more on Houston Airport Rangers

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>
Date: July 1, 2004 1:00:12 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: schneier () counterpane com
Subject: Re: [IP] Houston Airport Rangers

In message <906A0CAA-CB7B-11D8-9A50-000393D166C6 () farber net>, David 
Farber writ
es:
> From: Bruce Schneier <schneier () counterpane com>
> Date: July 1, 2004 10:49:45 AM EDT
> To: EPIC_IDOF () mailman epic org
> Subject: [EPIC_IDOF] Houston Airport Rangers
>
> At first I thought this was a joke, but it's serious:
>
>         http://www.houstonairportsystem.org/rangers
>
> I'm not sure what I think about it.  As a security professional, it's a
> clever way to increase security cheaply.  From a civil liberties
> perspective, I'm not so sure.
>
> Anyone have an opinion?

To my eye, the big problem is the lack of training.  As best I can
glean from the Web page, the training consists of a "short video" on
suspicious activities.  Is there any mention of, say, civil rights and
constitutional protections?  What about racial profiling?  Profiling
has been a big problem even for major law enforcement agencies (i.e.,
the New Jersey State Police); how will a group of untrained civilians
do?  (And what liability does the airport potentially incur from such
misbehavior by its "rangers"?)

Beyond that, the application form makes for interesting reading.  You
have to waive all sorts of rights, including the right to challenge the
arbitrary denial of one of these permits.  That may be compensation for
a glaring risk of this scheme:  are the background checks good enough
to exclude potential terrorists, or is this an easy way for them to
enter an otherwise-restricted area?  Is the intent that the agency might
do its own profiling, and exclude, say, Muslims?  A more charitable
explanation is that they want to be able to rely on intelligence
reports without disclosing them.  I would be intrigued to hear what has
been said in the public record by the airport authority about this 
scheme.

But the most amusing part is the certification.  It makes sense to
exclude members of known terrorist organizations, though expecting such
people to tell the truth about such memberships is, shall we say,
naive.  But why exclude people who have "claims or litigation pending
against the City of Houston or the Houston Airport System"?

Finally, applicants must certify that they're not a member of any group
that "advocates violence against ... any other nation".  18 months ago,
would that have excluded all members of any political party that
favored invading Iraq?


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/