Slashdot Mirror
American Airlines Information Gathering
matt-fu writes "Cory Doctorow posted a story on boingboing.net this morning describing a recent hassle while flying American Airlines. It seems that since he was traveling from the UK to the US with a Canadian passport, he was actually asked to give out the names and addresses of everyone he would be staying with in the US! He has written an open letter to AA in response. Has anyone else had something like this happen to them?"
This probable isn't american airlines fault, but more due to government regulation. This isn't new however. I recall when flying from jamaica as a child a part of fillign out costums forms was declaring who you would be staying with. I dont' really think this is new by any means. coudl be something as simple as" hey if we find yoru missing luggage who do we contact?"
Having said that, those were not airline forms, but Immigration Departments'. Of course, the way things are in the US right now, maybe this is a new govt' measure ?
It sounds like American Airlines is using phantom TSA regulations to illegally gather information from foreign travelers.
Are they going to verify with the hotel to see if you are going to be there for the duration of your stay?
Or what if you gave an address which exists but where you will not be staying?
The question is, when they are going to be as intrusive as this, how truthful do you have to be?
I have relatives in Las Vegas, so I go there quite often, neither for business nor for vacation.
So one day I'm at the Budget Car Rental desk, and the lady at the counter starts asking me questions, like "who are you staying with?" She wanted adressess and phone numbers, etc.
Now, I was so taken aback by all of this, that I confronted her, trying to understand what the point of the questioning was -- because it seemed to me that my credit card, insurance, drivers license, and the fact that I have very frequently made this same rental, weren't sufficient to get me past the counter.
She simply asserted that "the information was necessary before she could rent me a car." "Very well", I said, "you will not be renting me a car today. Please cancel my reservation."
I then went to the National shuttle, showed my National Emerald Card to the shuttle driver, went to the lot, picked out a car, and the shuttle driver even put my bags in the trunk for me. I had to show my card and my license at the doghouse gate, and that was that. The rate turned out to be cheaper than Budget would have been anyway.
Needless to say, I don't bother with Budget anymore.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
How does one draw the conclusion that shaking people down at the border or the airport will replace shaking people down at a football game or courthouse? If it was an either/or situation, I could almost see the reasoning...
It seems that some here are completely missing the point.
The author, Cory Doctorow, was directed to an AA 'security counter' before checking in at the AA counter in Gatwick airport, not on arrival in the U.S., was interogated by an AA security officer and was asked to provide personal information on A BLANK PIECE OF PAPER. If I was Cory I would have been as upset as he was and I believe he asked the security officer some reasonable questions. The entire process was bizarre to my thinking.
Many have pointed out that you are asked for an address in your destination country, but by an INS offical not an airline employee, on an official customs form and certainly not before you board your flight. The only country that I know of that has customs pre-clearance to the U.S. is Canada, where the customs and immigration process is handled in Canada by American INS agents before you board your plane to the U.S. Upon arrival, you step off the plane and into the airport, no customs.
EFF founder John Gilmore has been fighting these so-called rules for some time now. Check out Gilmore vs Ashcroft regarding these rules.
Wired magazing wrote:
Our consituttion provides for redress of grieveances against the government. But how can you address something when you aren't even allowed to know it's number, title, or content?-
So it's a US thing? Please explain, then, why I had to fill out a form saying where I would be staying when I flew into London from the US?
Yes other countries require this information, I had to provide it when I went to Japan a few years ago as well. People are missing a couple of key differences though:- Countries that require this have a form that you fill this information out on. This gentleman was handed a blank sheet of paper. This alone should set off alarm bells.
- This "requirement" suddenly dissapeared when they found out he was a platinum club member. This either suggests that they believe no terrorist would bother becoming a platinum club member or they just harass people who aren't.
I suspect if he'd been given a form to fill this info out on the whole thing wouldn't have bothered him, or not nearly as much. I'd be rather suspicious of being told to write this info down on a blank sheet of paper. How do I know the security guard just doesn't like me and is going to go hunt down my friends to kill them? Silly thought? Maybe, but then again I truly would have no way of knowing if that was the case or not, and their seemed to be no official form to back up his claim that it was required.When I fly to Europe, they look at my passport for about 5 seconds (literally), and wave "hi" as I enter. Makes me want to stay. When I come home to NYC, I get literally hours-long lines past a few officials, with the majority of windows empty. Then I get hassled with all kinds of BS when I show my passport with my NYC address. Makes me want to stay - in Europe.
Meanwhile, small planes buzz the Statue of Liberty without even being warned away, I know of all kinds of people who accidentally carry potentially lethal weapons (hatpins, mace, etc) through "security", and no one has attacked the US. This whole "security" culture is a total sham, costing billions and our liberty to prop up corporations and the government with unchecked power. Goddamn bin Laden and his Republican soulmates, and the pussy Democrats who help them get away with it.
--
make install -not war
Alas, the summary left out the important point. This was not a customs or INS form. He was not asked to do this by INS agents. This was at the American Airlines security counter, on a BLANK piece of paper, administered by an American Airlines rent-a-cop. This is very different.
Normally, you provide your details to the INS or Customs. He was asked to provide them to AA.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
I went to Romania, not exactly the pinacle or bastion of freedom and democracy, and on entry was asked simply where I was going, why and for how long I was staying. Nothing else. This country was communist in 1989, and travel restrictions seem less severe that the USA? Maybe this is cause for Americans to pause for some deep reflection on what they were fighting for, and what they really won, at the end of the cold war.
-
You know, there's a simple explanation - maybe they ran out of the forms, and since nobody reads the damned things anyway, the guy working the counter figured screw it when Corey made a fuss.
If it was truly a TSA regulation the official that let him go on without providing the information could end up in trouble for it, so I really doubt that this is the case. The fact that it's not being consistantly done is another clue that it's not a TSA regulation, it's an AA thing. I also kinda doubt they'd run out of forms, most businesses now keep these things in PDF or HTML formats so new ones can be printed up if all copies are gone. That and if it was a regulation thing, well the airlines know better than to run out of them, they'd get in a lot of trouble for having several hundred or thousand forms missing that should have been filed.But that's not as much fun as blaming an evil corporation and the new Evil Empire.
I'm not saying I wouldn't have been a little skittish at something like that - I'd just probably have made something up and went on with my life.
I agree with your sentiment at the end (making something up) but if it is indeed a real requirement by the TSA or FAA, making up the info could cause you trouble. If they decided to check it and found out it was definitely fake (say the address you provide doesn't exist or is an empty lot or something) you might find yourself arrested as a suspected terrorist. They'd likely be able to hold you for knowingly providing false information as well. Eventually you'd be cleared of terrorism charges, but it wouldn't be an experience one would want to have.
Personally I think it's just AA going overboard. I don't think they were doing this to collect addresses to market to or anything. They probably just are ultra paranoid and decided to go further than the actual regulations require, figuring that way they'd be covering their ass if anything else happened on one of their flights. That still doesn't make it right though.
3000 died. That is true... it only took 3000 to lose our freedom in this country. Give it a second thought. After 3000 dead everyone who enters our nation is treated as a criminal. Now remember the hundreds of thousands who died to bring you that freedom. DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM SO EASILY. Hundreds of Thousands of Americans died to bring Freedom back to Europe. That was not even our own freedom. In the Revolutionary war 10s of thousands died to Create your freedom. Stop being Scared of life and start living it. An Oppressive government is no way to run a country. Honor our soldiers and honor our forefathers by asserting your rights to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom to congregate. This is what makes America great. Read your history books and learn. No one is out to get you, though its hard to tell with the Alert set to "Orange" today.... hmmmmmm how do they come up with that anyway? Does that mean I should keep my gas mask in my car, just in case????
-One More Concerned American.
A lot of posts mention that this is actually a common customs practice.
You're missing this line from the letter:
Several more minutes passed, and then the supervisor appeared. He
had looked over my documents and said, "Sir, I'm sorry, you are a
Platinum AAdvantage member and shouldn't have been asked this
question."
Generally, compliance with customs laws applies whether or not you're a Platinum AAdvantage member. Therefore, it seems that one of two things, both alarming, is going on:
a.) American Airlines totally lied, and this was not a TSA policy at all, or
b.) American Airlines completely ignores TSA policies for its more 'valuable' customers.
Something's not right here.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
"Platinum" isn't a club, it's a level of the frequent flyer program.
To reach Platinum you have to have flown 50,000 miles in the previous ( or current ) year. Unless you have used cash for all these flights they already have LOTS of information on you, where you go, how long you stay. If you use a credit card they know where your bills go, maybe even where the tickets are sent.
It's very reasonable that they wouldn't ask you as many questions if they already knew most of the answers. For the majority of Platinum level flyers they already know lots about you.
This doesn't mean it's resonable to ask all the questions they do from everyone else, just that it makes sense they'd back off for platinum card holders.
Good point, not to say "me too" on this. Would very much like to visit the US, but there are two factors that I can't possible take risk of:
-possible apprehension on little or no grounds, suspicion being enough
-possibly followed by lifelong interment and/or torture without court orders, attorney, notification of relatives and embassies,
in short: I'm not taking any risks of sudden and permanent "disappearing". No matter how big this risk may be for non-Arab-looking people, I won't take chances. I feel it is a shame for American ideals and values and I'm sure I couldn't hold back my opinion while in country, what places me at a higher risk than average.
I just wonder how military personell, sworn in on bible and constitution can be such a disgrace for their corps, their uniform and their country to torture anybody and follow orders to put them into jail forever without a court hearing. No matter how they present it, it is disgusting. That doesn't mean all terror suspects should be freed, terrorists should roam freely or whatever - but there absolutely needs to be a distinction between the Mob and the government. Not needing warrants, judges and courts to indefinetly put someone to jail makes this moot.
In the face of the camps at Guantanamo Bay, every respect fades, for the United States as a whole and the United States military in particular. Every soldier that stays on duty in Guantanamo Bay betrays his uniform and anything that it stands for, including the constitution and the most basic human dignity.
As long as there are officers on duty in the United States of America, that are able and willing to follow immoral and unconstitutional orders, I will refrain from coming closer than several thousand miles of US borders, neither on transit nor on business obligation.
You're totally naive - of course you don't live in NYC. Where we voted 3:1 to get rid of that clown Bush who's making us even less safe every day. Why start with "after 9/11"? How about stopping bin Laden when they were warned? It couldn't have anything to do with Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden's brother, Bush's corporate sponsor? Or that Enron pipeline across Afghanistan? Or the unprecedented power and denial Bush has won in the wake of the attacks? No, that's all coincidence. New Yorkers are a city of scaredy cats. Thanks for looking out for us.
--
make install -not war
If you're coming back to the U.S. through Amsterdam on Northwest with a U.S. passport, they have a goon squad that lines everyone up and asks all kinds of questions including where you were and why you were there, blah, blah, blah. If you ask one of the goons for ID they tell you it's none of your business and threaten you with arrest if you persist.
El Al is the airline that started the quiz trick to detect hijackers, because -- in theory -- hijackers don't have names of friends they're going to visit handy or good/fast answers to questions like why they are going where they're going or have been where they've been. Other airlines seem to be copying El Al and doing a crappy, rude job of it.
Oh: and if you haven't traveled by air lately and you take a camcorder with you, be prepared to take it out of your bag along with your laptop. It seems camcorders have joined laptops on the list of things that might hide a bomb or mental control device or whatever it is we're scared of this week.
Meanwhile, I hear there are between 8 and 10 million illegal aliens in the U.S. That really makes me feel secure, thinking a terrorist wouldn't need to go through all that airline BS to come here but could just walk across the border from Mexico -- and could probably afford to pay a coyote a bunch more than the typical campesino coming here to work for minimum wage.
(sigh)
It's not a myth. Or is it that you can't bring yourself to question your worldview that perhaps the US government isn't as benevolent as you'd hoped? As it stands today, the US is unable to support itself with domestic oil alone. That means that in order to support its war machine, it needs foreign oil and gas to keep functioning. Do you think it's coincidence that Pakistan enjoys impunity over its KNOWN nuclear black market while Iran is vilified for even ATTEMPTING to gain nuclear know how?
Wake up and realise you no longer live in a nation built on free and fair values, but rather on global hegemony designed to ensure its supply of resources to maintain living standards at present levels at the expense of everyone else. Democracy and freedom don't factor into the equation. They are merely platitudes to keep the populace uneducated. Why not read a few other sites for a different viewpoint:
Counterpunch
Truthout
Information Clearing House
Cryptome
Visceral Psyche Films
Amen!
The Bush administration, early on (check the video footage of Condi Rice in "F9-11"), knew with some certainty that Saddam DID NOT HAVE WMD. After the still-secret Cheney Energy Commission meetings, and immediately after 9/11/2001, any/all possible excuses were to be dredged up to justify the invasion of Iraq. Considering (1) the ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family, (2) the numerous ties between the Bush administration and the energy sector, and (3) the pre-9/11/2001 ties between the USA energy sector and the Taliban, any self-respecting conspiracy theorist would at least consider the possibility that the 9/11 attack was (A) sponsered by the Saudi government, (B) was sanctioned by a Bush "inner circle", and (C) carried out to reinforce Bush's hold on power (to carry out Saudi wishes) -- the deposing of Saddam Hussein who represented the single greatest threat to the hegenomy of the Saudi royal family.
The US Dept. of State instituted the "Visa Express" program specifically to allow the easy egress of Saudi nationals into the USA. If you think back to the early days of the CIA (actually the OSS), there is a strong resemblence between the OSS and the formation of Al-Queda. Al-Queda should be more properly viewed as the OSS of the Saudi government, but with enough "plausible deniability" for the Saudi royal family to continue to debach in Europe's playgrounds. The Bush administration would like to convey the image of a slightly "hayseed" organization, but their policy papers and roadmap have been carefully crafted by the neo-conservative think tanks
for more than a decade. Newt Gingrich's "Contract
With America" was the first scrimmage -- think
NFL here, and not Junior Varsity.
This is why there has been no "exit strategy"
publically pronounced for the war in Iraq, and
why the Iraqi war has been (purposefully) run so
badly -- the real goal is not democracy in Iraq,
but of civil war and fragmentation that the
Wahhabists (Al-Queda) can take advantage of.
What the Saudis want, and what the Bush team
want dovetail very neatly in the Iraqi conflict.
Carving Iraq into competing spheres of influence
is better for American energy interests. It
actually even suits the Turks, who will briefly
see an autonomous Kurdistan that will be crushed
between Turky, the Saudis, and the Iranians.
By the way, if you you were going to overthrow the
US government from the inside, what better way to
insure the loyalty of the military but to fully engage them in a "meat-grinder" of a foreign conflict. Those soldiers most likely to waver in their support of the President will keep getting sent on dangerous and foolish missions, or else subjected to "friendly fire". At some point, the vetting process will have been completed, and the troops will be ready for their next target, the American people (again).
If you take a look at the nonsensical spending
programs of the Bush administration, versus
the apparent (and touted) terrorist threats,
you begin to see a pattern of total disregard
for the possibility of additional terrorist
action in the USA. Hundreds of billions spent
on the war in Iraq, and a hundred billion spent
on a non-working anti-missile defense system,
while the USA's borders and seaports continue to
be largely unguarded. (Just recently, a group
of Chinese were captured in the Port of LA while
escaping from a cargo container. They could
just as easily have been Al-Queda or Hezbolah
or North Koreans with a nuclear device, ready to
go.) No, the spending patterns of this Bush
administration do not match the needs for greater
homeland security. Nor do the policies of the
Bush administration match those same needs. It
boils down to this: 9/11 was a blip on the radar
screen that justified a high level of secrecy
within the Bush administration, including the
war in Iraq and the USA Patriot Act (I). One
has been used to justify the abject & total
r
and gave her a doctors letter confirming it
That's the part I love best. I'm sure that (1) they verified that the name on the letter was that of a genuine doctor, and that even if it was that (2) that they contacted the doctor on the phone to verify that you didn't simply write up the letter yourself, and that even if it was written by a doctor they (3) did a full background check to ensure it was not a terrorist doctor handing out such letters for all his terrorists friends.
I know it's a big hassle actually doing ALL of that, but heay, if didn't then there wouldn't be any genuine security accomplished by halting to investigate the needles in the first place, would there? Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
My most recent experience:
Last August I, my girlfriend, and two other (male) friends went on holiday to Mexico. We booked it in June, to travel in August.
The flight was from London to Cancun, changing in Houston - with the Houston->Cancun flight leaving 1hr 40 minutes after we landed.
One of the co-travellers has a Malaysian passport, (although he had "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK, and is now a full British Citizen) so he had to apply for a tourist visa to enter the US. As he's a male aged between 16 and 45, aswell as the standard DS-156 visa application form, he also had to fill in the dreaded DS-157 form.
On that form, he had to provide:
He applied for his visa in June, to travel at the end of August. The visa was eventually approved - it arrived in October.
Net result: he lost 2000 UK pounds (that's $3,733 US) on a holiday that never happened, as buried deep within Expedia's small print was a clause that prevented refunds or claims on travel insurance in case of visa problems.
So despite now having a visa which allows him to visit the US any time in the next ten years, he's never going to use it. He never wants to go to the US ever again, and now that the rest of us (British citizens from birth) have to have fingerprints and digital photos taken, neither do we.
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
In all (civilized) legal systems I know, when the authorities detain someone, they either have to get a judge to OK the detention within typically 48 or 72 hours, or let the person go free. This is considered one of the fundamental principles all civlized legal systems are based on, right beside the whole "innocent until proven guilty thing". You might argue the detainees in Guantanamo are not suspects, but prisoners of war - in that case, the U.S. would have to treat them as such, which it does not (read the Geneva convention about proper treatment of prisoners, it's available online). Now, you could argue (and I'ld tend to agree with you) that the detainees we are talking about do not qualify as prisoners of war, but as "illegal combatants" - but you still have to *prove* that they are illegal combatants, which means that until proven guilty, they detainees are only *suspected* illegal combatants.
(Reasonable) people around the world are not complaining that the U.S. is detaining people that are possibly very dangerous and despicable terrorists; they are complaining that the U.S. reserves the right to deny any foreign national the same right to due process that the U.S. demands for it's citizens in those same countries. While this would be bad enough coming from any country, it's even worse coming from the self-proclaimed leader of the Free World.
I am *much* more afraid of a government that can detain me indefinately, without giving me any way to defend myself, than I am of the possibility of being killed by some Islamist nutjob.
I am sure you would feel the same way when I go visit you.
I don't. As far as I'm concerned, the "free" in "it's a free country" applies to citizens and visitors alike. Your ideas are way too draconian for my tastes.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
As a young working class irish immigrant, I was subject to all of these hassles and more right up until Muslims replaced Catholics the new niggers/"potential terrorists" of the UK.
This kind of treatment when travelling is an accepted part of the life of me, my family, and my friends. It amuses me when the upper classes (I will make this assumption seeing as the author of the article holds a high level frequent flyer card) get so outraged at being treated in the same way as the Hoi Polloi.
There are many points to be derived from this article, but perhaps the most powerful (and unintentional) is how some people expect to exempt from suspicion of being a terrorist under any circumstances. I really hope that it is not the policy of airlines to exempt frequent business travellers from security checks.
>>The security people aren't big fans of people
I think that just about says it all.
I'm afraid that if you don't enjoy being stripped to your underware and assumed to be a terrorist until you can prove you are not, then you, sir, are an anti-american friend to terrorists and we want none of your filthy money here!
Changa hates change.