Schneier on Security

Well, we know what mode of transport the terrorists will be taking.

It seems this is the one thing that Homeland Security (or the NSA or the CIA or the FBI for that matter). Those intent of getting around regulations always adjust to what works (new techniques). Yet, the rest of us stuck with the regulations that effectively do little or nothing to deal with the problem, but hinder us and continuously erode our rights. It boils down to this "Look, we passed all these laws, why don't you criminals stop?"

Everyone knows that terrorists love airplanes, why worry about ferries?
:)

Well it would have been all right, but now Bruce's let the cat out of the bag. Damn, he's the real threat to national security! Loose lips sink ships, as they used to say ...

How about the real reason: having a single ID standard (the passport) rather than the mutt standard (Random Drivers liscence + birth certificate) will speed up the canadian border crossing process.

Forget terrorism, its efficiency and ease. Of course, it also makes it very very easy to track who's crossing legitimately (those passports get scanned)

We don't need to worry about ferries. Diana Dean has it covered.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/21020dd.htm

We all know terrorists never take ferries. Ahmed Ressam didn't take a ferry from Victoria, B.C., to Port Angeles, WA in December of 1999 as part of plan to attack LAX.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/cron.html

@ Andrew B
I took that ferry in 2000, and my passport was definitely checked.

I got another movie plot threat:

2 Terrorists hijack a ferry at the canadian border and drive it into the pentagon!

There was a movie a few years ago, I think it was "The Jackal" with Val Kilmer and Bruce Willis, that contained a plot element about people and goods to travel between the US and Canada with less checks and barriers if they used a boat on a lake than if they used a plane or the road. This is what allowed the bad guy to smuggle guns in the US.

There was a movie a few years ago, I think it was "The Jackal" with Richard Gere and Bruce Willis, that contained a plot element about people and goods to travel between the US and Canada with less checks and barriers if they used a boat on a lake than if they used a plane or the road. This is what allowed the bad guy to smuggle guns in the US.

@The French Mailman

The movie was indeed called "The Jackel" but didn't star Val Kilmer but Richard Gere as an ex-IRA soldier.

Bruce Willis is smart enough to cross the Great Lakes during a boat race and doesn't smuggle guns, he smuggles the mother of all guns into the country that way.

At the time, hopefully this has changed, you were supposed to check-in with the harbor-master if you came from Canada, but there was nothing to stop/deter you from walking on by his office.

Certainly a scary idea.

The FBI in 2004 acknolwedged the following activity in the very part of the country where Chertoff was speaking. The 'practical approach' WOULD be to include water transportation.

"the FBI determined 19 incidents were highly likely or extremely likely to involve terrorist surveillance of the ferries, with individuals asking probing questions about ferry operations or taking photos of stairwells, car decks and workers going about their jobs. Three incidents involve one man who is a known subject in an FBI terrorism investigation."

Source: Seattle: feds believe terrorists are probing ferry system http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003522.php

If we want to be charitable and assume the people in power are smart, or trying to be smart, then perhaps the plan is to relax restrictions but keep a much closer watch on these particular forms of transportation.

Of course it's likely to be for show. And we all know that terrorists never carry passports....

lets perhaps be charitable here. The situation is such that they don't have the political support to do a "fool" proof or completely effective system. So they implement a flawed system up front to "get their foot in the door".

Then later when everyone is used to there being passports required, they later announce that terrible flaws in the system have come to our attention that could allow people to bypass the border security controls.

The very same people who proposed the first flawed system, sound shocked and appalled and propose we "fix" the private watercraft and ferries "vulnerability" immediately.

Now the political support is different. Because everyone is now used to passports being needed and don't want to appear to support a flawed system at the cost of national security, the lobbying organisations for the watercraft and ferries aren't able to kill the second proposal to fully lock down the border.

This is a technique commonly used in government these days. Put a token measure in place and then build on it until something we wouldn't have approved in the first place is implemented as a "fiat accompli".

Maybe this is a more cynical approach that a charitable one. At least my analysis has the proposer's being competent and motivated to do what they think is the right thing rather than foolish and implementing the measure to look good in the short term regardless of it's cost or effectiveness.

I don't know why people expect to be able cross an International border without a passport. I don't leave the US without my passport. I can't imagine why I would.

Up here in Northern Minnesota we can paddle our canoes into Canada with little or no "checks" at the boundary. I really don't think I want to start carrying my passport on such trips, it seems like a bit of overkill, and I'd hate to lose it up there.

Then again, if you are looking to smuggle huge amounts of weapons into the country you should look further than canoe/portage transport. You can't carry much, and it's still quite a bit of work.

Beautiful way to cross the border though...

Will the Forest service folks need to start carrying RFID readers so they can tell just whose passport I'm carrying?

It seems just a bit ridiculous to me.

Canada has had a double standard on this issue for years. They do their best to require passports for USA residents flying into the country (at least at Pearson airport in Toronto), but I understand from talking to other folks who drive across the border that they are (still) not expected to have passports.

When I flew to Toronto without a passport a few years back (late '90s), Canadian immigration improvised a little US civics quiz which they administered to me in an attempt to make me prove I was really an American. (The clincher was when I was able to name James Brady as the "other" victim of the Reagan shooting.)

They told me at the time that they considered even expired US passports as proof of citizenship, although they wouldn't accept my Tennessee driver's license.

I've been thinking about passports and security. Once upon a time a passport was something that granted you access to a country. Either issued by your government or the destination country, the passport was a permitting document. Today that function is mostly covered by visas, unless other arrangements exist.

Today a passport is mostly used as a low level personal identity document, but the checks and controls over passport issuing are laughable. In many countries you can still get a passport with a re-issued birth certificate which permits the classic identity theft of a child who died young.

Some countries are happy to issue clean passports to anybody who is prepared to bribe an official.

Rather than persist with passports and try to make them "secure" with biometrics etc why not abandon them altogether?

Passport control at a port of entry does two things, first it attempts to prevent the bad guys entering the country. History teaches us that it is very poor at stopping bad guys and more often than not the bad guys are home grown.
Secondly, it is supposed to keep track of tourists and others on temporary visas, yet all most passport control require is that you have a return ticket, somewhere to stay on the first night and sufficient money for the proposed stay.

All the functions that passports are supposed to provide are badly implemented or impossible to implement in any society that claims to be free.

So, why not abandon passports, rely on visas and redeploy the passport people into proper checking and tracking of potential bad guys?

"When I flew to Toronto without a passport a few years back (late '90s), Canadian immigration improvised a little US civics quiz which they administered to me in an attempt to make me prove I was really an American."

That's quite funny. However, fact is that Canada is against the passport rule because they are afraid of losing US tourists, as most Americans don't have passports.

Sure, terrorists never use private water craft. It was a really big flying fish that bashed into the side of the USS Cole....

We're perfectly safe; evil spirits can't cross open water.

@David - I don't know if you intended the wordplay of misspelling "fait accompli" as "fiat accompli", but I love the phrase!

A terrorist would never take a small personal watercraft across Lake St. Clair. Who would think that they might? And armies never crossed rivers in rowboats, either. Oh, wait....

I guess the point is that it's too much work to try to keep track of the water skiers on Lake St. Clair, while it's pretty easy to make demands of people in the two-hour traffic backup at the Bluewater Bridge.

"So, why not abandon passports, rely on visas and redeploy the passport people into proper checking and tracking of potential bad guys?"

Where would you put the visas?

I grew up in Michigan, and the thought of needing any ID other than my driver's license to hop over to Ontario is just odd.

The fastest way to New York from Michigan is via Ontario. A LOT of trucks take that route.

Thinking of the Canadian border as an international border is much like thinking a state border is an international border. It's just a very odd view to those of us that grew up easily being able to cross over the border.

Securing personal watercraft on the Great Lakes is a futile project. They're big, large enough that they could qualify for having international waters in the center of the lakes, and we don't have the man power to easily patrol that much open water.

I'm not sure how well satellite (often cloudy) or radar would work for tracking small personal water-craft.

Once you get far enough from shore, how can the people onshore tell where you came from? Another US state, or somewhere in Canada?

And further, if you really wanted to get across the border, a pair of hiking boots and a pack will give you access to 1000s of miles of wilderness border out West. Much of that is forest or mountains, or as someone else commented, dense interlinking waterways that can be navigated by canoe.

Securing a border is open desert is relatively simple in comparison. And we've seen how well that works.

@Jeff Carroll
"They told me at the time that they considered even expired US passports as proof of citizenship, although they wouldn't accept my Tennessee driver's license."

Unless Tennessee is unique a driver's license is not a proof of citizenship; anyone residing in the state can get a driver's license regardless of whether or not they are an American citizen (someone on a student visa for example). The agreement between the US and Canada allows citizens (not residents) to cross the border without a passport so they want you to prove your citizenship, a birth certificate is the generally accepted document to prove your citizenship in this situation.

The interesting thing is that the agreement works both ways. My Alberta driver’s license is not sufficient to prove that I am a Canadian citizen. What would you have done if you had gone to the airport to fly home and were barred entry into the US because you did not have a document to prove your citizenship?

@stacy
"What would you have done if you had gone to the airport to fly home and were barred entry into the US because you did not have a document to prove your citizenship?"

He would have paddled a canoe home.

Actually, in 2007, passports will be required only of people entering the US from Canada by sea or air. People entering the US from Canada by land will have to have passports in January 2008.

Sorry but I'm just not very scared by this.

National boarder security doesn't stop either crime or terrorism anyway. And it's hardly news that it 'leaks'.

As a Canadian, I find this talk of smuggling weapons into the U.S. from Canada quite amusing. It's a lot easier to get deadly weapons in the U.S.A. than it is in Canada. One of our more alarming tends is the smuggling by gangs of automatic weapons from south of the border. I don't believe there is any shortage of firepower on the other side of the 49th parallel.

Woody,

Satellite and radar surveillance would be 100% effective. After all, such surveillance has completely eliminated smuggling in Florida and the Gulf Coast. Imagine the influx of drugs and other contraband if this were not so!

MikeFromEarth is right, but why are you all talking about smuggling weapons at all?

If someone wants to stop that, he has to search the car or boat or whatever.

Checking Passports is about keeping the bad people out, not the bad things.

We all know that terrorists come from dessert countries and would get seasick on a ferry.

"...he smuggles the mother of all guns into the country that way."

You mean he got hold of a BFG-9000? I want one, too!

~EdT.

Draft regulations for air and sea crossings between Canada and the United States could be tabled next month with similar proposals for land travellers ready by year's end, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins said Tuesday... Earlier in the day, Michael Chertoff, the U.S. homeland security secretary, told reporters that travellers crossing in ferries or small pleasure boats would come under the same rules as those used on land.

"We recognize that the convenience that people want in a land border is very similar to a ferry or pleasure," Chertoff told reporters at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference.

"We want to make sure we don't overload them." Chertoff also confirmed that Canadian and U.S. officials are trying to develop an alternative document to use for all border crossings that would be easier and cheaper to use than a passport... Canadian Public Security Minister Stockwell Day said officials from the two countries are making progress on developing travel documents that will both meet security concerns and leave the border open to legitimate travel and trade. But he added that it's American legislation that's driving the debate. "We have to integrate our concerns into their process."

The legislation for stricter border security papers has partly passed in the U.S., although the Senate has approved a 17-month delay in its implementation at land crossings. Much of how it will actually work is still up in the air...
Politicians from many U.S. states share Canada's view that the border security requirement should be delayed because it will cause major lineups and severely hurt tourism and trade.

Business groups peg the damage at about $2 billion Cdn in lost revenue in Canada and about half that south of the border.

http://travelcanada.sympatico.msn.ca/Home/ContentPostingNS.aspx?newsitemid=32414022&feedname=CP-TRAVEL&show=True&number=5&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc

"When I flew to Toronto without a passport a few years back (late '90s), Canadian immigration improvised a little US civics quiz which they administered to me in an attempt to make me prove I was really an American."

I forgot the appropriate paperwork once (before I got my passport) and was frantically looking thru my wallet for something that "proves I am a citizen of the US." I showed them my selective service card and lied that "you can only be drafted if you are a citizen."

The power of official-looking paperwork, even submitted by lost-looking people in shorts and t-shirts.

For a country I love and a country which supposedly prides itself on personal liberty , America seems hell bent on introducing proceedures which restrict these freedoms and inconvenience us all for what experts claim will offer little enchancement to our security. The question isn't Ferries vs. airplanes, or even liberty and security but humanity and justice.
Why can't a fraction of the money being spent to defend America be re-directed to agencies which could alleviate poverty, the root cause of terrorism? The best enhancement to security for America would be a change of policy in Washington which would allow us to live in a safer world and keep our precious civil liberties intact.

"Why can't a fraction of the money being spent to defend America be re-directed to agencies which could alleviate poverty, the root cause of terrorism? "

Because poverty is caused by these agencies!

We can have all the poverty we wish to pay for, so no thanks.

BTW, it is a lie that social spending has not increased as well as military spending.

The old guns or butter debate is wrong - war brings out both guns and butter.

"The best enhancement to security for America would be a change of policy in Washington which would allow us to live in a safer world and keep our precious civil liberties intact."

Washington doesn't change policies for your benefit. It changes it for it's own, and it's closest cronies.

The best policy for Washington is to transfer all government assets to the private sector, and end itself once and for all. Of course that is never going to happen - we will simply regress in our standard of living like all empires of the past.

My partner and I drove across the border into Canada a few years back with only drivers' licenses; when we had crossed over on the ferry the year before, that's all they asked for. But we got scolded at the border for not having additional documentation, and my partner asked, "But have you *always* needed a passport to travel from the U.S. to Canada?"

To which the border guard immediately replied, "No ma'am, only so long as there's been a border between the two countries."

But I guess we didn't fit the criminal/terrorist/evil-doer profile, because he let us in anyway.

@quincunx

"The best policy for Washington is to transfer all government assets to the private sector, and end itself once and for all."

Oh, yeah, *that'll* work well.

The instant good security and good profits don't coincide, kiss your security goodbye.

"The old guns or butter debate is wrong - war brings out both guns and butter."

No, *some* wars have had the unintended consequence of guns *and* butter. Most haven't, and most currently don't.

(Besides, what good is butter if you're dead?)

"I took that ferry in 2000, and my passport was definitely checked."

Well there's your problem. Mine's a nice solid blue. Yours must have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Border states and cities seem to hate the idea of passports because of (1) the cost and (2) the nuisance factor. These lead to (a) less tourism and (b) disruption of business. There does not seem to be real political support for paying the price for real security. For more info see http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/07/20/mayors-border.html
.

Re: ``Passport control at a port of entry does two things, first it attempts to prevent the bad guys entering the country. History teaches us that it is very poor at stopping bad guys...''

But it's great for increasing the amount of resources they have to expend to cross safely, and it's great for gathering intelligence on foreign nationals who visit your country, especially if they don't think they're being watched. There's a lot of knowledge about border security, not all of it scientific. For example, checking that they wear in the proper places, seeing what page they fall open to, using different fonts for the dates in the stamps, making ink stamps with intentional defects that appear to be inconsistent inking, examining the person for signs of nervousness as you accept the passport, etc.

Based on the current security measures on US passports, I would imagine them to be very difficult to forge convincingly, and therefore mostly obtainable only by theft or bribery, which entails risk and money. And terrorists are almost always short on funds (middle and upper-class terrorists having mostly disappeared since the 60s and 70s), as evidenced by the number of them that purchase one-way tickets, or in the case of the original WTC bombings, a child's ticket to be upgraded to adult after the security deposit on the rental truck was returned. Were it not for lack of funds, one of the bombers would not be in jail right now.

Finally, I have an excuse to buy a boat.

Passports at borders have not always been required. People used to just up and move back and forth as they pleased. An uncle of mine moved back and forth between Michigan and Ontario. My cousin's husband's family is from North Dakota. His ancestors just moved to Canada. The town they came from in North Dakota is named after them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlen,_North_Dakota. When my wife and I got married, immigrating to Canada for her was as easy as showing up at the border, filling out some forms, and paying a small fee. That was in 1989. Beaurocracy has a tendency to expand constantly and will use whatever excuse is handy to do so.

This is a simple and long term plan going into action. Bruce would agree that in a security system you will often look for and remove the weakest links first for this is where the greatest threat will be.

Here we see a plan to design "the apparently weakest link" into the system to draw the bees to the honey.

This does give the Gov a bit too much credit, I do agree.

@hubertk said "We all know that terrorists come from dessert countries"...

Hmmmm...
German Chocolate
Turkish Delight
Arabian Dates
Halva (from any number of dessert countries)

;o)

@imarsman

People tend not to get as worked up over borders as governments do (especially when the border runs through the middle of a town). My grandfather moved from the US to Canada basically because he followed his herd of cows :-)

Sadly, those days are gone. People who want to avoid close supervision (how is that for a euphemism? :-) will go for the path of least resistance. Assuming that terrorists wanted to go from Canada to the US (and despite what Hillary may say, I still think that is a big assumption; there are easier ways) they will find the least protected way and use it. If you really think that border checks will stop the flow of 'pick a bad thing' across your border, you need to apply the same rigger to all possible border crossings. And, yes, that will look extremely silly (rightfully so) to the guy in the canoe going from one park to another.

I'm going to Canada from Washington state by car for vacation. I am a resident of Washington, but not a US citizen. I've lived in the US for 15years. I do not have a passport.What do I need to have to travel to Canada and back into the US? Thanks for any help.

from WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901804.html

The Border's Right Here, but the Debate Is Many Miles Away

Hm ... I remember my Italian friend had problems entering US from Canada, as people with Italian passports were / are not supposed to enter US from Canada via the earth. This was in the 1990s.
So back then, if someone took a bus, he might have been asked for an ID or passport, but if he walked or took a car, then not? (And yes, he was allowed to pass with the pass that time anyway).

You're all missing the point. The ferries themselves make frightening terrorist targets. A terrorist could drive a car, van or truck loaded with artillery shells onto a ferry and trigger it in the middle of the night at sea. Nothing is checked on these things and they carry thousands of passengers at a time. It wouldn't even need a suicide bomber as they could escape before it went off. It makes my blood run cold to think of being asleep on a ferry at night...

I think enforcement date of 2007 has been moved to 2008 if i remember right.

My two girls and I like to go shopping up in Canada after doctors appointments in Bellingham, WA. Both of my girls are adopted internationally. As it is we always take their immigration certificates, WA State IDs, birth certificates, University of WA picture ID for the older daughter, and a letter from their father stating he is aware and in favor of the trip. I take my birth certificate and of course my drivers liscense-not to mention a wallet full of other ID.
The papers are almost always looked at. In seems it would be a lot harder for any criminal to correctly duplicate all of these certified documents, especially the certificates of immigration, and pass the scrutiny, than it would be to have a phony passport. Maybe I am wrong....

Linda :-)

so...can you use your Ontario Driver's liscense and a passport to go to the U.S?? and for mexico?

sorry about my previous comment/question....i meant can you use your liscense AS a passport...?

My passport picture looks like me with a turban if i cut my hair would i need to retake my passport picture?

We're planning to drive into Ontario Canada from the US t visit Niagra Falls. Do we need a passport or is that just for air travel?

We're planning to drive into Ontario Canada from the US to visit Niagra Falls Oct. 12, 2007. Do we need a passport or is that just for air travel?

Dec.1 thru 2nd I plan to take my bother whos in a whhelcar and my 89 year old mother to see the falls on Canada side and I need to know if I need passports which if I did would never be used again and if needed I'll chage my plans. Please advise. Thanks

I and may two sons are going to Canada from Kansas city mo by acar for Christmas, and we are residents of KC mo.We have lived in the US for three and half years.What do we need to have to go and back befor 2008

Hi my name is Sasshan and my Father was wanting to know what are the rules on going in to Canada from the U.S? What does he have to have and what about his crimial record....He does NOT have a DUI but has eaither has.....assulting an officer or its resisting arrest!!!!! Please get back to me and let me know these are reports from 30-35 years ago nothing sence then.... Thanks