panel for Secure Flight, criticized the agency for moving ahead before
>>showing the system works.
>>"There's a lot of real testing that needs to be done, and they're just
>>plowing ahead assuming the testing will come out the way they want," he
>>said. Schneier said he would encourage Congress to keep a close eye on
>>things.
> I've worked with Bruce. If he says it's not ready, it's not ready.
No kidding. So did I. He .d a hole in a biometric fingerprinting system,
pulled the thing apart from a security standpoint and he was right. The
authentication scheme was weak two point and the encryption was dictionary
attackable. "Security is a process".
Ready? They don't care if it is ready, it's another data source to mine, to
crosscheck via Son of MATRIX.
>>Another issue that has concerned Congress: TSA is testing whether it can
>>verify people's identity by running their names against commercial
>>databases. Some lawmakers are worried that the use of commercial data will
>>delay Secure Flight's progress because of opposition from privacy
>>advocates.
>>
>>Oberman said a Virginia company named Eagle Force has tested sample
>>passenger information against commercial databases supplied by
>>Arkansas-based Acxiom Corp. Acxiom stirred up controversy after it shared
>>information about JetBlue Airways' passengers ¡X without their knowledge ¡X
>>with a defense contractor in 2002.
>>
>>Oberman said but no decision has been made on whether commercial databases
>>will be part of Secure Flight.
>
> I'll put my money on a yes. And, of course, those are secure. It's
> worth noting that using some simple scripting, a vulnerable database
> can not only be sucked down, but data can be placed on it. I've done
> it before, and skiddie can.
Yes is the correct answer! Secure, why soitenly, Dear Dillon. The weakest
link, blah, blah."Security is a process"
These people make me want to puke. It's an elaborate hoax, one of the
greatest technological scams ever.
Tell all the sheeople that you see
Set them free
Follow me down
You tell them they don't have to run
We're gonna pick up everyone
Come on, take me by the hand(print)
Gonna bury all our troubles in the sand
Oh yeah
Thank you, Jim. |