It’s not jihadis that worry me

Every airline passenger flying in and out of Europe will have personal data including their bank card details stored on a police database, under new anti-terror plans.

The move by the European Commission would mean all information collected during check-in would be made available to the security services.

It’s what the fuckers will do to me in the name of protecting me from jihadis that scares the shit out of me.

27 thoughts on “It’s not jihadis that worry me”

  1. Well Tim, it was a wholly predictable outcome.

    The 9/11 band of brothers won the day or at least are in the process of so doing. They have succeeded with the connivance of the cunts in Whitehall, brussels and washington in dismantling our civilization, with to be honest barely a shot fired.

    I suspect in a thousand years people will look back on this and say, much as they say about ancient Rome, “what became of these people? What were they thinking of?”

    The answer being of course that most people aren’t thinking terribly hard at all, and most of those that are, are thinking more about their own self aggrandizement, their fucking “legacy” (pace t. blair)… and the great achievements of the past 500 years in terms of Human development are disappearing down the great white swanee of history.

    I could do with a drink.

  2. Bloke in Italy,

    Quite agree. I’d just add in answer to your question “What were they thinking of?” that what they were doing was repeating a phenomenon pointed out by the historian Arnold Toynbee, namely that “Civilisations are not destroyed. They commit suicide”.

    Some other famous historian (A.J.P.Taylor or similar) made the same point.

  3. I was under the impression that this data was already widely available to the security services. Many films rely on it as a plot device: the fugitive can’t just nip on a plane home, he has to spend several days on a convoluted road trip where zany adventures happen. These are mostly American films, of course.

    In the UK, we’re told that the number of days spent in the country counts towards whether you are considered resident for tax purposes. HMRC trust you to report this figure honestly, but can’t they access flight records to verify your claims?

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    Coming shortly in a Government policy near you – biometric ID Cards.

    Like plain packaging and every other policy that the great and the good want it will be smuggled through when they think aren’t looking. Fully supported by the turncoats with blue rosettes.

  5. The airlines have this information already. If they could show that they need it, the security services could always go to a judge for an injunction.

    Since Islamists often have multiple names and two passports, and their fare paid by someone else, the advantage to the security seems nugatory.

    On the other hand the likelihood that one day an unencrypted cd with all the necessary for stealing my identity is going to be left on a commuter train does not make me feel safer.

  6. @Andrew M

    HMRC trust you to report this figure honestly, but can’t they access flight records to verify your claims?

    What makes you think they don’t?

    What makes me think they don’t is the number of cases where its a deciding factor is probably very small. In any case the usual M.O. is to assert that you’re lying and get you to prove otherwise. It won’t matter from April as the rules change in their favour.

  7. I was under the impression that this data was already widely available to the security services.

    It is; the reporting on this new thing hasn’t been great.
    The USA, Canada and Australia already require EU air carriers to make passenger data (Passenger Name Records or PNR) available to them. Air carriers might use shared passenger databases or (arely) their own to record passenger data. Some EU member states already have systems to record and process that data – the UK has a PNR system.

    This not-so-new proposal (I think it dates from 2011 if not earlier) is for an EU-wide requirement for all member states to have PNR systems for internal EU flights and flights in and out of the EU, harmonisation across the EU so they are all interoperable and record the same data and are usable by foreigners, and oblige air carriers to ‘push’ the data to the relevant systems.

    So if John Smith uses Easyjet to fly from the UK to France, Easyjet will record his PNR, inform the UK and France, the UK and France will record the data and process it to see if he’s flagged by any state as a criminal, terrorist or 1970s BBC presenter, and if he is flagged inform the appropriate authorities. Whereas now I think the authorities have to have an interest in John Smith and query all the separate databases to find out if he’s travelling, what carrier he’s using and where he’s going (although if the state already has a PNR system, like the UK, the carrier has to give it the data).

  8. Since Islamists often have multiple names and two passports, and their fare paid by someone else, the advantage to the security seems nugatory.

    But you have to consider ‘associations’. As a very simple example, if a known ‘extremist’ has a ticket paid for by a credit card with number X (among the data recorded by PNR systems is payment and billing information), the authorities might query the database(s) for all the tickets paid for by credit card X (from today to five years ago) and take a closer look at those passengers.

  9. “Coming shortly in a Government policy near you – biometric ID Cards.”

    Only if we submit to it. They have tried the security shit before and there were still an estimated 5 million –myself included–who will not submit to ID cards. The only reason BluLab quoshed them was the billions it would have cost to try to put the arm on so many refusniks. The only value of the ID card was in making people submit to it–just as the only value of the TSA is making people queue and jump when official pukes snarl at them–police state prep.

  10. I’m sure Islamists always book flights in their own name and with their own credit card, so this will definitely help.

  11. ukliberty

    My understanding is that the US will refuse landing rights to any airline that does not provide them world wide passenger information. Thus, if you fly UK to France on BA, which flies to the US, then the US will be informed of your movements.

    This used to be clearly visible to me here in Thailand, flying BA meant producing my passport when booking, but Kuwait didn’t need it until check in.

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if others are now playing the same game.

  12. Incidentally, I always prefer Middle Eastern airlines anyway. They are very polite, let you smoke in the terminal, give you real cutlery to eat with and no one shouts “Allah akba!”

  13. @Roue,

    Some reciprocation, Brazilian-style (no, not that Brazilian…) would be a good thing. New law saying that all US airlines that fly to Europe have to give Europe worldwide passenger data, including for all domestic flights within the USA.

  14. @ukliberty – not beign a student of the American revolution I don’t know whether this analysis is claiming to show there is a value to this approach, or whether it threw up spurious connections. Can you enlighten me.

    Clearly the counter measure to this, amongst people who think about these things must be to communicate with as many people as possible, but code the information in such a way that only those who know what they are looking for get the secret stuff.

    As a general rule though ti strikes me that all the old spy craft, as detailed in the Smiley books for instance, must be due for a comeback now all the modern channels are so compromised. Perhaps they never went away though

  15. So Much for Subtlety

    Again we see the basic rule that a country can have a large Muslim population or it can have civil liberties.

    No doubt we could try to have both, but given the Muslim communities see little wrong with terrorism and throw up a great many of them, we would not have both for long.

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I usually pay cash for tickets to the UK because processing my CR debit card is apparently beyond the wit of the major airlines. Some people don’t have bank accounts. Are they to be prevented from flying?

  17. whether this analysis is claiming to show there is a value to this approach, or whether it threw up spurious connections.

    Value. It picks out the relatively unknown Paul Revere. Who rode about a bit, a couple of times.

    all the old spy craft, as detailed in the Smiley books for instance, must be due for a comeback now all the modern channels are so compromised. Perhaps they never went away though

    It never went away. And the modern channels aren’t compromised. Any tradecraft channel is compromisable if the users aren’t well trained or make some fairly simple to make errors. How much of the Enigma & Lorenz success was down to one or two users making errors (the weather reports and the usual finish of HH)? Lots, according to the experts.

    Yes, there were flaws in the tech and significant genius (both Polish and British), but without the flaws in encrypting (and the U-33 & U-110 captures) we’d have had a much harder time.

  18. Ian Reid,

    @ukliberty – not beign a student of the American revolution I don’t know whether this analysis is claiming to show there is a value to this approach, or whether it threw up spurious connections. Can you enlighten me.

    From something apparently simple or mundane such as travel arrangements, attendees at events or members of organisations, you can build a picture of who or what connects or ‘bridges’ those things and decide whether to pay them extra attention – you don’t necessarily need to know a person’s beliefs or record conversations to become concerned.

    Paul Revere was a key figure in the American revolution against the British. The page shows that just by knowing who the members were of some key organisations you could get just a few targets for more surveillance.

  19. @ukliberty, @Surreptitious Evil
    thanks that’s what I thought. One of the usual arguments against collecting all this information is that it is like looking for a needle in a haystack, because of all the false positives which are thrown up. This shows that if you can get one good suspect, analysis of the collected information can lead you to other likely members of his network. So when used properly it is an aid to the authorities.

    Of course used improperly it is less so. I think there are two categories of improperly here. Firstly it will be used in the manner described above, but against people who most readers of this blog wouldn’t regard as criminals, including probably in the not too distant future anyone who takes a half pint of shandy on a Saturday night. Secondly they will not just do searches based on identified suspects, but all manner of data trawling will be engaged in. They won’t be able to help themselves. In which case the prospect of false positives loom large.

  20. Unless you know who to watch then dead drops will avoid all the security/internet bollocks in one go. The soviets –as useless as their regime and entire system was– fucked up MI6 good and proper. Unless Mustapha Liq pals up or hangs around with a known crowd of jihadi jumpers they have little chance of catching him before he kicks off. Surveillance is about control of the ordinary mugs and FBI type false-fit-ups. Any JJs being caught is thro’ their own ineptitude (which is good but you can’t count on every Islamic in the world being thick–functionally speaking–any more than you could count on every cold war socialism-sucker being intellectually challenged).

  21. I’ve been pointing out recently that the ‘solutions’ government comes up with to protect us invariably seem to be worse than the problem itself.

    Its almost like its a natural law or something.

  22. “Unless you know who to watch then dead drops will avoid all the security/internet bollocks in one go. The soviets –as useless as their regime and entire system was– fucked up MI6 good and proper. Unless Mustapha Liq pals up or hangs around with a known crowd of jihadi jumpers they have little chance of catching him before he kicks off. Surveillance is about control of the ordinary mugs and FBI type false-fit-ups. Any JJs being caught is thro’ their own ineptitude (which is good but you can’t count on every Islamic in the world being thick–functionally speaking–any more than you could count on every cold war socialism-sucker being intellectually challenged).”

    Er…please can anyone translate? Surely someone can help this deeply afflicted individual?

  23. The boss class aren’t interested in battling jihadis–they wouldn’t still be letting them increase their numbers if they were. They just talk up snooping while vaguely trying to give the impression that their antics are aimed at Islamists. Even tho’ they don’t even have the courage to say the word with the same breath they use to talk of “security” issues.

  24. Theo–Just caught up the twaddle you were peddling on the UKIP defector thread the other day–

    “Meanwhile, you diminish the achievements of this government – in education (let’s hope Gove returns after the GE!), in welfare reform (IDS has set the ball rolling) and in the slow (too slow, imo) return to balanced budgets.”

    And you have the fucking brass neck to accuse other people of being delusional and on meds? Still I should thank you. For all the extra enjoyment helping to vote the Bullingdon clown out of existence will bring, knowing that it will spoil your day–and hopefully the rest of your life as well.

    Actually BluLab crashing won’t spoil your entire life. That spoilage is already inevitable because you and your investments are fucked whoever gets in–but the fact that you are dumb enough to believe disaster could have been avoided if only enough people had given your dolly-blue phlegm-bags another chance will add well-deserved extra pain to your existence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *