More Details Emerge on TSA Gaffe: It's More Embarrassing

A day after President Obama spoke out yet again on the failure of American intelligence-gathering communities to communicate and work together on key issues regarding the failed Christmas Day groin grenadier, more details have emerged on what occurred in Newark's Terminal C Sunday evening. The new details paint a clearer picture of what happened, though they do not make the TSA look any better.

To begin with, it came to light that the TSA waited over an hour to even contact the Port Authority Police Department, the law enforcement arm of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the operator of the airport. Computer logs uncovered by MyFox New York show that the breach occurred at 5:20 PM and that PAPD was not called until 6:40 PM; an interval of 80 minutes. For contrast, the man who entered Terminal C's sterile area without first being screened was in and out of the terminal in 20 minutes.

While the TSA said that the intervening 80 minutes between breach and calling authorities who might be able to do something about their screw-up was "the right thing," because it involved verifying the bystander's claims of what happened and going up the chain of command, the true cause may be due to the faulty security cameras operated and maintained by the troubled agency. The PAPD said that a security camera that caught what happened was only streaming live video and not recording footage, which forced the TSA to turn to Continental Airlines and ask to use the cameras operated by the airline to verify what happened. How long has that camera been broken? The TSA has no idea. I have a feeling that the 80 minute delay was caused by the TSA's inability to verify the bystander's claims rather than the whole "chain of command" excuse.

But the real question here is why was no one at the spot to make sure this exact type of thing did not happen? Sources tell the Daily News (now, remember, it's the Daily News) that the reason that the now-suspended officer was not at his post was because Mr. Hollywood was on his cell phone. Now, if true, this speaks volumes on the TSA's ineptness. Think about it, for this guy to leave his post to take a phone call, wouldn't other TSOs in the area notice it? Shouldn't the complete vulnerability of the exit lane in a secure area concern some of the nearby TSOs? Look at the picture of the security area of Terminal C; it does not look like the exit lane is so isolated that nearby TSOs would not be able to see (through the clear glass wall) that the post was abandoned.

As far as our elected officials feel about the ineptness of the TSA, don't bother trying to call their offices to find out. Three calls to Senator Jim DeMint's office in the past three days have garnered an aide's promised response from the senator's press person regarding Senator DeMint's reasons for blocking the nomination of Erroll Southers, the former FBI agent nominated to head the TSA. Does DeMint's only concern about Southers regard his possible willingness to allow TSA workers to organize (and now jumping on the bandwagon of Southers accessing files 20 years ago), or does it have to do with his ability to competently run the security agency? Does Senator DeMint have any other candidates that he would suggest that the White House nominate?

Additionally, Representative Peter King's office has been less than forthcoming with King's stance regarding the TSA's certification of the Lagos airport that the Christmas Day cajones cremator originated out of, given his statements that "Nigeria [has] inadequate security to begin with." Was King aware of the TSA certification? If so, did he do anything to try to have it reevaluated? If not, will he ask for a reevaluation of other TSA certifications in light of what happened and his opinion of the TSA-certified airport in Lagos? Two calls and voicemails in two days to King's press guru have yielded nothing.

So fallout from the Terminal C debacle continues for the TSA. Next we'll find out that the TSO being disciplined for screwing up has a past disciplinary record or arrest record that shows that he should not be trusted with national security. A leadership-less agency with bare minimum requirements for officers tasked with the massive undertaking of airport security that has a sketchy track record to begin with; it seems we may be getting what we are paying for. The TSA needs to be fixed. The question is, who is going to step up?

Photo - Terminal C at Newark (notice the two guards) (Daily News)

TSA Embarrasses Self Yet Again with Newark Security Breach

For all of the shortcomings of the terrorist watch lists and the inability to communicate interdepartmentally that led, via a confluence of incompetency, to the failed Christmas Day bombing by newly nut-less Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab there was one thing that you could say about it: he was not screened by the TSA. Given that his flight originated in Nigeria and transferred in Amsterdam before heading to Detroit, the TSA's fingerprints were not directly on this mishap (a little more on that later). It seemed that the TSA would avoid the majority of the scrutiny. Until yesterday.

Last night around 5:20 p.m. some mysterious character somehow managed to enter the "sterile" side of Terminal C from the public side by going through an exit lane at the security area. Details are sketchy, as no one seems to know who this mystery man is. Even more embarrassing, the TSA did not notice the breach, but had to be alerted by a bystander that someone had improperly entered the terminal. Screening was temporarily halted, then the terminal was cleared out and passengers on planes at the gate were forced to deplane and be re-screened. Naturally, disorganization ensued.

Flights were grounded for six hours after the incident, and Newark is just about done shaking off delays and cancellations due to the incident (flights in and out of Newark as of noon today were not experiencing delays according to the FAA). However, given the interconnectedness of the airline system both nationally and internationally, the incident caused some major problems for Continental, who is Newark Airport's largest tenant and uses the majority of Terminal C's gates.

Meanwhile, the TSA has identified the screener whose responsibility was manning the exit lane to make sure no one did exactly what this mystery individual did. The TSA declined to publicly name the screener or what disciplinary action would be taken. Anything less than termination, however, would be insulting.

Needless to say, this incident just throws an ever-increasing spotlight on the dysfunction of the TSA as a whole. Between embarrassing test failures, an insecure website which leaves passenger's personal information available to those who know how to get it, and publishing TSA screening guidelines online, the TSA has not really proven itself to be a competent agency worthy of the public's trust. Now this, a little over a week after an attempted bombing of an airliner in Detroit put the agency on high alert.

So where's the problem with the agency? To begin with, they lack leadership. The nominee to head the troubled agency, Erroll Southers, is stuck because Senator Jim DeMint (R- SC) is worried that Southers might allow the TSA members to unionize. I'm still waiting to hear from Senator DeMint's office for clarification of his stance on Southers' appointment.

Another issue with the TSA comes from the lackluster requirements to become a TSO (Transport Security Officer). All you need is the following: a GED or one year of work as either an X-ray tech, security work, or aviation screening. In other words, if you have dropped out of high school but have found work as a security guard or an X-ray tech, you are qualified to screen passengers, in the hopes of weeding out terrorists, boarding commercial airliners in the United States. These "requirements" set the bar lower than numerous municipal police departments, yet TSA officers are supposed to be able to detect tools of terrorism and prevent attacks onboard airliners?

On top of all of this, Chuck Schumer (of "the public option getting voted down is a victory for it" fame) stated only hours before the security breach at Newark that security at some airports abroad is "appallingly lax," while calling for a boycott by commercial airlines of those foreign airports not up to snuff. But Schumer's not the only clueless entity in this story. Less than a month before Abdulmutallab got explosives through Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria and tried to blow up a Delta airplane in Detroit, the TSA confirmed that the airport was in compliance with all 25 ICAO security procedures that were examined (though Representative Peter King (R-NY) stated that "Nigeria [has] inadequate security to begin with." An e-mail to his office asking if Rep. King had done anything about the TSA certification of Lagos' airport prior to the Christmas Day incident or plans to do anything about the TSA certification process has not yet been answered.). So it looks like our leaders are either misinformed/ignorant or, if they think they know something, don't do anything about it except to grandstand after the fact.

In summation, the TSA is a highly disorganized and woefully underqualified authority to be running something as important as airport and port security. They've proven it time and again and, if nothing is done to rectify the shortcomings of the organization, they'll prove it in the future. While our elected officials want to whine about overseas airport security, we really need to be looking at our own nation's security framework to see where we can improve. I said last post that a problem has been identified, now it's time to fix it. So will we just get lip service or will things actually be fixed?

Photos - TSA logo (TSA), Passengers stranded in Newark on Sunday night (ABC News)

The Taliban Has Reformed and is Now a "Resilient Insurgency" - How Convenient

The latest out of Washington is a report from the Pentagon that states that the Taliban in Afghanistan has reformed and is now a "resilient insurgency." There are two scenarios now for the Bush White House, and neither is good. The first scenario is the fact that this report is complete and utter bullshit. The second is that Washington has allowed the Taliban to reform into a strong group under the armed forces' watch and the attention diverted to Iraq for a war based on incredibly horrible intelligence has more than likely detracted from resources that may have been more useful in a combat zone predicated on better intelligence (we knew Osama bin Laden was there; who do you think built the tunnel system for him in Tora Bora?).

Neither scenario is good for Bush and, in turn, McCain. The timing of this report, however, is very interesting. As the Democrats pander to stubborn and bitter Hillary supporters who would rather see John McCain in office than vote for a black man who actually has a better shot than Clinton at winning in November, John McCain's campaign has hit a few roadblocks. After a Newsweek poll stating that Obama was surging in the polls, McCain was probably scrambling for some good press. What is not good press is the fact that one of McCain's top advisers, Charlie Black (a longtime GOP operative) saying that a terrorist attack on the United States would be advantageous for McCain come November. So it looks like some in the McCain camp are hoping for innocent Americans to die just so McCain can reach the Oval Office.

However, the process of going to a nation, overthrowing the government, funding anti-American extremists and simply waiting for the results 20 years later (read: our Cold War operations in the Middle East) is simply too lengthy. The next best thing? Come up with a report - whether true or not - saying that the threat of terrorism is still high (9/11, which was politicized beyond belief by Rove and Company, seems to have outgrown its usefulness for the neo-cons) and people should be afraid. That way, no innocent Americans die (sorry Charlie Black) and people will still be scared.

But there are repurcussions to these actions. The first is, if this is exposed as a lie, the Bush camp is seen in even worse light (though somehow the man stays in office) and McCain, who will more than likely tout this report in the context of his foreign policy experience (though one of his most famous political moves involved aiding a savings and loan scandal douchebag in the 1980s with the Keating Five, which was 100% domestic), will suffer in the polls. The second, and more likely, is that this is not exposed as a lie and people will believe it. People will look over the fact that America's presence in Afghanistan has not deterred the Taliban from reforming right under their noses and that we should have learned a lesson from the 1980s. All they will see is that the Taliban (who have arguably done less for Osama bin Laden than the United States) is reforming and that America is in danger. McCain will slip up by saying Barack Hussin Obama and the typical American - who has absolutely no concept of what Islam is - will correlate Obama's middle name with the Taliban and chaos will ensue.

Seriously, though. Think about the timing of this report in the context of what is going on now. The Democrats are trying to move forward from a divisive primary (we have Hillary to blame for that) and McCain's campaign is shooting itself in the foot. It is at this moment that the Pentagon decides to release this report. I don't know what to think of it, given the shoddy intelligence coming out of that five pointed building (five pillars of Islam - conspiracy theory!) in the recent years. Yet still the fourth branch eats it up. Peace.

Photos - Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a major player in CIA Cold War covert ops in the Middle East) (CNN), Charlie Black - put his ass on a no-fly list (LA Times), The Pentagon (Pentagon)

Short Term Memory Loss: Mukasey Surprised by Terror Threats

It seems that Attorney General Michael Mukasey is not particularly well-read on the subject of American foreign policy in the 20th and early 21st centuries. He has recently come out and said that he was surprised how varied and geographically spread out the terror threats that the United States receives are. He then declined to talk about the nature of the terror attacks and then declined to say whether there was any increased risk for the country. So why even bring it up? Beyond reinforcing the constant paranoia about Islamic radicalism (he specifically pointed out fatwas) that the current administration would like us to live under, he used this opportunity to push his agenda: he urged Congress to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Nothing like a little fear mongering to try to push legislation through our elected bodies.

Looking beyond the hypocrisy of the top lawman in the country's plea for immunity of telephone companies who broke the law, it was Mukasey's quote at the bottom of the CNN article that really struck me. When queried about Bin Laden (who has recently put out two tapes denouncing everything but Islam), he said, "Am I alarmed? I am alarmed, I guess. I wish he weren't in a position to issue them." I'm going to take this statement as "I wish Osama bin Laden were not in a position of power from which he is able to issue messages to the world."

For those who choose to remember, I would like to visit one of the last showdowns of the Cold War between the US and the Soviets: the Soviet-Afghan War. I'm currently reading Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" which is an in-depth look at the US's involvement in the Middle East (specifically Afghanistan and Pakistan) from 1979 to September 10, 2001 and that is where a lot of the following information comes from. One of the reasons that Osama bin Laden has such a position in world affairs today can be attributed to Langley, Virginia. The CIA was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars to the mujahadin freedom fighters who were resisting Soviet influence in Afghanistan. However, through a deal with Pakistan, all money had to go through their secret intelligence force the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which was more corrupt than America's CIA. Saudi Arabian money also flowed into Afghanistan from that country's General Intelligence Directorate (GID). The CIA, both through the ISI and secretly behind the ISI's back, trained mujahadin fighters on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to fight the Soviets. America also supplied the Islamic rebels with numerous weapons and materials. While not dealing with Bin Laden directly (as far as we know), there is little doubt that both the ISI and the GID had relations with Bin Laden (keep in mind that the CIA worked closely with both these agencies). The CIA also backed the anti-Communist Taliban (who had a mutually beneficial relationship with Bin Laden) and also printed Qur'ans for mujahadin fighters in order to stir up Islamic nationalism in the region to fight the Soviets. The CIA was well aware of the anti-American and pro-radical Islamic tendencies of these fighters and rebel groups, but foresight is not a CIA characteristic and the higher ups in the Reagan Administration felt that communism was the bigger enemy. It should come as no surprise to anyone, Michael Mukasey included, that there are strong rebel groups in the Middle East who are well-armed and well-trained who want to hurt America because we are the ones who enabled them. That's like giving an alcoholic a truckload of booze and being shocked when he gets shitfaced.

But in addition to all of this, the nearly 7 year hunt for Bin Laden after 9/11 has proven to be a massive embarrassment for the Bush Administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not to mention the CIA. We had a chance to capture or kill Bin Laden. We essentially had him cornered in Tora Bora in late 2001 and he literally walked right by us. The military thought that the best way to try to capture or kill the most wanted man in the world would be to have General Tommy Franks call the shots - from Tampa, Florida. The military also denied a general's request to commit a large amount of ground troops to the area to capture Bin Laden, something that the Bush Administration has admitted was "the gravest error of the war." Instead of admitting mistakes in our past foreign policies, those in the upper echelons of our government choose to blame Islam, Arabs, and those who oppose unconstitutional "security" measures (who, through this opposition, are labeled as siding with the terrorists).

Of course, when Mukasey says that he is surprised by the geographical diversity of the origins of all of these threats, one may assume that the Middle East is not the only region in the world from which these threats are coming from. A brief look at American foreign policy might yield some answers as to where this country's image is not tip-top. Nicaragua (and subsequently most of the countries in the surrounding area), the Philipines, Bolivia, and the Congo are a few. This government need not blame others for discontent with America in other regions of the world, as the CIA (which was run by our current Secretary of Defense during George H. W. Bush's second term) has done more than enough to piss people off.

In conclusion, it is slightly worrisome that our current Attorney General Michael Mukasey is surprised that there are factions within the world's population that strongly dislike America as a country and as a society. Obviously I'm sure there are groups out there who are batshit crazy and have no legitimate reasons to hate our country. But while there are groups like that, I'm sure that there are more groups who, though their tactics should certainly be reevaluated, have legitimate gripes with America due to foreign policy blunders that this country has made. To ignore American history abroad inevitably leads to grave misunderstanding (one of the reasons that we are still in Iraq). If Mukasey wants a little background information on what's going on in the world today I'll lend him my copy of Coll's book when I'm done with it. Peace.

Photos - Attorney General Michael Mukasey (www.newsgroper.com), Osama bin Laden (www.msnbc.msn.com), The CIA shield (commons.wikimedia.org), CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia (encarta.msn.com)

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Voting Record

In light of the New York Times article that takes a closer look at how government surveillance not only violates existing law regarding Americans' privacy, but also has severe logistical issues in the technology age, I decided to post those senators who voted for the amendment that would strike immunity for communications companies who broke the law by handing over phone records without a warrant and those who voted against the amendment.

Voted for the amendment (in other words, do not want immunity for the companies):

Senator Daniel Akaka (D - Hawaii)
Senator Max Baucus (D - Montana)
Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware)
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington)
Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Senator Robert Casey (D-Pennsylvania)
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) - Sponsor of the amendment
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)
Senator Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Senator John Kerry (D-Masschusetts)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey)
Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois)
Senator Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada)
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York)
Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana)
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Those who voted against the amendment (in other words, those who want immunity for the phone companies):

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colorado)
Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming)
Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana)
Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah)
Senator Kit Bond (R-Montana)
Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)
Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky)
Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina)
Senator Thomas Carper (D-Delaware)
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia)
Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
Senator Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi)
Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota)
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Senator Kent Conrad (R-North Dakota)
Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee)
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)
Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina)
Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico)
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada)
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska)
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas)
Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia)
Senator Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota)
Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin)
Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona)
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-Connecticut)
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas)
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
Senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida)
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona)
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Montana)
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
Senator Babara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida)
Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska)
Senator Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas)
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)
Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-West Virginia)
Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colorado)
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)
Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon)
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Senator John Sununu (R-New Hampshire)
Senator John Thune (R-South Dakota)
Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana)
Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
Senator John Warner (R-Virginia)
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)

Those senators who felt voting (their main job) was not important:

Senator Hilary Clinton (D-New York)
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)

What is interesting here is that Hilary Clinton, who is spouting her stance against the Iraq War seems to feel that voting on a bill about national security (which is directly related to the war) is not that important (the Times article linked in my earlier blog post seems to have incorrectly stated that Obama did not vote).

Next Time You're on the Phone, Say Hi to the Government

The Senate yesterday took a massive step backwards when it comes to civil liberties in this country. In a 68-29 vote, the upper house of Congress chose to reject amendments to a new domestic spying bill that would have restricted the government's ability to tramp all over your civil liberties. It's one thing when legislation like this is proposed directly after 9/11 when patriotism and the fear of terrorism has gripped the nation, but we are over 6 years removed from 9/11. The government has offered little to no evidence that the Patriot Act prevented any type of terrorist attack on this country, so why do we need to essentially expand upon it?

One of the more contentious parts of the bill is the fact that is grants legal immunity to those phone companies such as AT&T and Verizon who illegally gave phone records to the government sans warrant (as a refresher, here is a link to the 4th Amendment). The New York Times article I cite (CNN ran nothing on the story as of 2:30 pm today, deciding that whatever Roger Clemens put in his ass or wondering if anyone gave a shit about the Oscars was more important) says that those who supported immunity for the phone companies said that the companies gave up the records out of patriotism. With such logic, doing anything that the president does not want you to do (like opposing the war, calling for equality for gays, etc.) is unpatriotic. That is a highly dangerous way of thinking (I could point you in the direction of a dictator from Germany a while back who used the guise of patriotism to do horrific things). Obviously we are not at 1930s and 1940s Germany's point, but why even take a baby step in that direction?

One interesting thing was that a highly influential individual in the debates arguing for the immunity aspect of this bill came in the form of Senator John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia, who has received considerable money from both AT&T and Verizon. The New York Times article says $42,000 in contributions from executives at these two companies last year and has received $37,600 from AT&T and $30,500 from Verizon since 2003. You don't think that would have anything to do with his pushing for immunity for these companies, do you?

The bill says that the surveillance would only be foreign-based communication and Americans would not be the target. The problem is that there is no court overlooking this surveillance until after the fact. In other words, the government can do whatever it wants and face a slap on the wrist from some secret court tribunal well after the action has been taken. This would not be unprecedented, as reports have come out detailing the abuses that various "intelligence" organizations committed under the veil of the Patriot Act.

The bill has not been passed yet, but the large amount of support in the Senate is highly disconcerting. The House gave them the bill without the immunity for phone companies and also with much more restrictions on governmental spying. The Senate did not like that and is sending it back to the House with the aforementioned revisions.

What does this mean? Well, for one, it shows the massive divide in the Democratic party that has been highlighted in the primaries. Secondly, it shows the inability of the Democrats to stand up for their constituents for fear of being labeled by paranoid Republicans as being weak on terrorism, as Senator Patrick J. Leahy pointed out, and it also shows that money runs certain aspects of politics. So next time you're talking to grandma on the phone to say hi, don't forget to shout out your friends at the NSA. Peace.

Photos - NSA headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland (commons.wikimedia.org), Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) (www.senate.gov), "Wait, who's listening to us? Anyway, have you found a good girl yet?" (www.brianbaumley.com)

FBI Wants to Create Massive Database of Your Personal Traits

Source: NYTimes

First off, sorry for not posting for a while, but the stomach flu and a head cold (back to back) have kept me from this blog. In any event, the feds now want even more power when it comes to knowing exactly what you are doing. First, of course, there is the Patriot Act that allowed Congress and the President to supersede judicial processes to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, among other things. I hoped that the Patriot Act would be the last piece of legislation of its kind, but if the FBI has their way it will not be.

What the feds want to do is simple: create a massive database of people's physical characteristics to better identify terrorists and criminals. It sounds OK at first glance, but the implications of this are huge. The FBI wants palm prints (as opposed to the fingerprints they already have), eye scans, mug shots and pictures of scars and tattoos. Anything that could identify a person.

So what's the problem? With this information the government (and anybody willing to pay the government) will be able to find out where you've been and when you were there. The CNN article on the subject cited a 2006 German study about facial recognition in a train station. It sounded like it was being done through surveillance cameras because it talked about the lighting during the day and during the night, meaning you can be digitally identified by simply walking by a CCTV camera.

NSA Headquarters (Source: NerdyLorrin)

One of the main arguments is that if you're not doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about. The problem is I like my privacy. Am I doing anything wrong? No. I just like to know I am not being watched and tracked everywhere I go (a pretty reasonable request). The bigger problem, however, is the "slippery slope" issue. Already there is talk of employers using this technology to keep tabs on their employees. For instance, the CNN article mentions a "rap-back" program in which the feds keep employees' fingerprints on file and if they get arrested or in trouble with the law they will let the employer know that said person's fingerprints came up over the weekend from whatever police department. So now the government will be keeping tabs on you for your employer (at a price, of course). Now say the employer wants to know if you were really sick on the day you called in complaining of the flu. For a little extra money the employer has the FBI run a scan for you that day to see where you've been (using security cameras that are already set up in many cities). Or say your employer just wants to know what you do for fun on the weekends. Just call the feds, they have all your information.

Additionally, if this database is created (and a company is made $1 billion richer because the government, naturally, is trusting the private sector with this) it could be the first step to numerous other blatant violations of privacy. Next could be blood samples or DNA samples to keep in a database. From there insurance companies may want your samples to make sure you're not prone to diseases (which, if you are, your premium would surely go up). The possibilities are endless.

There are those who say that the government will not abuse their power when it comes to protecting citizens. They argue that without it, we will be decimated by terrorists. We never had the Patriot Act before 9/11 and nothing happened (the only other terrorist activity came from home-grown white boys). And don't say 9/11 would not have happened if we had measures like the Patriot Act or this one in place; the warning signs were there. If you really want to improve domestic security, try pumping $1 billion into airport security. Anyway, it has been proven that the government misused the Patriot Act to get information they were not allowed to access. I'm assuming that the estimates are conservative on the feds' misuse because everyone's favorite non-partisan, totally fair attorney general Alberto Gonzales was involved.

CCTV Cameras (Source: Soft Hook)

In conclusion, this measure is one that a) is not necessary and b) highly risky. It opens up the door to so much that should not be property of the government. Eye scans and palm prints will do very little in the "war on terror." It will not make American foreign policy any better and less xenophobic. It won't make people hate America less (it would probably do the opposite). And it certainly does not seem to follow the letter of the law or American principles. Unless you want any conversation you have ever had to be published to those who know you and for everyone to know your every move, there is no reason to support this. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."