DHS Plans Changes in Air Passenger Screening

narramissic writes "The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday announced plans to revamp its Secure Flight program, with the agency no longer assigning risk scores to passengers or using predictive behavior technology. In addition, the Transportation Security Administration, part of DHS, will have direct control of checking domestic passenger lists against terrorist watch lists, instead of the airlines, said DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. Just the same Marc Rotenberg, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), notes, air passengers still can't see the reasons why they're targeted for extensive searches or kept off flights, nor can they correct bad information on the terrorist watch lists. 'The problems with the watch list are still valid and are not going away,' said Rotenberg."

Comments

I'm still not understanding that.

[khasim]

The "terrorist watch lists" ...

You're too dangerous to be allowed to fly ... but not dangerous enough to be arrested ... even with the "enhanced" authority of the PATRIOT Act (I & II).

So wouldn't any real terrorist just try to get on a plane to see if the government knows about him? If he gets on with no problem, he knows they don't suspect him. If he's turned away, he knows to drop communications with the other terrorists.

This is just stupid. No matter how you phrase it.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just stupid. No matter how you phrase it.

You misunderstand the purpose of the lists. It is not to "protect" anyone from "terrorists". It is to instill a climate of fear and paranoia on a daily basis, in an effort to "justify" the creep of fascism to the sheeple.

Random searches and detentions where the victim had no way to confront the charges were one of the key hallmarks of the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Jafafa Hots]

Exactly. It's a total scam, especially since they STILL aren't screening cargo that often goes on the VERY SAME FLIGHTS.

Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.

Meanwhile, none of these measures would find a glass or obsidian (sharper than a razor) knife strapped to your leg. Which is just one thing I thought of off hand. I sure hope all terrorists are idiots. I just don't think they are.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[lawpoop]

Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something. Or, it's just to get people used to random and crazy searches by the authorities as a normal part of daily life, without a peep of protest.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[jofny]

Sigh. I know saying simplistic, emotionally charged things like that feels good, but really - do you believe that's the intent? Look at the country you live in and how it works in -every other situation- and apply that, instead of the paranoia.

Basically, congress (and through it's actions, TSA and DHS) need to look like theyre being strong and "doing something" about a threat amped up by the 24/7 media's need to have high impact news to generate revenue. People are -already- so paranoid and scared because of the reporting that if congress (TSA/DHS) did -not- "do something", there would be political hell to pay (their competition for their seats/jobs would shove down the average citizens throat how they're putting passengers at risk by not doing anything).

The problem is that the idea of using the same attack vector twice is somewhat silly and that there are no easy answers even if it wasn't. So, what does the US government do (and DHS/TSA)? They do the same thing the American people always let them get away with (because we derive our reality from TV and Hollywood) - they put in feel-good , highly visible measures regardless of whether or not theyre effective.

Now, Patriot Act, DHS stupidity, etc. may very well end up leading us into a Fascist or -insert your eee-vuhl government aparatus of choice here- state, but it's certainly not through some dark conspiracy of intent to do so.

Rather, we'll get there through the slow unintentional meandering of a government perfectly happy to cater to public who's more interested in being placated than served in the interest of getting re-elected.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[TheGratefulNet]

Or, it's just to get people used to random and crazy searches by the authorities as a normal part of daily life, without a peep of protest.

I worry that the next generation (maybe even the current high school kids, now) won't even KNOW what they're missing in terms of basic american freedoms ;(

all govs, everywhere, rejoice when they get more control and keep their citizens in check and in fear. once started, they all jump on the bandwagon. I see it over in europe and even australia. lots of restrictions and oppression from the gov to the citizens. if all the govs are doing it, you can't GO anywhere to find a breath of fresh air anymore.

I remember the 60's and the revolution that was going on, then. now we have a different revolution, but its being held BY the governments and its to keep its people in fear. greatest control stems from fear. (see Religion for more on this subject.)

really - I worry that over the next 20 yrs, people will have forgotton what going on an airplane and NOT having to take shoes off was like. ahhh, the good old days when your own foot odor was your own business ;)

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[lawpoop]

I worry that the next generation (maybe even the current high school kids, now) won't even KNOW what they're missing in terms of basic american freedoms ;( I had a sad realization the other day. At the end of Bush's presidency in 2008, a 9-year-old who became a 17-year-old would really only have known Bush as a model for the president. How sad.

Human life and memory seem so short -- the generations turn too quickly. Now I understand how vitally important it is to teach history.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Original Replica]

What good is a knife?

As good or better than a gun when you are talking about taking over a plane. Don't forget that the 9/11 hijacking were done with knives. You can incite much more terror and pain with some well placed cuts than with a gun. The only way that a handful of people ever take over a plane filled with over a hundred passengers is through psychological control. If they really internalised that the only way they would live would be to overcome the hijacker, then they would overcome the hijacker by sheer numbers, even if it meant attacking until the ammo ran out. But that will almost never be the case, just given the faintest promise of being let go if they coopperate will subdue most people, even making some passengers stop any attempt to over power the hijackers. As most authority today is ultimately achieved through threats and force, people are well conditioned to submit when confronted with a non-choice like "Open the cockpit door or I will have to cut this young lady. Don't make me have to cut her." From and outside objective view we can say that it doesn't matter if they are all going to die anyhow, and the only one making the hijacker hurt the young lady is the hijacker. But the people actually inside the plane are going to turn to appeasing the violent forces in hopes of survival. If offered something that looks like a choice, people will try to appease violence rather than combat it, it's been demonstrated thousands of times through out human history.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"By 1935 all German citizens must be used to showing their personal identifications and being submitted to random interrogation. If our office achieve to make all citizens cooperative, we could step further and become able to locate and eliminate all enemies of the state, German nationals or foreigners" Special Advisory Officer for Public Safety Policy on a letter to the fuhrer, 1934

Well, I dont think that any smart individual has any doubts of what is going on here. First they destroyed the culture creating this Hip-Hop bully gangster mentality on music and movies. Second they moved it to the schools to make sure that kids will have plenty of sex and drugs (not that I dislike to have plenty of both...) so they can alienate them, Wilhelm Reich like. Third they removed politics of the central stages on the national life, as for example for the next presidential race: We will have Hillary against Giuliani, so they can keep the "debate" restricted to the personal offenses, with the issues and scandals of both candidates personal life. And fourth, and most important, they are inserting on the American average citizen mindset a totally meek agreement with the policies of a Police State.

See, I used to ask every time that I was pulled out by a police officer, what was the reason for him to stop me. This is America (still...) and we have the right to come and go, whenever we want. On the past, before Bush Neo-Con dictatorship, they used to get upset but answer on an educated and respectful tone. Now, they will usually say: "step out of the car, sir", and try to humiliate me, as they are instructed to do with all that don't comply with the order to be meek and follow Dubya to the hell he is taking us. I have a friend that is going through police academy now, and he says that they are learning anti-riot techniques and how to fight "internal" enemies, as according their instructions: "all that are not wearing an officer's uniform are potential enemies and harmful".
So, we are not the champions of democracy anymore, fellas. We lost our own mind's war, and have become worse than the enemies we fought through the 20th century, that is really sad to say.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mpe]

You're too dangerous to be allowed to fly ... but not dangerous enough to be arrested ... even with the "enhanced" authority of the PATRIOT Act (I & II).

An interesting question to ask would be if people who have been responsible for "air rage" get added to such lists. If such people don't automatically get listed then it rather indicates that safety of flights isn't the aim.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[MacGyver2210]

"Or, it's just to get people used to random and crazy searches by the authorities as a normal part of daily life, without a peep of protest." Call me lucky, but I don't fly on a daily basis so I'm sure as hell not used to it. A cop tried to stop me walking my bike home after I left the club I was working at and asked me for my ID. I asked her why she needed my ID and she said that I was near a reported assault on some guy outside a bar that I hadn't heard of, so I showed her my ID and when she gave it back she got out of the car and asked if she could search me. Of course I said "No thanks, there is no reason for that." I had nothing to hide, but that's just not cool, and in the end she just let me go with nothing further. I'm sure if I were in some urban center like Chicago or NY they would find some way to make me let them search me or use some bullshit like 'Oh, I smell drugs, it must be from you...' Even if it was an unjust search, my complaints about it would have fallen on deaf ears or been lost in a mountain of other paperwork. Welcome to America. Line up at the counter for your Nat'l ID Card and your Barcode Tattoo.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Lord_Breetai]

OTOH, one of the ways drugs were smuggled was inside a bag, inside a liquid. It makes it harder for the drug dogs to smell it, as the scent is masked by the liquid. This is why you are limited to 100ml, in a clear plastic bag.

I suppose that's plausible, however, given no upper limit for the amount of liquids allowed on checked luggage these precautions seem pointless. Besides, smuggling drugs is a point A to point B deal, no need to have them within immediate reach. If you could clarify though...

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[KDR_11k]

I'm not advocating that we ignore the terrorists.

Actually that may be the best course of action. Terrorists don't have the means to cause much actual damage, they are doing attacks to get attention and to spread terror among the people they target. Ignoring them would defeat their main strength which is the feeling of insecurity and fear they create and leave them as random murderers. They don't possess the means to kill their enemies faster than those regrow (the US population grows fast enough that the 3000 dead in the WTC were "replaced" on pretty much the same day) and without any secondary effects to their attacks their "battle" is a sisyphean task.

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[FLEB]

I get the feeling it's something like this. TSA's minding their business, doing their jobs, keeping things relatively secure. Then, boom, 9/11 happens and everyone's looking at them. They go nuts, run around screaming, "AIEEE!!! Our pants are down! We've got to do something about this! We've got to do anything about this! Make a list of things... something, anything, about this... and DO THEM!" While they're running around fumbling and screaming, lightning strikes, the polarity of the earth changes, and their face is stuck that way forever... and sadly, the sanity still hasn't drained back in.

That, and the promos for the 11:00 news need simple, gripping, decisive solutions, or someone's ass cleanly on a platter if something goes wrong.

I'm curious what the next hairbrained terrorist scheme will be, and what sort of totally senseless travel restrictions will be added as a result. Any ideas?

The British Underground thing was an effective departure, as was the Spanish train bombing, but the whole crashing-cars-into-the-terminal thing was... an odd choice to say the least. I'm just surprised there haven't been completely, wildly different vectors of attack, given especially that anything involved in transportation, air travel especially, is too eagle-eyed and bothersome to be easily effective.

Then again, life often shows that most hackers are script-kiddies, most burglars are morons, terrorists rarely come at it imaginatively, and those who could design the perfect crime (or even "better") often have more fulfilling jobs designing something else.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[cheezedawg]

Why do all Ron Paul supporters (you know, the ones that crapflood any discussion board they can find) always come across as being completely nuts?

That was a rhetorical question.

Lessons from the anti-virus world

[John Jorsett]

Operating from a 'list' means that someone has to have discovered, logged, and issued notification of the virus (or terrorist) before, while detecting virus- (or terrorist-) like behavior will catch the problem when it first appears. While the list approach has its place, I know I want behavior-based screening used as well.

Re:Again, meh

[sjdude]

I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that I hope the flight industry dies. Once rapid travel dies, timely face to face communications dies. All communication is then forced into conduits that are easily monitored, filtered, screened and, generally, snooped upon. This may be exactly what a fascist government would find "convenient".

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

I'll answer it anyway.

Because the mainstream has moved so far away from the ideals that this country was founded on, and so far away from the Constitution, and so far away from liberty, that to speak the words the Founding Fathers of the US once did, sounds a bit nuts these days.

Re:Unfortunate choice

[sasdrtx]

You've outlined the "politician's fallacy":

a) Something must be done!
b) This is something.
c) Therefore, it must be done!

The first problem is that the government's "solution" is not a solution, it is demonstrably completely ineffective.

Second, there is indeed a trade-off between wasting enormous amounts of time and resources and saving lives. Most likely, if all motor vehicles were governed to be unable to exceed 15 MPH, there would be almost no deaths due to motor vehicle accidents. But would it be worth it?

Third, there's this little concept called liberty that no one seems to be able to grasp anymore. Does it ever occur to anyone but me and Archie Bunker that if the TSA wasn't so committed to disarming all the good people, that any hijacker would have a lot more to worry about than he does now?

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[ralphdaugherty]

Because the mainstream has moved so far away from the ideals that this country was founded on, and so far away from the Constitution, and so far away from liberty, that to speak the words the Founding Fathers of the US once did, sounds a bit nuts these days.

      If by mainstream you mean Republican neocons, that would make your statement right, but they are not mainstream.

  rd