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.

[Torvaun]

The knife is because he read Snow Crash. On the other hand, it wouldn't be a difficult task to turn a cheap Airsoft handgun (made of plastic, shoots little plastic BBs) into a cheap plastic .22 handgun. Don't think for a second that it's impossible to get bullets past checkpoints.

True story: My grandfather used to take a walk every morning down to his local shooting range. He'd pick up trash, and sometimes brass for loading his own cartridges. On this particular morning, he happened to find a .243 cartridge that was live, someone must have accidentally dropped it. He put it in his pocket, and went on his way. Later that day, his daughter (my aunt) was flying out to England, and from there to India. He took her to the airport, and went through the security checkpoint to walk her to the gate. He set off the metal detector, and they had him go through the process of emptying out his pockets of all the change, keys, etc. He reached in, and found that he still had that live rifle cartridge in there. He noticed that neither of the security people were paying attention, and he pulled out the cartridge and dropped it in his shirt pocket. When he went through again, he beeped, and got wanded. His shirt pocket beeped, and so did the other one. Being as those pockets were behind the metal buckles on his suspenders, they let him through.

An old man managed to beat airport security without even trying in the days immediately following 9/11. It has never entered my head that terrorists couldn't do the same.

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.

[Ptraci]

My 79 year old dad has trouble every time he wants to fly because his name. an EXTREMELY common one, is the same as someone on the list. It seems to me that they could at least include an age, height, and weight in the list or something to narrow it down a bit. As it is it's clearly not meant to be of much use to actually weed out suspected terrorists; they could have picked names out of a hat and done just as much good.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not quite, you have been subject to Terry stops since 1968. Clearly that was all part of Dubya's master plan.

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

You're a nut. Take off your tinfoil hat. How can a cop possibly tell if you are a Dubya follower or not? And frankly, many cops didn't vote for Dubya either.

Saying "Get the fuck out of the car, nigger!" is humiliating.

Saying "step out of the car, sir" is polite.

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,

Riot control has been part of police training for years (decades?). Nothing new or sinister there.

Internal enemies? Those are called criminals. Fighting against criminals has been part of police work for quite a while (centuries?).

as according their instructions: "all that are not wearing an officer's uniform are potential enemies and harmful".

Quite possibly, it is very dangerous being a police officer in many parts of the USA. Is the guy walking on the street just going to corner store? Or is he a gangbanger wanted for murder? Far more likely to be the 1st case, but the 2nd case does occur, and cops should be prepared & trained to handle both.

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.

[mikael]

Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.

The womenfolk in my family feel safer at the airport when a .

Then I ask them about Jeam Charles De Menezes, and then what they think would happen if a suicide bomber were to run past a queue of passengers. What would happen to the bullets that miss the guy?

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[karmatic]

Actually, they have a legitimate reason for limiting liquids - just not the one they tell you about. Given the strong oxidizer you would need to make an explosive, a liquid bomb isn't really an issue - especially considering we _still_ have nothing to stop a guy with a couple of sticks of TNT on his person and a matchbook.

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.

The more you know.

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.

[mgv]

Yeeees. Yes, give into the dark side. influencing large populations through pain, suffering, and death isn't that big of a deal. It's like the Mafia. The amount of resources we spend on that is far out of proportion to the actual damages.

After all, it's not like they kill *that* many people.

Also, rape shouldn't be a crime anymore. It's just sex. Get over it.

I'm not suggesting that we give in to the dark side.

However, I don't see any point punishing the 19 suicide terrorists that flew the planes into things. They are kind of dead now.

So sure, go after the masterminds, if you want. But we haven't really done this. You cant catch them with an army, at least not easily.

Sure, we did get Saddam with an army. Two problems there, however. Firstly he isn't a terrorist. That made him much easier to catch. Secondly, we now have much more terrorist activity because of what we did. Fortunately most of it is still in Iraq. Fortunate for us, less fortunate for the Iraqi's. Sadly, there are more deaths now from this than was ever the case from the death squads that Saddam had. Lets just hope is stays confined to Iraq, because if even 1% of them get to the first world, the amount of terrorist attacks we are experiencing are going to rocket up.

I'm not advocating that we ignore the terrorists. Just that our current responses are mis-directed. Even the governments of the world are starting to see this.

We would have saved alot more lives if we had focussed on dealing with what we can deal with. The solution to terrorism isn't obvious, and it takes time. But it has been done - look at Northern Ireland. It wasn't the army that solved that problem, and increasing firepower there would have been the wrong thing to do. If we had done that, we would still have people driving trucks with fertiliser into the centre of London. Its not as if NY is the only big city that's had a building taken out by terrorists.

Just a little food for thought.

Armies fight other armies. This works in conventional war. Worked in the two world wars. Was the right thing to do. Fails miserably against terrorism.

And none of this applies to safety on planes. All that planes need is a door that locks properly between the pilots cabin and the passengers, and you could probably let terrorists take hand grenades on board without another september 11 happening - sure, planes would crash, they do even without terrorists. But the terrorists wouldn't be able to take control of planes again, and this would largely stop them bothering.

Much better than all the rubbish that we put up with every time we catch a plane now. Cheaper than invading other countries. It doesn't get revenge, of course, but as I have pointed out - the people who did this are dead already. Our biggest priority is to make it impossible to happen again, and that solution only requires a door with a good lock.

Michael

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.

no longer no longer assigning risk scores

[frovingslosh]

no longer no longer assigning risk scores

Does that mean they are doing it again?

De Ja Vu

[Chikenistheman]

with the agency no longer no longer assigning risk scores to passengers or using predictive behavior technology.

 
This can only mean they changed something in the Matrix

It's really this simple

[Monoliath]

I no longer fly into the United States because of this kind of dog shit.

Your American airlines are losing my potential travel dollars because of your stupid government.

I hope the industry tanks.

Carnival Booth Attach

[slashqwerty]

The Carnival Booth Attack can turn any passenger screening system against itself making it do the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do. The one requirement for the Carnival Booth Attack is that the system remain unchanged between the time it is tested and the time it is exploited. By routinely changing the system (this is at least the third time in six years) they can throw a wrench into any prep work that has been carried out to circumvent the system.

Air travel security is worthless

[jskiff]

I'm actually in the process of writing my senators and congressman a hand written, registered letter to tell them how ashamed I am of DHS and TSA. Yesterday, flying home from Orlando, I witnessed:

*The security line ID checker occasionally checking people's IDs, then turning around to talk to his co-worker and letting people pass, then randomly checking IDs.
*A second TSA staff member knocking on the glass trying to get the attention of a friend of hers, then making faces like you'd see kids do in high school
*A sporadic "take out all of your electronics" followed by "only laptops" followed by "only electronics bigger than your hand need to be removed from your bag."

Anyone who travels on a regular basis (I fly about 100,000 miles a year) knows that behavior like this is unsurprising, but I'm just getting to the point where I've had enough. If we're going to enforce security, how about actual enforcing effective security protocols rather than making sure that my shaving creams fits in a ziploc bag?

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[Octorian]

The way the US metal detectors are calibrated these days, I'm worried that I'll set them off if my blood iron content is too high. I almost feel like frequent travelers (which I've been in the past) could use a boot-camp course on rapid "remove the laptop, take off the shoes, remove the belt, wallet, keys... walk through the detector, reverse the process and continue onward".

A few days ago I was flying out of Tel Aviv on El Al. Yeah, that's right, the airline that cares more about *real* security and is a far more tempting target than any of these US airlines. And I didn't have to present my plastic bag, or remove my shoes or belt! (of course they do scan the baggage, and question each passenger a bit more thoroughly than they ever do in the US, but it was still a far more pleasant experience than checking back in with Continental in Newark on my way back.)

The TSA is all about making it look like they're doing something, instead of actually doing something. I once heard it said that you simply cannot apply logic to security policy, since then it will never make sense to you. 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?

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.

So?

[swokm]

I, for one, think it's great that I get taken into a back room, strip searched and probed with a cattle prod in sensitive areas just because I have a goatee. What the heck is the wrong with that, it hasn't done me any har--

Wait, what was I talking about? Who are you? Where are my pants?!

Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

Yeah - that's why I'm voting for Ron Paul. Bush and Clinton are a joke (all 4 of them).

Check out Ron Paul's voting record if you haven't already. He is the most popular canididate on the Net.

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.

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: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

Again, meh

[JW.Axelsen.Sr.]

I haven't been able to board airplanes since 2005. I was born in Denver, lived here all my life except for two years when I lived in Seattle, '00-'02. I'm of Swedish, Irish and German descent. I've flown to Europe a couple of times, but only to places like England, Italy and France. I used to fly a LOT for work, now I drive or take trains. Being put on some shitty little list has been one of the best things that's happened to me. I get to see things I'd never see while flying and I get to experience different local flavors that I surely would've missed out on in the past. I've never been told exactly why I can't get on a plane, but it can't be my appearance, I'm 6'4" with blue eyes and blonde hair. I look as Aryan as anyone can. I've never been a member of any political organization that would like to see the current government overthrown (not counting being a member of the general populace) and I've never been convicted of a felony. If the airlines are happy with participating in keeping away the tens of thousands of dollars I used to spend on flying every year, that's ok with me, fuck them and the tax money they generate. I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that I hope the flight industry dies. Let's get some fuckin' bullet-trains built. France has one.

Re:Again, meh

[noidentity]

If the airlines are happy with participating in keeping away the tens of thousands of dollars I used to spend on flying every year, that's ok with me, fuck them and the tax money they generate. I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that I hope the flight industry dies. Let's get some fuckin' bullet-trains built. France has one.

See, they're smarter than you think! They knew you were going to post this awful opinion of them on Slashdot today, so they put you on that list years ago.

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".

Just because they say they won't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean that they won't.

I have a friend who had his house raided many years ago because of the chemicals he was keeping for making fireworks (not you're crappy little fireworks, but cluster shells and the whole shebang). Due to his age, if he didn't reoffend (which he did, but never got caught or charged) it was to be permanently wiped from his record once he turned 18.

He is now in his 20s (and has a second job in the pyrotechnics industry), yet every time he steps on a plane he gets the full bomb treatment, they even do mouth swabs.

So as I said, just because they say they won't doesn't mean it. And this is in Australia.

Did Digg just change its interface?

[smitingpurpleemu]

Seriously, what's with the ridiculous digg-style "The Government is coming after you, run!!!!" posts here lately?

Don't Tell Us

[camperdave]

Your American airlines are losing my potential travel dollars because of your stupid government.

Don't tell us. Write a letter to the airlines. Write a letter to the US board of tourism (or whatever it's called). If enough people do that it might start the pendulum swinging back towards sanity.

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: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?