To the Privacy Office at the Department of Homeland Security:
I am writing to express my opposition to the testing and possible implementation of the "CAPPS II" [Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening] surveillance system. As written, the rules will violate the privacy of everyone who travels via aircraft, and thus must be withdrawn.
One particularly objectionable facet of the proposed rules is that they lead to broad sharing of all passengers' personal information, not only to law enforcement but to government subcontractors, with no one to take responsibility in the case of a privacy violation. Second, a system such as this which groups passengers based on their personal information will inevitably lead to flagging of those with specific lifestyles, further invading privacy. Finally, the proposed rules provide unreasonable hurdles to access to information, and recourse in the case of potential mistakes or abuses is still virtually non-existent.
Recent events involving JetBlue Airways provide an egregious example of these problems, which would only be further accentuated by the proposed rules.
In early 2002 JetBlue provided a company called Torch Concepts data to prepare a risk assessment study on JetBlue airline passengers. The study was not publicized and was done using "live" data, that is, the personal information of real people. Consent to use this personal information was never obtained from the passengers. Torch Concepts then matched it to information purchased from data aggregator Acxiom.
On slide 20 of Torch Concept's report, passenger dates of birth, home address, and social security numbers appear. This report was up on the Torch Concepts' site for months. Anyone could have accessed this information at any time. With identity theft at an all time high, this is an unconscionable breach of privacy for passengers.
The broad sharing of personal data envisaged by the proposed rules will make events like this commonplace.
The Torch Concepts report also illustrates the privacy impact of the interaction between profiling and lifestyle. The report identifies three "groupings" of passengers
(1) Young Middle Income Home Owners with Short Length-of-ResidenceWhat happens if you’re the "anomalous" one? If an older person flies on JetBlue and has recently moved, or rents rather than owns a home, does he or she become "anomalous"? Does that mean that based on that particular lifestyle he or she may become subject to special scrutiny at the airport? What other types of lifestyle become questionable?
(2) Older Upper Income Home Owners with Longer Length-of-Residence
(3) Passengers with "Anomalous" records
Finally, the JetBlue/Torch episode illustrates problems due to lack of recourse for passengers, which is still almost non-existent in the proposed rules. In the event of a privacy violation such as has occurred in this situation, what remedies to passengers have? The Torch report also notes that there were substantial inaccuracies in the data; without access and the ability to correct such incorrect data, innocent passengers may be misidentified as suspects. However, the proposed rules place hurdles in front of access to passenger information that the average person will not climb. Contesting records, and requesting and amendment will almost certainly be an exercise in frustration for most people. An appeals process to the DHS Privacy Office is a laughable suggestion to a serious problem. At the very least there should be someone onsite to help resolve passenger problems.
For these reasons and others, the proposed rules regarding CAPPS II should be withdrawn.
Sincerely,