Airline Passenger Screening

[goodgirl]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8504-2004Jan11?language=printer

highlights: U.S. govt. to force airlines to use a huge database to screen all airline passengers in the U.S., assigning a number and/or color to them to represent their security risk. Full name, home address, phone number will be gathered and verified; this will be checked against various records, including criminal and real estate records AND shopping mailing lists (Kroger card, anyone?), as well as credit ratings. All these will be used to determine your score, along with nationality, citizenship or non-, and destination.

Turn over a bunch of private info to the govt., and they will give you a card saying you're ok and you allegedly get thru security with less checks. Oh, and those who buy more expensive tickets more often will also have an advantage.

Privacy advocates are typically ticked off; airlines are hacked off too, since they almost got boycotted last time this was suggested; and security experts say it's a dumb idea anyway, since terrorists could easily establish themselves as "preferred travelers", gain easier access, and then hijack a plane. They point out that most 9/11 hijackers had very clean records.

Suggested ways to deal with this that I've seen are to write congressmen/senators, to remove yourself from all shopping mailing lists -- notifying stores in writing or by email why you're doing so --, and to similarly notify airlines of your intention not to fly.

 

[feral]

Well...get another idiotic move from the United States government. Not that I'm surprised. They are not in the business of preventing terrorism - terrorism hardly exists in this country. We've suffered almost nothing, but of course, you can't sell American flag decals and duct tape if you don't get the people into a panic.

As pointed out, terrorists could easily travel a few flights and establish a good record, purchase an expensive seat and accumulate some airmiles, and when they achieve a lower risk status bring weapons on board and take over. Or, get a blond haired, blue eyed American born female who is going to breeze right through to do the dirty work. Get kids to carry something on board for you, how simple is that and drug smugglers do it daily.

These are the type of things that focus on a detail and don't bother to solve a real issue. How about America doesn't finance terrorists in the future? Maybe we could take a break from sponsoring and training guerillas and terrorists to do our dirty work! What a concept! Maybe we shouldn't rush in acting like we own the world, that just infuriates people. No wonder we're seen as the Great Satan, we live up to the title, a country pushing our porn and Wal Marts on the world. and barging in with weapons we don't let others have.

Terrorism isn't going to be prevented by these measures. The risk of terrorism is miniscule. Does the government honestly believe that delving into the private information of others won't encourage further acts?

 

[Paula]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8504-2004Jan11?language=printer

highlights: U.S. govt. to force airlines to use a huge database to screen all airline passengers in the U.S., assigning a number and/or color to them to represent their security risk.

Although I don't like our present color-coded alert system very much, using colors to represent flight security risks of passengers may be a good way to avoid racial profiling when screening passengers. This PC problem always seems to be an obstacle to law enforcement personnel.

So now, instead of screening on the basis of ethnicity and/or country of origin, they would just assign people a color code instead, which could save a lot of time for low-risk fliers. Hopefully, it will also reduce waiting times at the airport for some people, like businessmen, for instance, who would just be waived on without extensive searches, etc. I just hope it works.

 

[burrow_owl]

.

 

[MichaelFJF]

I like it. Flying on an airliner isn't a God given right. It's a privilage - like driving or cashing a check. People think they're "entitled" to certain things just because they takes breaths. I think anything the govt. does to cut the odds of terrorists is a good thing. All this whining and complaining is comical. I've flown a few times since 9/11, a half dozen times or so, it hasn't bothered me one bit. M

 

[goodgirl]

to clarify, nationality will be one thing upon which the risk is based. So it's not so much a lessening of profiling, rather an extension of it to include economic, geographic (which part of the country one lives in or visits often) and other factors.

 

[TCapp]

Yep. Let's run a security check on my 20-month-old boy. He has hijacked many a plane in his youth.

 

[Paula]

to clarify, nationality will be one thing upon which the risk is based. So it's not so much a lessening of profiling, rather an extension of it to include economic, geographic (which part of the country one lives in or visits often) and other factors.

That's wonderful! Quite predictably, the ACLU has already called the system discriminatory, but that's in keeping with their profile anyway.

 

[mpshiel]

Actually, a new system has just been put into place where not only are armed "air marshalls" required for flying into certain US cities but the non-us passengers will be additionally fingerprinted and photographed as well as the passenger list, if it is flagged, must be cleared by 22 agencies, as happened last week to a British airways flight, before the flight can commence. These are not replacing but in addition to the checks already in place.

British Airways and some other national airlines are very opposed to the "air marshalls" as they prefer to have the pilot in charge, and when you come from a country where guns are pretty much illegal, having ANYONE with a gun on board seems like a bad idea.

I personally find it funny in a terrible way that my relatives visits to the USSR in the 80's is pretty much the same as a visit to the US in 2004. Your plane may be delayed for hours due to "security" you are likely to be asked to remove clothing, you will be fingerprinted and photographed, you may be taken off and asked questions again for "security" reasons, you should accept that your phone conversations may be tapped and while required to carry ID at all times you should accept that your movement are likely being monitored by an organization called, "Homeland Security" (another strangely totalitarian name like "Operation Enduring Freedom" which no one seems to get the humour of). Also, for the good of the country, people are picked up and held, nameless and without charge, trail or representation. The part that puzzles me is a) the way everyone seems to accept this as normal (living in a country where non of this occurs it strikes me very much as ABnormal) and b) the way people who point out that maybe this is a strange over-reaction are branded liberals, whiners, etc.

Please, turn off the Fox News, stop reading USA Today, no-one in their right mind is trying to blow up Witchita or South Bend. No one even out of thier right mind is trying to except probably other Americans.

 

[MichaelFJF]

British Airways and some other national airlines are very opposed to the "air marshalls" as they prefer to have the pilot in charge, and when you come from a country where guns are pretty much illegal, having ANYONE with a gun on board seems like a bad idea.

Very, very wrong. In a system where guns are "pretty much illegal" anyone with so much as a boxcutter is in charge. We found that out the hard way. And if you think the only ones with guns are air marshalls, you're very mistaken. M

 

[fungle]

The most violent society in the world tells the rest how to behave?

 

[Kookaburra]

I think it's wise to introduce these measures ... the public deserves to know that everything is being done to protect their safety while flying. I know for a fact that several of my Australian friends have criticized US customs by saying it was slack. I think that these new measures will reduce any chance of terrorism. Of course, there will always be someone who isn't satisfied with security or with the government, so it's not their job to satisfy everyone, but keep them safe.

I wonder if they'll also put up stricter gun laws in the states? They've already banned the use of a lot of handguns here.

 

[mpshiel]

First, anyone having a gun on a pressurized aircraft at altitude scares me. Second, taking away the guns doesn't make the people with the boxcutters in charge. Anyone who is willing to accept any outcome including death to achieve thier ends can always succeed. What if the next hijacking involves the use of martial arts, will we ban hands? Or if 8 terrorists are on a plane so they can overcome any single marshall will 1/2 the people on the plane be armed? If you want to hack at branches, there is never any lack; or rather every singular ailment always has a plethoria of symptoms.

If America is happy with Air Marshalls, fine. In fact why not armed crossing guards, armed toll booth operators, armed fast food servers. I find it interesting that at US customs, everyone has a gun, while Canadian customs, who's job it is to confiscate the guns from the Americans coming up, you are greeted by a 23 year old college student, and if you threaten them...they will go get a 45 year old supervisor. But he doesn't have a gun either. So clearly there are other ways and choices between totaly anarchy and leathal force.

 

[MichaelFJF]

The most violent society in the world tells the rest how to behave?

Only if you're in our airspace. If you'd like to ignore terrorism within your own country, feel free. M

 

[MichaelFJF]

First, anyone having a gun on a pressurized aircraft at altitude scares me. Second, taking away the guns doesn't make the people with the boxcutters in charge. Anyone who is willing to accept any outcome including death to achieve thier ends can always succeed. What if the next hijacking involves the use of martial arts, will we ban hands? Or if 8 terrorists are on a plane so they can overcome any single marshall will 1/2 the people on the plane be armed? If you want to hack at branches, there is never any lack; or rather every singular ailment always has a plethoria of symptoms.

If America is happy with Air Marshalls, fine. In fact why not armed crossing guards, armed toll booth operators, armed fast food servers. I find it interesting that at US customs, everyone has a gun, while Canadian customs, who's job it is to confiscate the guns from the Americans coming up, you are greeted by a 23 year old college student, and if you threaten them...they will go get a 45 year old supervisor. But he doesn't have a gun either. So clearly there are other ways and choices between totaly anarchy and leathal force.

1 - It's hard to overpower the air marshalls when you don't know who they are. And like I said, they're not the only ones with guns.
2 - Canada hasn't had any 100 story buildings knocked down. Customs being a summer job for college students will end quickly the first time they have a nice big terrorist attack. M

 

[mpshiel]

There was a group called the FLQ, you may remember them for killing not just a member of parliment but one of the cabinate members. Even Canada has had terrorist acts (just like all the other countries in the world, you know the ones that don't have departments of "homeland defence" - sorry I just can't type that without laughing). Reactions to terrorism or domestic violence are about choice. There is no inevitability about the choices America has made to protect and defend itself. Other countries have had terrorist attacks, at some periods almost daily, and have chosen a miriad of techniques to deal with them. When you look at the the only other airline to bring guns into a plane (Sorry the name escapes me, Air Isreal?) and the ratio of flights to terrorist attacks at the time of implimenting that makes it a rational option, but after hundreds of thousands of safe flights for over two years to suddenly impliment this does not make it a logical, follow on action.


And second, the arguement that terrorists attack indescriminately is hokum. There was a reason a plane hit the Pentagon and not JC Penny, to assume that terrorists pick nations and targets out of a hat or with a pin assumes that they are not humans who are doing things for a specific reason, but rather nameless monsters (something that didn't seem to happen with your nation's other notible bombing, by other Americans).

 

[feral]

Very, very wrong. In a system where guns are "pretty much illegal" anyone with so much as a boxcutter is in charge. We found that out the hard way. And if you think the only ones with guns are air marshalls, you're very mistaken. M

Guns have no business on board an aircraft. Security doors protecting the cockpit, yes.

Are you telling me that if someone on your flight had a box cutter you would allow them to hijack the plane you were on? Maybe this is just a bi-product of being a self-injurer, but I wouldn't be too scared of someone slashing with a razor blade, especially if there were a hundred people on board. I can't believe anyone would sit still out of fear of a boxcutter. If you're going to let someone with a box cutter take over the plane, then perhaps you deserve to go down....

 

[Paula]

As pointed out, terrorists could easily travel a few flights and establish a good record, purchase an expensive seat and accumulate some airmiles, and when they achieve a lower risk status bring weapons on board and take over. Or, get a blond haired, blue eyed American born female who is going to breeze right through to do the dirty work. Get kids to carry something on board for you, how simple is that and drug smugglers do it daily.

Good point; although no system is absolutely infallible, that problem could be easily taken care of by biometric technology, such as iris scanning, palm scanning, body scanning, or even that infamous microchip we all love to hate.

Iris scanning is presently being done at London's Heathrow Airport, and the Pentagon already has developed an iris-scanning device that is currently being used to replace ID cards at an athletic facility. It can even be implemented at ATMS around the world.

See
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2003/0210/web-iris-02-13-03.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/29/biz.trav.survey/

Any form of biometric technology would have to be done globally in order effectively make air travel absolutely safe. I think this will become the wave of the future. Scary thought, though.

 

[MichaelFJF]

Guns have no business on board an aircraft. Security doors protecting the cockpit, yes.

Are you telling me that if someone on your flight had a box cutter you would allow them to hijack the plane you were on? Maybe this is just a bi-product of being a self-injurer, but I wouldn't be too scared of someone slashing with a razor blade, especially if there were a hundred people on board. I can't believe anyone would sit still out of fear of a boxcutter. If you're going to let someone with a box cutter take over the plane, then perhaps you deserve to go down....

Tough talk from behind a keyboard. 3 out of 4 succeeded last time. We won't ever know the details, but if the boxcutters were at the flight attendant's throats, people might be a little hesitant. As for guns - most of the pilots want air marshalls and most of the pilots want to be armed themselves as a last defense. That's good enough for me. M

 

[peterc]

I have no criticisms of the intent to protect the flying public but where do these rent-a-cop guards come from? Perhaps prison work release or the atkins diet reject club.