US demands air passengers ask its permission to fly
If you're not on the list, you're not getting on
Under new rules proposed by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) (pdf), all airline passengers would need advance permission before flying into, through, or over the United States regardless of citizenship or the airline's national origin.
Currently, the Advanced Passenger Information System, operated by the Customs and Border Patrol, requires airlines to forward a list of passenger information no later than 15 minutes before flights from the US take off (international flights bound for the US have until 15 minutes after take-off). Planes are diverted if a passenger on board is on the no-fly list.
The new rules mean this information must be submitted 72 hours before departure. Only those given clearance will get a boarding pass. The TSA estimates that 90 to 93 per cent of all travel reservations are final by then.
The proposed rules require the following information for each passenger: full name, sex, date of birth, and redress number (assigned to passengers who use the Travel Redress Inquiry Program because they have been mistakenly placed on the no-fly list), and known traveller number (once there is a programme in place for registering known travellers whose backgrounds have been checked). Non-travellers entering secure areas, such as parents escorting children, will also need clearance.
The TSA held a public hearing in Washington DC on 20 September, which heard comments from both privacy advocates and airline industry representatives from Qantas, the Regional Airline Association, IATA, and the American Society of Travel Agents. The privacy advocates came from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Identity Project. All were negative.
The proposals should be withdrawn entirely, argued Edward Hasbrouck, author of The Practical Nomad and the leading expert on travel data privacy. "Obscured by the euphemistic language of 'screening' is the fact that travellers would be required to get permission before they can travel."
Hasbrouck submitted that requiring clearance in order to travel violates the US First Amendment right of assembly, the central claim in John Gilmore's case against the US government over the requirement to show photo ID for domestic travel.
In addition, the TSA is required to study the impact of the proposals on small economic entities (such as sole traders). Finally, the TSA provides no way for individuals to tell whether their government-issued ID is actually required by law, opening the way for rampant identity theft.
ACLU's Barry Steinhardt quoted press reports of 500,000 to 750,000 people on the watch list (of which the no-fly list is a subset). "If there are that many terrorists in the US, we'd all be dead."
TSA representative Kip Hawley noted that the list has been carefully investigated and halved over the last year. "Half of grossly bloated is still bloated," Steinhardt replied.
The airline industry representatives' objections were largely logistical. They argued that the 60-day timeframe the TSA proposes to allow for implementation from the publication date of the final rules is much too short. They want a year to revamp many IT systems, especially, as the Qantas representative said, as no one will start until they're sure there will be no further changes.
In addition, many were concerned about the impact on new, convenient and cash-saving technologies, such as checking in at home, or storing a boarding pass in a PDA.
One additional point, also raised by Hasbrouck: the data the TSA requires will be collected by the airlines who presumably will keep it for their own purposes – a "government-coerced informational windfall", he called it.
The third parties who actually do much of the airline industry's data processing, the Global Distribution Systems and Computer Reservations Systems, were missing from the hearing. ®
The US Constitution guarantees the right to travel to those (US citizens) who wish to visit their government to "redress grievances". In the case of certain fast tracked legislation, 72 hours is much too long a time to have to wait to address problems to a Senator or Congressman. I wonder if the TSA is planning on granting special exceptions to those who wish to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights or if they plan on ignoring that section of the Constitution also?
Chris, you are welcome to Ricky Gervais. Just so long as you don't re-export the traagivcally unfunny believes-his-own-publicity ********** back here.
I'm going to get lynched for this, aren't I...
and just to prove that I'm not all about being pro-yank...
Chris - you're one retarded fuck, aren't you? Just to pick one example from your feed of shite, you say:
"But in the most ironic part of the whole story, the gates to keep out the terrorists were already in place on September 11th. Box cutters were not allowed on planes, and all passengers were screened with metal detectors before boarding. But rather than patching the hole in the pre-existing proverbial fence and holding the fuckheads who missed the box cutters responsible, we divert the attention. We had measures in place that should have prevented the attacks, and we should go back to enforcing these measures."
How old were you in 2001? 5 years old? Maybe 10? Certainly not of an age to ever have flown alone, with responsibility for packing your own shit.
Let me make this simple for you - box cutters were not prohibited items as at 11 Sept 2001. That's how the psycho fucks got them on the aeroplanes. Which fact pretty much demonstrates that your entire argument is turd.
And, by the way, I'm given to understand that Kevin Sorbo's good friend Chuck Norris is not to happy about you slagging off his mate's excellent SF work.