JetBlue & TSA hmmmmmm....

[firstthird]

originally posted by merikeyegro

So, let's not start advocating mass profiling and building character files on everyone.

Merikeyegro,
sorry if you weren't talking about collecting data on people that fly, that is just the way I read your statement above.

Look, I'm with you that trading freedom for 'security' is not a good deal. My question is what part of the constitution prohibits airlines or the government profiling passengers or collecting some data? I don't think any part does. Just because the ACLU is hyperventilating doesn't mean that Mr. Ashcroft is taking a weed wacker to the constitution. The constitution is bigger than any one individual and does pretty well for itself. Obviously it needs to be protected but I think it is more under assualt from PC speech codes on college campuses that are criminalizing thought and speech (first amendment) and from control control nuts who think that the second amendment is talking about hunting and target guns (it is called a subordinate clause for a reason).

Anyway, I just don't think that because you are against something and claim the constitution / our freedoms are under assault means we should all abandon attempts to identify and stop terrorists before they strike. There is a balance to find and we're getting there.

About JB and the release of info, seems to me that it could have happened to any airline and I hope that it settles down before some lawyer gets a judge in Mississippi to certify it as a class action suit which would put about 5 bucks in each passenger's pocket and 20 million in the lawyers. At least we can all agree that we'd rather see that money go to JB employees and stockholders rather than some ambulance chasing litigator.

 

[NYRANGERS]

Speedbird

Sorry for sounding a little crass in my post. I just think there must be more to the story and maybe it's not such an obvious wrong. The reason I say this is, when Delta only considered giving information for the CAPPS program.....there was a media backlash that lasted for days. I think the info jetBlue gave up was used for a military security study and not for CAPPS (although some reports state that jetBlue has taken over for Delta in regards to the CAPPS program.)

Anyway, I think if this story is as reported it would be all over the news.

Thanks for your opinion.

Fly safe,

NYR

 

[BlueBusDriver]

drum roll please..........

As many of you might have suspected, there is another side to this story.
I have just logged into the company intranet at work and found a nice lengthy explanation of what you guys are hard at work trying to prove or disprove here.
Although I don't think that posting this letter from our management is something that I will be doing over this forum, I can say that someone...somewhere has reported this incorrectly.
I'm sure that you will hear more on this soon.

Have a great weekend guys (and gals)........

BlueBusDriver

 

[FDJ2]

My question is what part of the constitution prohibits airlines or the government profiling passengers or collecting some data?

Not all violations of the law are constitutional issues. In this case it might be a breach of contract. In other words, if JBLU promised that any personal information it gathered from its customers was not to be shared with a third party, and then went ahead and distributed that personal information, JBLU might be in some trouble.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

Re: drum roll please..........

I have just logged into the company intranet at work and found a nice lengthy explanation of what you guys are hard at work trying to prove or disprove here.
Although I don't think that posting this letter from our management is something that I will be doing over this forum, I can say that someone...somewhere has reported this incorrectly.

well, then, why don't you just give us a brief summary?

was information provided to the feds?

was it done without customer consent?

has the story become public?

 

[Styles]

Re: ...

"I, (name), do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United S.....

Think about it before you make another such ignorant comment...

Try reading the entire comment and understanding it, before calling it ignorant. To me that is ignorant not doing so.....

Some freedoms NOT ALL .... in other words it time to find the balance between the two and to stand up to all who threaten LIFE & LIBERTY, and thank goodness we have a presedent in office who dose more than Rattle the sabers and Point the finger "no no no you must not do that"

 

[MSNFlier]

which part of the constitution....

Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted.

In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

The foregoing are basic rules of the construction of laws.

So, where does it say in the Constitution that the government CAN'T obtain your credit card information, travel itineraries and other private information collected by JetBlue, including, I suspect, your "emergency contact" information? Well, I'm pretty certain that Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Washington, Pinckney, etc., did not envision credit cards, transactions over the internet or computers in the late 1700s. It appears that, under your theory, unless the Constitution specifically says that the government CANNOT do something, it therefore has the power TO do it.

Fortunately, that's not what the brilliant people who WROTE the Constitution thought.

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. James Madison (one of most influential members of the Constitutional convention, a southerner from Virginia who wrote a number of "The Federalist Papers).

The Fourth Amendment to the United State Constitution states:

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.

I don't know about you, but in today's world I think my credit card information, etc., are part of my "papers, and effects," and unless the government has a warrant obtained by a peace officer swearing on oath before a judge WHY that officer is interested in my stuff, and that judge BUYS the affirmation, then the government is not entitled to see my private information which I have shared with JB only for the purpose of furnishing consideration for the contract of carriage. ESPECIALLY when JB agrees to NOT SHARE my information in that same contract EXCEPT under a court order.

Perhaps the following words may make the point better, and will help better explain why certain of the founding fathers were so insistent on the Bill of Rights (which, as you know, was not passed until about ten years after the Constitution was ratified):

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

It is strange, isn't it, that liberals tend to be against the expansion of government power in certain areas, yet they seem to see the government as the savior in others. On the other hand, conservatives seem to have no problem with the expansion of government power in certain areas, yet they seem to want the government out of their lives altogether in others. Why is that? I've never understood that seeming paradox. If a person wants the government out of your business dealings, regulation, taxes, etc., then why does that same person want the government to be able to delve into your most personal information in the name of "security?"

Just some random thoughts. JB is going to take it in the shorts for what they did, that's the way it goes, but it's also why companies have insurance (any claims will likely be paid under JB's comprehensive general liability or errors and omissions policies). I say that from the perspective of someone who finds JB a great success story (so far) which I hope will continue for a long time to come. But when you offer something as part of your package of transporting someone from A to B which includes a promise to keep that person's private information private, and that person accepts your offer and pays consideration for it, you have a contract and JB violated a specific and important term of that deal.

Enjoy the weekend....

Regards,

 

[colorado418]

As was mentioned by another "blue guy" there was an email sent out the the employees today. As those email are for company only, I will not post it here. I will say though that SS numbers were NOT given out. Credit Card numbers were NOT given out. I don't believe that anything was given out that could not be found in a phone book or an internet search.

NOW, if we did give out information, against the contract of carriage and other legal stuff, blah, blah, blah, I will be one of the first to say, SHAME ON US! The truth is indeed out there, I am not sure though that it is clearly defined on the web page listed previously on this thread.

For what it is worth.....

 

[SierraPilot]

originally posted by merikeyegro

My question is what part of the constitution prohibits airlines or the government profiling passengers or collecting some data?

The United States Supreme Court has never formally addressed the constitutionality of profiling; lower courts are divided on the issue. The law on practices that approach the realm of profiling vary by state, though courts generally rule against the use of profiling as a sole basis for determining suspicion of criminal activity.

Unlike ordinary criminal activity, terrorism cannot be addressed primarily by "solving" acts of terrorism after the fact. Punishing offenders, though desirable from a retributive perspective, will not stop most future acts of terrorism. The prospect of a prison term or a lethal injection is unlikely to deter any aspiring suicide bomber.

One reason, common to any official instance of profiling, is that it denies affected Americans the equal protection of the laws guaranteed every person by the Fourteenth Amendment and any new law enforcement initiative involving terrorist profiling that rests on ethnic or racial characteristics would meet with the same objections.

At this point, we are not in a position to judge accurately whether terrorist profiling that includes a racial or ethnic factor will be "effective" at preserving safety in the United States.

We do know that most American citizens and residents of all racial groups are innocent of terrorist activity and feel frightened by the events of September 11th. Therefore, stopping or otherwise intruding upon the privacy and liberty of people in a given group will certainly harm countless individuals who have done nothing to deserve such intrusions. This truth, however, will not entirely satisfy those who wish to consider the efficacy question.

Why would anyone consider the interest in stopping terrorism relevant to the propriety of racial profiling? It would, of course, be irrelevant if profiling were to prove as ineffective in the war on terrorism as it has been in the war on drugs. And this is a distinct possibility. It may also be that terrorists from now on will consciously choose people falling outside of any profiled groups to carry out their atrocious objectives.

The notion of using profiling to determine someone's likely willingness to slaughter Americans is, of course, not entirely new.

The United States Supreme Court, in one of its most despised opinions, Korematsu v. United States, upheld the internment of Japanese Americans after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Anyone of Japanese descent residing on the pacific coast of the United States was presumed to be a traitor and accordingly placed in what were essentially prisoner-of-war camps.

Very few people today defend this nation's treatment of Japanese Americans. In part, this is because there appeared to have been no credible grounds — other than pure racial animus and fear — for directing suspicion at the U.S. population subject to internment.

But in part, condemnation of Korematsu may also stem from the belief that a denial of equality on the basis of race is simply wrong, no matter how effective it might be in realizing important objectives. And the objective defended in Korematsu — winning World War II and defeating the Nazis — was theoretically no less compelling than the present need to protect the country from terrorism.

Whatever this nation decides, future generations may judge us as harshly as we now judge the supporters of internment during World War II. We must therefore consider our nation's past, present, and future in facing the difficult challenge of profiling in an age of terrorism.

Ryan

 

[JayDub]

Re: Mo Better

All you jetBlue pilots are usually all over posts about your company.......what happened? Did you guys get a memo not to comment about this? I mean this with sencerity, I figured you guys would have a better handle on the story.

Anyway I'll leave you with this...from a Houston newspaper.....................


Neeleman said JetBlue provided passengers' names, addresses and phone numbers to Torch after an "exceptional request from the Department of Defense to assist their contractor, Torch Concepts, with a project regarding military base security."

If jetBlue engaged in this, I think it best to admit wrong doing and move on.......I don't think using 9-11 as a reason to lie to your pax will do your company any good.

I can't speak for anyone but myself. I wanted to wait until more than one obscure web site posted this. As much as it pains me to say this; where is "The Smoking Gun"? Although sometimes obnoxious, they generally take a story and run with it if it has any legs at all. Their absence on this subject is rather interesting, I think. I, too, have seen the note of explanation from the head honchos. In my opinion, this web story had rearranged some words in some convenient spots.

NYRangers, if you want to know the story from the company's perspective, ask them. They can be reached through their web site, or call 1-800-jetblue.


Respectfully,


JayDub

 

[Styles]

Cryptome is reporting that Torch Concepts, the DOD contractor to whom JetBlue gave away its customers' personal information, is now sending cease and desist letters to the privacy activist Bill Scannell (who blew the whistle on the JetBlue scandal) and Len Sassaman, who made the evidence available on his website. The claim made by Torch is copyright violation -- are we about to see the DMCA used to silence corporate and government whistle-blowers?