TSA's "Secure Flight Program"

[Lenticular_J]

Well, guess what kids. While you were sleeping, Big Brother (Or Big Business? The Rockefellers run it either way...) has been preparing a "Secure Flight Program" prepared to "keep us safe" while we fly. Of course, should the government decide that you spent a little too much time in the military, or maybe you checked out the wrong book at the library, you'll "accidentally" be marked on the no-fly list. Conveniently, this act has been passed with zero media coverage and nearly no public discussion. There are almost no articles about it, because NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. This is the best one I could find out of a dozen, and if anyone finds one that's more angry, please post it so I can throw it up here. This is an outrage.

 

The totally legit act that's helping us be SO MUCH safer.

 

[hide=The Washington Post is the best I could do.]

If you've purchased an airline ticket recently, your airline or travel agent likely asked for your full legal name or the name on your passport, as well as your birth date. After years of delays and rounds of controversy, the Department of Homeland Security's "Secure Flight" initiative is rolling out.

 

 

 

Secure Flight's objective is to make us safer from terrorist threats when we fly, but the program has faced significant questions, opposition and implementation issues since its inception. Airlines have been matching passenger manifests to lists of known or suspected terrorists since the 9/11 attacks, but in 2002 Congress passed a law mandating that the list checking function be taken over by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Seven years later, that transition is finally underway. Concerns over passenger privacy have been addressed by scaling back the data collected by airlines and passed along to the government. Only the passenger's full legal name, sex and birth date will be used, but revamping airline and travel agency systems to collect this data has been an expensive and monumental effort.

 

 

 

Another major issue created by checking passenger names against the "no fly" lists occurs when an innocent passenger happens to share the same name or alias with a known or suspected terrorist. In that situation the innocent traveler is constantly singled out or further screening until the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) can verify that this person is not the wanted terrorist. It is hoped the expanded data will mean fewer false matches and fewer innocent passengers singled out for further screening.

 

 

 

TSA has also tackled the "redress" issue on how innocent passengers clear their names if they are falsely identified as a terrorist. TSA seems to have quelled most initial concerns, but using full legal names raises a new issue for millions of Americans. From now on, every airline ticket you purchase will bear your full legal name and all your identification cards must match as well.

 

 

 

Like many business travelers, I belong to multiple frequent flier programs, use several credit cards and have numerous relationships with travel agencies and websites for purchasing travel. Some vendors know me as David Grossman, others as Dave Grossman, others as David G. Grossman, still more as D. Grossman. David George Grossman appears only on my driver's license and passport.

 

 

 

Because of Secure Flight, millions of Americans will need to change the names they're currently using with every travel vendor. It's a costly exercise for individuals and travel suppliers. Will it be worth the hassle? Or more specifically, will it help catch or thwart terrorists?

 

 

 

There are many skeptics. Bruce Schneier, an expert and author on security technology, believes Secure Flight is an ineffective way to prevent terrorism.

 

 

 

To begin with, Schneier claims the entire concept of a no-fly list doesn't make much sense. "It is a list of people so dangerous that can't be allowed to fly for any reason, yet so innocent we can't arrest them," says Schneier. "What kind of moronic list is this? Either arrest the people or get them off the list."

 

 

 

Schneier points out that regardless of how the TSA assesses the effectiveness of the no-fly list, it is forced to enact the legislation passed by Congress in 2002. "Even if TSA thinks this is an utter 100% waste of money, they still have to do it," says Schneier. "They can't say what I just said because they are required by law to do it."

 

 

 

"Airline security isn't going to make people safer," says Schneier. He questions why we spend billions of dollars on security at airports while leaving other mass gathering places, like shopping malls vulnerable, for example.

 

 

 

He also claims a distinction between the tactic and the target. "All you're doing is defending against what the bad guys did last weeks ... It doesn't make the nation any safer because we're not focusing on where the attack might come from tomorrow," says Schneier.

 

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly. No measures can defend against everything a terrorist can do, yet we always try to do so after the fact. Empty the metal from your pockets, remove your coats and hats, take your laptop out of your bag, take off your shoes, now put them directly on the belt, empty all your bottles of liquid, etc. After every incident we add another ridiculous rule, yet the next attack is always something completely different. There has to be a more intelligent way to defend ourselves.

 

 

 

Schneier says that pre 9/11 airport security did its job, and yet we suffered a horrific attack. "The terrorists didn't use guns, bombs, or knives," which would have been stopped by the screeners. "They used the fact that the passengers didn't realize they had to fight back," Schneier says. It took passengers four hours to figure out what they had to do to thwart the next attack, and it will never happen again not because a no fly list is keeping bad guys off of airplanes, but because no passengers or airline crew would let it happen again. The terrorists know that, so all that extra money hiring an army of baggage screeners and airport lobbies filled with detection machines is money poorly spent.

 

 

 

"Take all that extra money and put it on investigation, intelligence, emergency response; stuff that would work regardless of the plot," says Schneier. Schneier cites the case of the liquid bombers in London. "They were caught, not because they were trying to smuggle liquids onto an airplane. They were caught by investigation and intelligence," he says. "So whether they were using liquids or gases or solids or attacking airplanes or buses or schools, it didn't matter. They were caught," long before they got near an airport.

 

 

 

I think Schneier's point is spot on. Secure Flight doesn't make the bad guy list any better. It just makes everyone spend more money, and creates more inconvenience. Even if our no fly list contained every terrorist in the world, what about all the new recruits they are bringing on every day? No list can catch them if they haven't done anything yet. That makes intelligence gathering all the more important to uncover these threats before it's too late.

[/hide]

 

 

 

This makes the Rockefeller part of Zeitgeist discussing the New World Order begin to look eerily true.

 

[hide=Zeitgeist.][yt]pVEPlxwlzCE[/yt][/hide]

 

 

 

Now, you guys know me. I'm not exactly a conspiracy guy, mainly because I don't think that our government has that much power. But this stuff makes you think, maybe it isn't the government? Maybe there's a power that makes the federal government quake like a little girl?

 

 

 

I don't trust this. You might not think it's huge, but this is the first step to a Real ID for every citizen of our "democratic" nation. Maybe I should start listening more closely to Alex Jones.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh look, Alex Jones has a take on this. This will infuriate you more, so check it out guys.

 

[hide=Alex Jones]

Starting this year, Americans will have to get government approval to travel by air. As Privacy Journal revealed last fall, henceforth Permission Now Needed to Travel Within U.S. Getting a reservation and checking-in for air travel will soon require Transportation Security Administration authorization. That permission is by no means assured: For example, if your name matches a no-fly list, even mistakenly, you can be denied the right to a reserve a seat on a flight. If your name is on a selectee list, you and your possessions will be searched more thoroughly before you can board. What is going on here?

 

 

 

Protecting air safety is essential, but professional screening at airports already provides for it. Giving the TSA as an official agency the additional authority to decide who gets to go where reaches beyond safety into overextended governmental power. This newly minted Secure Flight rule fundamentally imbalances long-standing citizens rights both to travel and to be left alone. If your name appears among hundreds of thousands on watchlists, you assert that the government should not require ID to fly, you dont want to reveal your date of birth for concern about identity theft, or you dont choose to declare your gender, you can stay home.

 

 

 

By combining the requirement for government photo IDs in order to fly with checking government watchlists including potentially every passenger, Secure Flight puts the federal government into the business of licensing travel. All travelers will need government OK in order to board a flight, or take a cruise. What the government can allow one day, it can forbid the next. All things considered, isnt this a higher-tech and later-day version of South African domestic passports or eastern European checkpoints? In fact, because of the high technological capacity of the U.S. version, arent its implications for travel control of plane, train, bus and subway travel much more far reaching? Its incredible that something like this is happening relatively unrecognized in America.

 

 

 

While some people consider the requirement to show ID or reveal a birth date a small trade-off for security, what is at stake here is the right to travel. That fundamental freedom of movement appears in the Articles of Confederation in the right to freely enter and leave all the states of the then small union. It was so fundamentally a part of American citizenship that the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution included it without explicitly mentioning it again for the more perfect union. With a large and expansive nation now ranging from Hawaii and Alaska to Washington DC, that right to travel nationally, and petition the distant government, is even more fundamental. Yet some courts maintain that if you can walk, you dont need the right to fly. People have the right to walk around freely without carrying a national ID; why do they have to show one to travel? The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the scope of the right to travel but lower courts have tended to restrict it more narrowly than the Founding Fathers would approve.

 

 

 

Clearly, the air ID and Secure Flight rules mean you cannot travel any distance reachable only by air without official permission. Moreover, the system can easily be extended to Amtrak as a government railroad, which already requires government ID in order to purchase a ticket. It can further be extended to urban rapid-transit networks tied to travel cards, and private inter-city buses requiring IDs to buy tickets or board coaches. These are the bases for an internal passport system in the U.S.

 

 

 

There are a lot of practical issues here too. The assumption that any no-fly list includes all potential wrong doers is implausible, and first time criminals would by definition not appear until its too late. Many people on these lists are there because their names are similar to those who are suspect for other reasons. There are perhaps a few hundred people whose past activities merit keeping them off the streets, let alone flights; the small group is better caught through search warrants and good police work before they come to the airport. To demand that 750 million annual passengers have to get government permissions to fly creates a needle in-a-haystack approach to locating a few potential wrongdoers (none so far have been caught by the matching). Secure Flight is simply an ineffective use of scarce resources that sweeps much too broadly over peoples most basic rights to travel and be let alone.

 

 

 

What can you do? Like other regulations quickly promulgated at the end of an outgoing administration, these rules need to be delayed and reconstituted. Contact your Senators, Representatives and the White House to suspend such ill-considered regulations now. Insist that the government create a system that makes flying safe without granting federal officials the final say over permission for citizens to travel. Otherwise, the traveling public may be detoured onto a perilous downhill road to being permanently grounded.

[/hide]

 

 

 

More control. What the [bleep], why can't we put a stop to this? Why doesn't this guy just hang around every airport on Earth?

 

[The_Gabe]

Too much protection. The U.S is turning into a tyranny :?

[ElkNight]

 

 

 

What the hell?

[Wisp]

 

 

 

What the hell?

 

According to cracked, terrorists were trying to suicide truck somewhere, the truck lit on fire, one terrorist ran out of it on fire, and some guy kicked him in the balls so hard his foot got messed up.

[cryztalwing]

Well, guess what kids. While you were sleeping, Big Brother (Or Big Business? The Rockefellers run it either way...) has been preparing a "Secure Flight Program" prepared to "keep us safe" while we fly. Of course, should the government decide that you spent a little too much time in the military, or maybe you checked out the wrong book at the library, you'll "accidentally" be marked on the no-fly list. Conveniently, this act has been passed with zero media coverage and nearly no public discussion. There are almost no articles about it, because NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. This is the best one I could find out of a dozen, and if anyone finds one that's more angry, please post it so I can throw it up here. This is an outrage.

 

 

 

More control. What the [bleep], why can't we put a stop to this? Why doesn't this guy just hang around every airport on Earth?

 

 

 

 

Congress is also working on to pass a new law were you are put on the no-fly list you are put on an "No Buy list".

 

 

 

If your name goes on the no fly list you lose you right to own, possess, or buy a firearm. You get stripped of your rights without being arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime. Rahm Emanuel suggested this in 2007 but Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY] has submitted it to Congress.

 

 

 

[hide=]the No Fly, No Buy Act (HR 2401), if passed the Senate it will merge the TSAs no-fly list with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a point-of-sale system that determines the customers eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States

 

 

 

http://noworldsystem.com/2009/05/26/tot ... istration/

 

 

 

"Secure Flight," Insecure Travel Rights

 

 

 

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=166[/hide]

[mcneilp]

Haha, that headline gets me everytime.

 

If you don't know the story, basically some Muslim extremists decided to drive a Jeep full of highly flammable petrol/fuel/gas into the main terminal at Glasgow Airport. The jeep hit a bollard outside and burst into flames. One of the terrorists got out the Jeep in flames when a bunch of on-lookers and a baggage handler beat the crap out them before the emergency services reached the scene. The baggage handler got loads of press attention after he gave the speech below to a newsreader interviewing him. Heh, welcome to Scotland.

 

[hide=Speech][yt]cCqprbH7mrg[/yt][/hide]

[Zierro]

Now, you guys know me. I'm not exactly a conspiracy guy, mainly because I don't think that our government has that much power. But this stuff makes you think, maybe it isn't the government? Maybe there's a power that makes the federal government quake like a little girl?

 

 

 

Why don't you think the government has that much power?

[michel555555]

I remember a story a little while ago about how a family was detained at the air port because their one or two year old baby was on the no fly list :thumbsup: Ya the system is messed up if you have that much info as to whether or not a person is a terrorist you should have enough info to arrest him. I'll see if i can dig up the article about the baby.

[paul191600]

I hate the government in America...

 

Oh and dont worry, they have been doing stuff like this before, just more subtle. For instance, one of my co-worker's friends looked up "Biological weapon sale" on google as a joke. Next thing you know he has to get privately checked everytime he goes into an airport...So a word of advice, carefull at what you look at on the internet, becuase big brother is watching YOU.

[Seraphi]

Jeez...

 

Soon, you'll start hearing reports of people being black-bagged and never heard from again :?

[Latinoking]

It bugs me when now for every excuse of doing something that goes against the Constitution, they say it's for "protection from terrorists", yet when threats of 9/11 were going to happen, the government just brushed it off and went about their business.

 

 

 

Now they want step in and protect people? And is this truly protecting us or is just another way they found to start limiting our rights?

 

 

 

Jeez...

 

Soon, you'll start hearing reports of people being black-bagged and never heard from again :?

 

Or start implanting microchips on us to make sure we're "safe" at all times. :roll:

[Sam]

 

 

 

What the hell?

 

 

 

Two men in a 4x4 car lit filled their car with gas, set fire to it and crashed it into the terminal at Glasgow Airport in Scotland - due to this act, you cannot stop to drop people off at most UK airport terminals unless you are a taxi, bus or coach.

[stevepole]

About two years ago I asked a TSA agent at the airport what TSA stood for and he literally told my brother and I that it stood for "Take [cabbage] Away".