Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Out of Business, Clear May Sell Customer Data

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-don't-worry-it's-perfectly-safe dept.

Privacy 77

narramissic writes "Earlier this week, the Clear airport security screening service ceased operations, leaving many to wonder what would become of the personal information, including credit card numbers, fingerprints, and iris scans, of Clear's customers. And now we know. The information could be sold to the provider of a similar service. Until then, Clear has erased PC hard drives at its airport screening kiosks and is wiping employee computers, but the information is retained on its central databases (managed by Lockheed Martin). Clear customer David Maynor, who is CTO with Errata Security in Atlanta, wants Clear to delete his information but that isn't happening, the company said in a note posted to its Web site Thursday. 'They had your social security information, credit information, where you lived, employment history, fingerprint information,' said Maynor. 'They should be the only ones who have access to that information.'"

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28483611)

More kdawson FUD?

heh (4, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483629)

As someone who stood in line and watched well off folks who could fork up the cash and fly by - rather than forcing the influential to face the stupidity that is the tsa so that maybe something could happen to change it - I can't say I feel too upset for them. I saw a guy sign up for it when I flew last month- people that just forked over the $200, lost their data and never really didn't get to use the service must really be mad.

Re:heh (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484559)

As someone who stood in line and watched well off folks who could fork up the cash

...and didn't mind sacrificing their identity information and privacy ...

Reverse Elitist Drivel (1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485095)

As someone who stood in line and watched well off folks who could fork up the cash and fly by

Oh yeah, they were so much better off that you, having the fantastic cash reserves to be able to afford a whole $99 a year ($199 at the end) to have shorter security lines for frequent trips!

How much do you spend on your internet again? Oh but you say, I use that every day! Well what about people who had to fly every week...

Your post is nothing more than a case of reverse elitism, proclaiming how much better a man you are because you sucked it up and stood in a line. Well I say, foo on that - if there's a way to make security lines a somewhat quantifiable chunk of time let people take it who need it. The great thing about Clear was how non-elitist it was, anyone could afford to sign up if they traveled much and felt like it was worthwhile.

I was very close to signing up myself, and if another provider comes on line I probably will even though I don't own a single yacht or private island. In fact I am so poor I have but one next gen console instead of all three. Doesn't anyone value their time anymore? If you take even just ten trips a year by plane it seems well worthwhile to me to be able to show up an hour later because you know roughly how long security will take every time you go.

To keep up that air of self-satisfied smugness, the next time you go glance over at the first class/premier checkin line. Those people still get to go ahead of you only they do so by paying a few thousand dollars for a ticket, not the price of two video games a year. So you can still think how awesome you are because you are standing in line with the "real" people unlike Them.

It does annoy me they are selling the data (I don't think they should be allowed to transfer that without owner consent) but it wouldn't stop me for signing up with the next iteration. A service like this is needed for real world travelers.

Re:Reverse Elitist Drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28486267)

It does annoy me they are selling the data (I don't think they should be allowed to transfer that without owner consent) but it wouldn't stop me for signing up with the next iteration. A service like this is needed for real world travelers.

Not that i disagree with the rest of your sentiment, but you've just shown that you're going to end up paying a lot more than the price of two video-games a year. 100 bucks and as much personal and private information that they can strip from you before they shut-down and sell off as well.

Not my cost (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28489037)

100 bucks and as much personal and private information that they can strip from you before they shut-down and sell off as well.

So then you agree with the RIAA that a guy with 10 songs on his HD should pay a billion dollar fine?

After all, you are claiming that because information I provided them is sold I have "lost money". Huh?

I haven't lost anything. I would have lost my yearly fee, but nothing beyond that - my data being somewhere else does not automatically cost me anything.

If it fell into the wrong hands - possibly, but then I also take a similar risk just buying a plane ticket or a meal at a restaurant. This situation is not really that unique.

Re:Reverse Elitist Drivel (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486611)

so if that's "reverse elitist drivel" what do we call your response?

Re:Reverse Elitist Drivel (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 5 years ago | (#28488391)

so if that's "reverse elitist drivel" what do we call your response?

Very nice.

To the GP: If the system is broken, then it needs to be fixed for everyone, not just those with lots of disposable income.

The Truth (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28489007)

so if that's "reverse elitist drivel" what do we call your response?

My response outlines how the world works, and the fact that anyone in reality could afford to pay for Clear (anyone flying anywhere anyway). I'm pointing out he's angry at the elite, when the program is not even *for* the elite - it's for everyone.

So I tell you all how it actually works, and get modded down. That's Slashdot I guess, when reality doesn't fit the meme such as all privilege is arrogance and not optimization... Oh wait, I thought people were actually technical here. I guess that used to be true.

The original poster should also write an angry response about how his user threads don't always have greater priority than system processes, and how he's be glad to see that damn elitist scheduler out of the system.

Re:The Truth (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 5 years ago | (#28491451)

He wasn't being elitist or condemning "rich people" or whatever. He was pointing out that if the wealthy and powerful had to stand in the same lines as the proles, they'd use their influence to change things.

Personally I doubt that -- Ted Kennedy didn't launch an investigation into the abuses of the no-fly list after he was caught up in it -- but his point wasn't what you thought it was.

No, it's crap (2, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 5 years ago | (#28488721)

They SHOULD make everyone go through the same BS, even on PRIVATE PLANES, corporate jets, all of them. Let no one be "special". Everyone =politicians, cops, official government bureaucrats, military generals, rich fatcats, all of them, not just the plebes. Get on a plane and fly, you need to go through all the same routine.

    Like was said, we won't get rid of the stupid security theater until everyone is inconvenienced enough and complains enough to get changes forced through. That's just nonsense they don't, "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others" is the height of hypocrisy and just more of them tards trying to bring back an aristocratic class.

The Shame (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28490131)

They SHOULD make everyone go through the same BS, even on PRIVATE PLANES, corporate jets, all of them.

As any kind of technical person, here is where you should be ashamed of yourself. You are proposing an insane level of restriction on a persons own property (for those with private planes), in order to achieve an end that you arbitrarily demand is correct. It's like saying anyone to get a drivers license should be able to drive anything from a scooter to a hundred ton gravel truck.

Secondarily, you should be ashamed of yourself for stepping so far out of reality. You and I know, what you propose would never happen in a billion years. Where there are humans there is privilege, in any society.

So given that unshakable fundamental FACT of humanity, why not allow everyone to have the same privilege if they wish? What do you have against the common man that you would wish to take away a benefit that can give them some of their life back that would otherwise be wasted?

Shame on you sir, and all who think as you do.

you don't get it (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 5 years ago | (#28490929)

it already is insane, I'm totally against all the security theater big brother BS surrounding the dubious cliams of the government's fairy tale version of the events of 9-11 2001 and the resultant crap patriot act and homeland security and flying on airliners nonsense pseudo security and etc. And now we have people demanding "VIP" treatment as long as they pay more or are rich enough to own their own planes or something else. I call shenanigans on that. If it is such a threat, then everyone needs to go through the screening. I would *rather* we went back to the way it was with just a few more common sense practices, but it ain't my call there, I just think it is the height of hypocrisy and goes to show how stupid their alleged security is when they have so many exemptions and some people feel they "deserve" to be treated "special" because, in essence, they have more money to burn than other folks, or they are somehow more privileged because of the busy work government job or connections.

That's the only shame, that so many go along with it, this creeping fascism. The slow boiled frog.. I do NOT fly at all, and will not, for any reason, until such a time as they stop the nonsense. You want to cast the shame blame, here ya go, shame on the folks who put up with it for any reason. Shuck and jive and keep you head bowed and don't disrespect your betters, knave! Grovel at your master's boots and eat the shit sandwhich offered and be thankful they allow it. People are wont to use the word sheeple, normally I don't, but when it comes to flying and people who put up with that crap EGADS where is your (collective "your") self respect and dignity? A freeking "no fly" list? What the hell is that all about, an enemies of the state list, guilty because some star chamber says you are? People who fly, by going along with it, are giving de facto approval to such nonsense. There's some more of your shame right there.

    The entire public should have said HELL NO and boycotted airline travel until the ridiculous rules got trashed. They should stand around in huge groups, point their fingers at some badged moron and his boss and just laugh! Just laugh hysterically at the stupid monkeys and their freekin fasicst crap. Then all get on the horn to the airline execs and say "no flying until these dumbass rules get changed, which means no more fat check and cushy job, sucks to be you mr. airline boss or investor, bye". You will NOT ever see an airliner hijacked like that anymore, the rest of the people would overwhelm any group of hijackers, they just would. there's no need for this crap like exists today except to get the sheeps conditionede to take even MORE crap down the road. and anyone who can't see that just ain't lookin' or just plain don't care, one or the other. It's to soften you up, get you used to always be afraid, you have been terrorized into obedience and to accepting an "elite" class of humans over you, your "masters".

    Instead of a righteous boycott, which is what should have happened, nope, most of the scared and terrorized people (even if they don't admit they were terrorized) just went along with getting their wives and children felt up by official pervs, get x rayed, have to be humiliated by drooling security "agents" and all that other crap..well..except for the "special" ones who can afford to fly private, they are too leet to stand in line like the "commoners".

And the others, who like me, refuse to be a part of it, by boycotting their nonsense.

Shame on society for putting up with this and all the other big brother bullshit that has gone down the past several years. There's your real shame, the whole situation is a sorry-ass shame.

And as long as you let some people be "special", where they get the VIP treatment, and get away with not going through the same crap, it will just get worse. You need people with some juice, with power and influence, along with everyone else, to help bring about constructive change. If they have to go through the same crap, that will be a GREAT inducement for them to help things out, to help their less rich and less powerful neighbor out as well.

Of course if you are all in favor of some medieval styled two class society, just disregard what I said, because you are getting the society you want, some powerful predators who are above the law because of their money and contacts and positions, and the cowed and beaten down other 99.99% of the humans, their serfs. Me, being an old civil rights worker and freedom oriented guy, am sorta against that aristocratic stuff. I think, if there are bullshit laws, they should at least be applied evenly across the board, then there's a better chance of getting them changed.

This reminds me, an analogy, of those anti gun and anti self defense big name dems-politicians and celebrities- who are "special and vip" so *they* have armed bodyguards. But they don't want anything like that for the little peeps.

Re:heh (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485651)

Being poor doesn't make you superior to somebody who is rich. It doesn't make you inferior either, except when you gloat over somebody's misfortune just because they have more money than you. Try to get over your envy, you'll be a happier person.

Re:heh (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486683)

I think you've made a bit of a leap - but you're not the only one so maybe it comes across that way - but it's not as much as I'm envious as unhappy with the current system that makes air travel much more unpleasant than need be and then tries to build an out for anyone in a position to do anything about it. I don't say well off to place myself in opposition due to some judgment of value but simply because I understand the fact that in this country it is money that talks. Allowing this bypass kept that money from talking in my favor. It's not envy - it's being practical.

Business Plan - Extorting Bribes from Travelers (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486701)

The whole business that Clear is in is basically extorting bribes from travelers. They're not providing any actual added security by collecting the information, but the TSA folks let them wait in shorter lines and treat them more politely while still randomly searching baggage. The TSA's not even extorting the bribes directly - they're making a wholesale sweetheart deal with a political supporter who gets to extort the bribes retail. Brill, by the way, is one of the founders of CourtTV (aka lots of cop shows.)

Agree! Lack of stupidity now sold as "feature" (1)

KWTm (808824) | more than 5 years ago | (#28487179)

The whole business that Clear is in is basically extorting bribes from travelers.

Agree! This whole thing of adding the TSA stupidity, and then saying, "We're making you this GREAT offer that for only $$ you can go back to the way things should be!" I was one of those who stood in line while others whizzed through the Clear-Prepaid line. I can't say I blame those Clear'd people, though --for some, it might well be worth it to pay to get rid of stupidity, although it doesn't mean that they like or agree with it.

Clear Co. deserved to go out of business. So does TSA, but that'll never happen. :P

Re:heh (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28487469)

its an IQ test. those that bought into this service, are now marked as 'below average IQ'. in other words, they ARE safe in the eyes of the state. the state likes 'em dumb. (why do you think states tolerate organized religion?)

I'm reminded of the simpsons episode where homer drives a bunch of his clones out to a junkyard and asks if anyone remembers the way back. those that stood up got shot; until the last smart one ID'd himself.

well, this is in reverse. only idiots happily give away their private info to the state just to 'speed the tsa process'.

I have not flown in almost a decade now. I boycott all but the most ugent essential travel. all else, I just reject and refuse to play along with these stupid tsa games. I'm hoping the US (and ROW will follow) will start to disassemble this insanity we call 'security theatre' in the next decade. hopefully it won't take that long (but it remains to be seen).

Tough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28483631)

I'm confident that Clear had a customer agreement. Any idiot that would provide all of that data to an commercial entity without strict privacy rules in place deserves what they get.

Re:Tough. (1)

zhar (533174) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485481)

They do have a customer agreement and that agreement specifies that it would only be sold to a company that would be continuing the service clear provided for the customers that still had time left on their membership. They were still pushing the $199 renew fee pretty hard even as they went out of business though.

Mod Parent Up Please! (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486635)

It's informative and on-topic.

Oh the irony (4, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483643)

Clear customer David Maynor, who is CTO with Errata Security in Atlanta, wants Clear to delete his information but that isn't happening

Shouldn't the CTO of what I assume is a company involved in security know better? Should he have read the fine print before signing up?

Re:Oh the irony (1)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483893)

Clear customer David Maynor, who is CTO with Errata Security in Atlanta, wants Clear to delete his information but that isn't happening

Shouldn't the CTO of what I assume is a company involved in security know better? Should he have read the fine print before signing up?

You may be missing the greater irony. Errata Security? A list of errors, which have now been corrected.

Release Notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28485437)

Errata ... A list of errors, which have now been corrected.

aka: Windows NT 4.0, 2000, XP, 7.

No, I did not forget Vista. And sadly, I will not forget it for a very long time.

Re:Oh the irony (4, Insightful)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483951)

Yea in a perfect world he would've. The reality is that people don't have enough time to read all the fine print for everything ever. As long as there's a reasonable expectation of a decent privacy policy, most of us just go with it because the time and effort spent looking for a possible alternative is not worth it. Who's to say that he was even provided with a fine print? The article is not very clear that Clear is in the legal "right" here.

This is also why it's so important to raise alarm at these issues, because short of forcing privacy standards or laws, that's all the majority of us can reasonably be expected to do.

Re:Oh the irony (1)

otopico (32364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484261)

Just because you are too 'busy' to read the contract doesn't mean you are safe to assume what that contract contained.

You should be able to assume that the state isn't watching you walk to work, or who your friends are. But, when you sit down and sign a contract, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you know what you are signing, and if you don't agree to the letter of it, don't sign.

It is important to 'raise the alarm', but if a person can't be bothered to do their part in a contact signing, as in reading the damn thing, then they can't play victim.

While it isn't 'clear' (haha) if Clear has the legal ability to sell the info, if the clients signed a contract giving Clear the right, the clients are out of luck. Their lack of effort isn't an assault on privacy, it's a symptom of how profoundly lazy we have become.

If you sign away your privacy, then it isn't the evil corporation's fault, it is yours.

Grow some responsibility people.

Re:Oh the irony (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485521)

And, in fact, the underlying (and retroactively useless) moral lesson is this: no one is looking out for your best interests but you. If you "tl;dr" a contract, don't be surprised if you agreed to something just short of legally unconscionable. And don't be surprised if that agreement is enforced.

(This is the bitter voice of experience speaking.)

"OMG I didn't agree to that!"

"Yes you did. Here's the contract, here's the clause, [page flip, page flip], here's your signature."

"OMG You are trying to rip me off!"

"Wrong. I have succeeded in ripping you off. With your full concurrence. Thanks!"

Re:Oh the irony (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28485715)

"Too busy"?! I think not. These huge documents are written be legal experts hell bent on making it incomprehensible to all but their own. This is the reason why people don't bother, it's not written in plain language. Not only do you pretend to be a legal expert, I supposed you're an expert in all things atomically based, plus a god in chemical engineering and pharmaceutical processing? The law is an ass, private data should remain so. It's only the US that thinks companies can do what they fsck they like, probably because people like you don't care about anything other than free downloads and celeb of the day.

Re:Oh the irony (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486077)

Yea in a perfect world he would've. The reality is that people don't have enough time to read all the fine print for everything ever.

And for 99% of Clear's customers, I'd agree with you and sympathize with them. But this is the CTO of a security company. He should have known better that to hand out a bunch of data without any idea what would happen to it.

Re:Oh the irony (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28487889)

The article is not very clear that Clear is in the legal "right" here.

Clear's database is considered an asset.
And I mean that in the most literal accounting way.
It's as much an asset to be sold off as any chair or office desk.
You need to support your assertion that there is confusion over Clear's legal rights.

At least they said that if the (soon to be) sold data isn't used for traveler
verification, it'll be deleted, which is likely the most that any law would require.

No expectation of decent privacy policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28497617)

"As long as there's a reasonable expectation of a decent privacy policy..."

          But I DO NOT have a reasonable expectation of decent privacy policy. It's standard procedure, when a company goes bankrupt, they sell off ALL ASSETS. A few companies have a policy to destroy private info when they go bankrupt (and the few cos with this policy that went bankrupt have followed it.)

          Banks, credit card cos, hospitals, insurance cos, they are heavily regulated. Everyone else? They can do whatever they want with your info.
Giving that much info to a company is stupid.

Re:Oh the irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28484153)

Shouldn't the CTO of a company involved in security know better than to sign up to ANY commercial service that requires that much data?

Re:Oh the irony (1)

el americano (799629) | more than 5 years ago | (#28489867)

This is the guy who said he found a way to hack a MacBook's wireless card in under a minute. He canceled his demo at Toorcon and never did disclose enough information at the 2007 Black Hat to verify the sensational claim. He left his job after the incident and started what I assume is a two-man operation. (1 CEO and 1 CTO)

Here's David's Pwnie Award: http://pwnie-awards.org/2007/winners.html#overhypedbug [pwnie-awards.org]

I'm sure there's a lot more to the story, but let's not assume we're dealing with someone who would normally know better. As a security consultant, his best skill is being an alarmist. So this story was right up his ally, and another chance to be in the news.

And the lesson is... (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483645)

This was a bad idea from the start and people should be doubly wary of handing over so much personal information in the future to any organization that has no good reason to exist.

Big Surprise (3, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483649)

Only the sort of people that would hand over their information to a company like this would be surprised to find out that they're going to sell it.

Suckers! (3, Insightful)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483653)

For those folks who trust private enterprises more than governments. WTF did you expect?

Re:Suckers! (1)

_32nHz (1572893) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483715)

Surly if the government was any more trustworthy this would be illegal?

Re:Suckers! (2, Insightful)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484187)

In my enthusiasm to post I didn't expand on what I meant to imply. Lots of us out here view the government with a very jaundiced eyed. I know I do. But to think just because some function is performed by a private enterprise rather than govt. makes it all good is just wrong. Scandals, malfeasance and corruption are just as prevalent in the so-called private sector esp. when they are acting as contractors (Haliburton, Blackwater,) or quasi-govt. functionaries (Clear). As always caveat emptor, eh?

Re:Suckers! (2, Insightful)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28487369)

In short, don't trust anyone - private or public sector - with data that you really care about. The private sector will mine the data and sell it to the top bidder. The public sector will make a push to permanently store that data for future use. In both cases, the data will sometimes mysteriously disappear and reappear on eBay or some black market in a 3rd world country.

Neither party, public or private, is on the side of the citizen.

Re:Suckers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28486347)

IF this was illegal the suckers would be bitching about government regulation destroying the market!

Fucking government can never win this one - damned if they regulate, fucked if they don't :S

What one man views as a despicable practice employed to exploit and defraud, many others view as a livelihood they have a right to.

Re:Suckers! (0, Offtopic)

tehtrex (1582049) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483723)

For those folks who trust private enterprises more than governments. WTF did you expect?

Obvious troll is obvious.

y0u fa1l i7 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28483797)

obvious dumbfuck is obvious

suck my cock fag

Switch (2, Insightful)

Divebus (860563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483659)

"They should be the only ones who have access to that information"

Only if they're going to do what they said with that information - make it faster to clear airport security. If they don't, I want my identity back.

Re:Switch (2, Insightful)

tehtrex (1582049) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483873)

"They should be the only ones who have access to that information"

Only if they're going to do what they said with that information - make it faster to clear airport security. If they don't, I want my identity back.

Maybe you've voluntarily limited your right to dictate what is done with that information. What are the terms of the contracts that the customers signed? Are they being honored by the company's actions? If not, I'd say it's class action time. Personally, I think this program was an experiment by the Government to see what kind of carrot they would need to provide in order to get people to voluntarily give up any sort of privacy. No tin foil hat necessary for this one.

Re:Switch (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485043)

f they don't, I want my identity back.

Well you can't have it. Your name is Sen now, and you'd better get back to cleaning that bathtub.

Re:Switch (1)

ficuscr (1585141) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486177)

Repeat after me, "I will not give my social security number to a private company.". That includes block buster, old navy, clear,... etc Unfortunately now days there are some exceptions to this - say if you want a cell phone. Still these exceptions are few.

Re:Switch (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486403)

I should only ever need my SSAN for two reasons - to pay into my Social Security account and when I need to withdraw that money. The fact that it's legal for private organizations to use your SSAN willy nilly is mind blowing.

Cell phone purchases I understand. The NSA needs to tie your SSAN to your EAN.

Cooperate... (4, Insightful)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483665)

Do extra, voluntary action to cooperate with the police state in legitimizing the "papers please" nonsense, and get exactly what you deserve.

It started as a simple excuse to lock you into your ticket purchases. It still has that negative effect, and not a single positive. After all, matching ID to ticket had been done for decades leading to, and of course on, 9/11.

Re:Cooperate... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485789)

Do extra, voluntary action to cooperate with the police state in legitimizing the "papers please" nonsense, and get exactly what you deserve.

Huh? Your papers are checked at the airport security anyway. Once you fly your details are in a database that can be accessed by the government anyway. As far as I understand this service, the idea was to speed up the process that was already happening.

Re:Cooperate... (1)

pluther (647209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485979)

From what I understood, it was a pre-screening. So they did a background check before you ever got to the airport, so you didn't have to wait in the long security lines as everyone else.

With this program you, or anyone who looked vaguely like you and got a hold of your ID, could get right on the plane without ever having to have your shoes X-rayed.

It was pure security theater, but for profit. (Not enough profit, I guess.)

Re:Cooperate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28486455)

With this program you, or anyone who looked vaguely like you and got a hold of your ID, could get right on the plane without ever having to have your shoes X-rayed.

No, that's just how the program was originally advertised as intended to work. As actually implemented, all this program did was allow you to go through (at least) the same screening as a non-enrolled passenger but without waiting in line first.

With the way things actually ended up, there was absolutely no reason they needed anything but a credit card / money from people enrolled in Clear's program.

CTO? I don't think so (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483713)

If the CTO of a corporation didn't realize a private company, contracted by the government, would not delete his personal information at his request, he shouldn't be a CTO.

ALL data, in whatever form, once in the hands of the government, its entities, subsidiaries and contractors, will exist essentially forever.

Let the age of Total Information Awareness rock on!

Re:CTO? I don't think so (2, Informative)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483955)

didn't realize a private company [...] would not delete his personal information at his request

Given that their policy [flyclear.com] states that they will (would?) delete it upon membership cancellation, this seems like they're not complying with their policies. Unless they consider these people are still somehow considered members.

Re:CTO? I don't think so (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485499)

Unless they consider these people are still somehow considered members.

Of course they're* still members. You think just because a company goes bankrupt you're no longer part of their services? Oh no. It's like being part of AOL. Once you're in, you're in for life!

*Attention lazy slobs. Note the correct usage of they're. Not their or there. If you think you're** being cute, stabbing at the man for having rules and regulations, or thinking you're on the cutting edge of a new language paradigm, you're not.

**Attention lazy slobs. Note the correct usage of you're. Not your.

See thats the same BS Steam is pulling (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485901)

They claim they will do X f they fail. Fact of the matter, of they are in Bankruptsiy, they do what the judge allows and turinf of od deleting anything seen as an asset will never be allowed.

Steam Claims they will open up the games if the go out of business, but in reality they won't be allowed to by the courts.

This is true of any company claiming they will do something if they start to fail.
In the real world, it's complete nonsense.

Re:See thats the same BS Steam is pulling (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#28491929)

turinf of od

Turinf of od? But I just wanted a simple turnip!

Re:CTO? I don't think so (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 5 years ago | (#28490425)

If the CTO of a corporation didn't realize a private company, contracted by the government, would not delete his personal information at his request, he shouldn't be a CTO.

ALL data, in whatever form, once in the hands of the government, its entities, subsidiaries and contractors, will exist essentially forever.

Oh no! The government now has his Social Security Number!

Read the contracts? (1)

skyphyr (1149207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483737)

I'd be curious to know what exactly the contracts they had with them stipulate. My guess is it's something along the longs of we own your information once you pass it to us. Ooopppss - guess you really should read those things before signing. Anyone actually seen it?

Is Slashdot for or against copyright today? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28483747)

I'm confused. Slashdotters are vehemently pro-piracy and anti-copyright in every article. Content creators don't have rights to their work, and anyone going after infringers is evil.

Except in GPL violation articles. In those articles, suddenly content creator rights are of the utmost importance, and the GPL should be upheld under the law even though it's a copyright license complete with usage restrictions.

Do Slashdotters realize how self-serving they are? That they're against copyright when it benefits them in getting free stuff off of PirateBay but in favor of copyright when it protects their precious GPL code? You can't have it both ways. If you're don't like copyrights, then it should be okay for me to sell GPL code as a modified, closed-source binary without any legal consequences.

Could it be that most of you are only against copyrights because you don't want to lose the free ride of your favorite P2P networks, so you rant about copyright law as an excuse to justify your behavior?

Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484865)

This isn't off topic.
It's insightful.

Information, including your SSN, wants to be free, right?

They can't sell the info to just anybody (3, Informative)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483885)

According to the press release, and the statement on Clear's website, the information would only be sold to another company engaged in the same business as Clear and approved by the Transportation Safety Administration. I don't know whether that was a stipulation of Clear's contract with the TSA, though I doubt Clear would tie its hands this way just out of a sense of civic duty.

Re:They can't sell the info to just anybody (2, Interesting)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484177)

Which opens Clear up to the ability to sell the data to a company who wants to perform the same function. It doesn't look like they can blindly sell it to anyone. It is still concerning that customers have no option or method to opt out of this. Maybe there are lawyers here who can confirm this, but I would suspect that any company buying this data would be bound by the same terms of the contract or would be forced to purge the data for all people on the list who did not agree to any new terms. This would limit the new company to using the data to provide a similar service, making this, possibly, not so bad as it sounds.

Re:They can't sell the info to just anybody (2, Insightful)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484595)

There is also, no implicit promise that the company that purchases the information will NOT sell it to others. Just that they are in the same business.

Re:They can't sell the info to just anybody (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485817)

Bingo! Or even that the company they sell it to has even the slightest idea of good security practices. For all the customers know they could sell it to "Bob's security hut" where everything is kept on old WinNt servers in the clear and half the IT staff is disgruntled.

So while IANAL I just don't see exactly how they can sell this day to anyone without getting a massive lawsuit handed to them. Their customers agreed to their company and their security and business practices, not company B.

Always judge by capability, not intention (2, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 5 years ago | (#28483891)

When handing someone (or some company) your information, always keep in mind a shift in "company strategy" or PHB change can hurt you. Always judge by capability (what could happen if your information is sold,) and not intention, for intention can change quickly and without warning.

Contract? (1)

evil_aar0n (1001515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484175)

What's the contract say? If it says the company can do this, and you agreed to it, then where's the beef?

Re:Contract? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485919)

Under the pickle.

Just what did these people expect? (3, Informative)

nef919 (524838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484501)

You gave away information of the most sensitive kind about yourself. Information that even kids in primary school know enough not to give up. All just so you didn't have to stand in line. A few of you just so you could point and laugh at the mass of people dealing with the lines. Well I guess everyone else is laughing at you now. Dumbasses. Well hopefully this will be enough to open your eyes in the future. Makes me glad I'm on the no-fly list. Not that I would fly under the current circumstances. I just don't see myself paying to be treated like a criminal. The whole screening processes isn't too different from being admitted into prison. I can't believe people pay for that. Soon it will be extended in some manner to public transportation and for entry into malls.

Re:Just what did these people expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28485159)

Bingo. Only an idiot would be surprised at this turn of events. The fact that it was even possible to pay some money to go to the head of a line proves how ineffectual and fraudulent the alleged security is. Don't give your SSN to private companies, and don't let anybody tell you that you have to take your shoes off to fly to Aunt Minnie's for Christmas. It's high time we abolished the TSA.

Re:Just what did these people expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28490539)

Now you piqued my interest. How did you get on the no-fly list? If the answer is too sensitive I understand, but if you can provide a general answer I would be happy.

Privacy legislation needed (2, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484541)

This and other instances of how private data is being turned into merchandise make me very happy to live in a country where this sort of information remains the inalienable property of the person.

Surely the US can enforce similar legislation, what is so private as fingerprints should have the strongest possible protection, regardless whether it's kept by government or private institutions.

Re:Privacy legislation needed (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28485931)

good thing the internet respects borders~

The underlying issue (2, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#28484799)

What is much more worrying is that personal data can be sold at all. OK, so here people have given their details voluntarily. Often that is not a reasonable option, except for doing everything in cash.

What should happen is that personal data can NEVER be sold.

Obviously that can cause problems. What if the company is sold as a whole? What if the company is ripped apart by its new owner and they sell everything, except the data?
I would think that if it is used to continue a service or contract I previously had, then you can use that. The moment you do not provide me any service, the personal data must be 'given back' or destroyed, so it is not longer usable by the company.

Desrtuction of the data should be done in, say, one year, so the company can still try to convince you to re-start the service.

This must be obviously regulated in some way, but the principal should be that the data belongs to the person, not to the company who stores that data. You can use that data for a specific reason and nothing else.

In other words, privacy laws must become much more pointed towards the people and away from the companies.

Re:The underlying issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28488533)

Why is this modded Funny ?
If I do not own the software I use, but just have a license to use it, then the same principle can be applied to personal information that I provide to some company. They do not own it, I license it to them.

As individuals we do not have the market power to negotiate this, so we need a law for this.

Selling personal info en masse (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#28486785)

I had a similar experience several years ago. I had built a personnel database for all of our call center workers. Held name, address, SSAN, when and why they quit, etc, etc.
We quit that portion of the business, and sold the servers and sublet the office space to a new company. The personnel db was part of the deal, including all the data. *Most, but not all*, of our employees got hired with the new company.

I was instructed to send the new company an install disk, and all of the data.

I told our IT VP that, no...I'll send them the empty shell, because not all of our people work for the new company. They have no reason to hold that info on people that do not work for them.

They pushed. I pushed back.
Eventually, it got down to "ok...I'll send them the entire thing. If, and only if we have a signed letter from legal, HR, and you, Mr CTO, saying this is OK, and absolving the company, and me personally, of any future actions regarding this data".

I ended up sending them the blank shell. They can reenter the data as needed.

CENSUS 2010 (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 5 years ago | (#28487937)

Are you ready for the census 2010? Are you proud you legally bought your firearm and are on the registered database? What will you do when mandatory vaccinations come next (hint: swine flu pandemic level 6 by the WHO [naturalnews.com] ) and your on the list because of the census records and know to be armed because you registered your firearms? Extra credit for those who can tell us what happened last time the USA had mandatory vaccinations.

Clear is a domestic enemy. Just like the DHS and all this other fucking bullshit.

surprised? (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496187)

Is anyone surprised at this? It seems like business as usual. I'm not sure why this exists as a news story.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>