Senator Blacklisted by No-Fly List 1396
sig writes "Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was turned down for a flight from Washington, D. C. to Boston because his name turned up on the TSA No-Fly list. He eventually got on a flight, but was again denied on his way back to D.C. It took 3 weeks of calls to Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security for the ordeal to get straightened out. But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?" There's also a New York Times story.
Our gov't at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs. That doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't be tried in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. But that is an entirely different question.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:4, Interesting)
The current White House occupants are shameless. Immediately after 9-11, Prime Minister Cheney ordered Continuity of Government to go into effect. The program calls for the evacuation of government leaders from Washington and the activation of the underground hideaways that shelter bureaucrats trained to keep Uncle Sam in business. The problem was no Democrats were evacuated or kept in the loop. Must have been an oversight.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes you think your name needs to sound "kind of Middle Eastern" to make it onto the "no-fly" list? Your predjudices, perhaps?
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:4, Funny)
Good point. Maybe we should ALL change our names to Bin Laden. We know they can ALWAYS get on a plane.
The Real Reason (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch lists REDUCE security vs random checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. In addition to impeeding ordinary travelers (thus doing damage FOR the terrorists), it's an innefective waste of resources that could otherwise be used to do something useful.
Such as random searches.
A watch list means anybody on the watch list is harrassed, and KNOWS it, while anybody NOT on the list passes through. This means that the terrorists can do a dry run and find out which of them are not on the list and pass through unhampered. Then the ones that succeed get togther and do the REAL hijacking - with no problems.
And the terrorists already knew this. They did dry runs immediately before the 9/11 event.
Had the resources been used instead for random checks, being passed through without search once would give no improvement whatsoever on the probability of being searched on the next trip. Mixes of the two are progressively less effective as the fraction of random searches goes down and watchlist searches goes up. (There was a recent paper on this published, and referenced here on slashdot.)
Meanwhile, having a watch list means having a government black list, selecting out a subset of the population for systematic penalization and harrassment. That's already unconstitutional, in the absense of individiualized evidence of wrongdoing and legal action to determine guilt, under the equal protection clause. But doubly so when it can be shown that a watchlist is not effective for its stated purpose, so no pressing government interest is served.
And of course there's the issue of harassment of additional people improperly put on the list - with T. Kennedy as the poster child.
Big Difference (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot make this comparison logically. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'
By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace. Their entire political and social system is built on hate for the Israelis the and goal of destruction of the State of Israel.
There is something truely perverse about sending your children out to blow themselves up.
Good try, but nothing about this is like George Wahshington and his 'goons'.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, but you typically do that before you put the system into production. If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems. Also, note that there's a big difference between mistakes made in the system and mistakes made by the system. The former may take a while to isolate and correct, but there should be a mechanism to fix the latter quickly.
Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs.
That's no excuse. If you have to put a system in place without thorough testing, you think long and hard about the kinds of problems it can cause, and you make damn sure you've got a fast and effective means of dealing with those problems.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems.
Tell that to the dot-com I used to work for.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Interesting)
So everyone with a name of T. Kennedy is going to have trouble flying. That seems like a pretty fundamental flaw to me. You had better hope one of the suspects doesn't choose YrWrstNtmr as a alias!
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality. It's not as though he hasn't been one of the most prominant figures in American politics for the past 42 years. And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?
The fact that it took 3 weeks for one of the most powerful politicians in this country to get cleared off of the list, while sweetly ironic, doesn't hold much hope for the rest of us regular schlubs who might also run up against the same problem. I don't know about you but I certainly can't use the excuse that I'm a U.S. Senator to get through airport security. And while it might bring a small measure of comfort to know that the TSA is not making exceptions, it still smacks of the asinine overkill that followed 9/11 when they were scanning children, searching old women and making nursing mothers drink their own breastmilk.
Of course, using a pattern of "first initial, last name" is not exactly an accurate means of finding a match for terrorists, now, is it?
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Funny)
And if Kerry wins in November, suddenly anyone with the name "G.W. Bush" is going to have trouble flying.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Funny)
It wouldn't be the first time someone with the name "G. W. Bush" has had trouble flying ...
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Funny)
What makes you think it was ignorance? Maybe there's somebody named Kopechne who does data entry for the list?
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
A better way to implement this would have been to have a test period where the travellers are notified that they're flagged but not stop them from flying. Each flag is then investigate to see if it is a false positive, and how long it took to clear false positives. Only after this trial period, and fixing the bugs, should they actually stop people from flying.
presumption before thinking (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't do it at all. The whole concept of depriving people of the right to travel just because they are vaguely "suspected" of something stinks.
If the government wants to penalize somebody in such a major way, it should have to:
- Tell that person what he/she is accused of
- Give the person an opportunity to confront his/her accusers in court and rebut the evidence
- Have a judge or jury consider the evidence in public
Most of us thought we had that right. Too many people seem willing to give it up, in return for an illusory feeling of "security". The chance of your being injured by a terrorist in the next year is considerably less than the chance of your being injured by a non-terrorist driving an automobile. There are risks in life, get used to it. Giving up essential liberties, which took centuries of struggle and sacrifice to get, just to possibly reduce some already-tiny risk, is irresponsible, short-sighted, and extremely stupid.Re:Our gov't at work (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not WHO you are, but what you take on the plane with you. Even if Osama himself is on the plane, what is he going to do if he cannot even get his hands on a knitting needle?
You have to make a choice: Reduce your chance of dying by 0.000000000001% vs a 100% chance of loosing some liberties.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone that's worked with security, databases or identity management should be well aware of the fact that certain key values occur in populations to the point of being meaningless. This is not simply a problem of testing but of ignoring key principles within a discipline as well as the past mistakes of others.
This situation is much more comparable Microsoft's policies regarding security.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Interesting)
It really looks like the TSA simply doesn't care whether innocent civilians are denied the ability to use the nation's airlines. The hassles in air travel now make the choice between driving six hours and buying an airplane ticket or two easy; I drive. I'm looking at a 14 hour drive in October for me and my wife. I am reluctant to try flying. What if my name is on the no-fly list?
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Interesting)
"Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems."
Yes, and BEFORE implementing a system like an inherently error-prone No-Fly list, even some basic design review of error recovery should have been firmly in place, beyond "there's this guy you can call and something might be done, maybe, if you're a senior gov't figure." I'd loved to have been in on the design meeting where that was finalized.
It took a senior senator 3 WEEKS to get off the list. Think you'd have ANY chance? That's broken by design. And given past abuses (Euro journalists denied entry to US due to their "mistaken" inclusion on The List) I have zero confidence in this not being used as a political tool. Tom DeLay's "missing plane w/ congressmen" false report to the FAA, for example.
And that's only the painfully obvious list. What about the ones you're never allowed to see?
Nearly every aspect of this homeland "security" as implemented appears to have come from some underperforming kindergarten class. "And colors! We'll have pretty colors for the national terrorism alert level!"
Meanwhile actual terrorists, whose plans apparently are NOT drawn up by underperforming kindergartners, will be busy trying to get one of their own put onto the equally poorly thought-out "security express" list that allows previously cleared individuals minimal security review at airports.
But that's just me talking, some guy who's never benefitted from a terrorist attack, unlike those now supposedly in charge of preventing them.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok...here's a proposal. Every time we read about this stuff (checking ID's, No-Fly list, whatever) it's immediately bashed as unworkable, and an affront to our rights. And that may well be so.
How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better. Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition ("Don't be so mean to them and cause them to blow stuff up"). This is supposedly a smart group. Let's try to fix the process, instead of jumping up and down, screaming.
Making A Difference, Not Just Noise (Score:5, Informative)
"Ok...here's a proposal. [
I fully agree. Another critical angle is to contact your representatives [house.gov] and be heard. Your phone call is actually more powerful than your vote in many ways. Your vote gets the person into/out of office, your phone calls/email/letters gives them direct feedback on specific issues.
Followup ideas on How To Do It Better to follow shortly, but I've got to knock out a conference call first. Yeah, work. The nerve of them. ;-)
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is defense in depth. Screen for passengers for weapons, but realize that some will get through any realistic screening, so add layers that lengthen the odds. Investigate suspicious groups before they get to the airport. Put pressure on (or invade if you must) states that support these groups. Put on a bulletproof cockpit door to stop them if they do get on the plane; I would go further and give the cockpit an outside door, so it is inaccessible from the passenger cabin. Give the pilots (or, for that matter, properly qualified passengers) guns so they can fight back. Put remote control lockouts on the aircraft. Fit supertall buildings with anti-aircraft weapons (specially designed for short range so they don't get hijacked).
Granted, some of these things are being done, but the mindset is still one of looking for the perfect threat detection system, rather than one of minimizing risk for some given cost. We must accept that, whatever we do short of abandoning civilian aviation entirely, there will be a finite risk of hijackings. Any security measure must be judged by risk reduction vs cost, and compared to other, possibly less costly, measures to reduce risk.
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Funny)
'Sorry sir, but we can't let you through'
'Do you know who I am? I AM senator Kennedy!'
'Even if you were the King of Liechtenstein, we can't let you through'
'I'll have YOU fired first thing in the morning!'
'Please do, but could you step out of the line please, sir?'
Or the old joke
'Sorry sir, but we can't let you through'
'Do you know who I am?'
(Intercom)'Can somebody help this person? He doesn't know who he is...'
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:5, Funny)
A high ranking Admiral drives up to the gate of a naval base. This base has a policy of 100% check of ID cards and there is a new Marine on guard duty at the gate.
Marine: I need to see your ID.
Admiral: I don't have time for this nonsense. (to the driver) Go ahead.
Marine: Don't do that.
Admiral to driver: You heard me, Drive on.
Marine draws his sidearm and says: Sir, this is my first time on post. Do I shoot you or your driver?
Re:Our gov't at work (Score:4, Insightful)
This system is ostensibly a way of preventing terrorist attacks, not keeping "immoral" people off airplanes.
Answer. (Score:5, Funny)
Umm....get a DAMN good start driving?
Re:Answer. (Score:5, Funny)
That won't work after the new 'Don't-Drive' rules take into effect on our nations hiways.
Mr. Kennedy (if that is really your name) please step away from the vehicle...
--laz
Re:Answer. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Answer. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Foreigners... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The constitution and bill of rights may define some rights for US citizens, but are based on the idea that many such rights are not given by that bill or the constitution but confirmed. Those rights exist due to being human, not because the constitution or bull of rights grants them. Due process is one of those.
2. The USA is a party to the international declaration of human rights. Due process is a part of that as well, and sicne this is an international treaty, it should be considered 'law ' accourding to the USA constitution.
So, it does not matter at all if he was a foreigner or not.
The fact that your government seems to argue along the lines that you presented however is the exact reason why I am not visiting the USA, and haven't visited it ever since that government started with this kind of talk.
Re:Foreigners... (Score:5, Insightful)
These points are well taken and should be observed by all
As is penned in the Declaration of Independence "All Men are Created Equal." Moreover, as you point out, the Constitution grants only a very few and very specific rights to US citizens. I think voting is just about it. Freedom of speech, assembly, equal protection, all of these are guaranteed to any human being within the borders of the United States.
Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the President to suspend some of these rights in time of war. Unfortunately for Herr Bush, we are not at war. "What's this" you say? Not at war? What about the War on Terror? The Court has (thus far) only upheld these suspensions when the country is in a state of declared war. Bush has attempted to circumvent the Court's wrath by denying his victims the right to see a lawyer or even appear in court. Fills you with warm fuzzies doesn't it?
Enemy combatant or not, if you're being held by the United States you have the right to an attorney and your day in court. When Congress declares war and we are legally in such a state, then and only then might the rules change. Until then "we're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working
classes....
Re:Answer. (Score:5, Funny)
You're kidding, right? I've been with 12 people in my life
Fuck the President.
No. No no no.
Fuck your mom.
My Oedipal complex went away when I was 13, thanks
Fuck you.
That one's easy but not so much fun.
Fuck your friends
If I can pick and choose, gladly. Otherwise I'd have to say no.
fuck the Senate
Have you SEEN those people
fuck the House
Ok, so maybe there are a couple in there.
fuck all goverment employees.
Only if I can start at the interstate tollbooth, there's usually a couple hotties there. If I have to start at the DMV
Oh, and fuck you too
Funny... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Make things very easy for criminals.
and
Damn near impossible for law abiding citizens.
See software copy protection, crippled cd's etc
least not forget MPAA, RIAA DMCA suck
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Informative)
You think it's just one guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just you. Seriously, one guy has problems because he ends up on the watch list on a prank or a fuck up and everyone starts whining that America is a police state and how their civil liberties have been taken away.
You really think it's just one guy, or even just a few? You are willfully ignorant then. This kind of shit has been going on since 9/11, and it has only gotten worse.
Screw justice, though, right? We have terrrists to catch!
Re:You think it's just one guy? (Score:5, Funny)
Silly Homeland Security... (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory Dennis Leary quote (Score:5, Funny)
Could it have been... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could it have been... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Could it have been... (Score:5, Informative)
And this kind of crap is not going to be buried by the media!
The slippery slope (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." --Lyle Myhr
Re:The slippery slope (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Ben Franklin
- or -
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
- Martin Niemöller
There could be an innocent explanation (Score:5, Funny)
Clerical Error... (Score:4, Funny)
For the non-US (Score:5, Informative)
here [washingtonpost.com]
On the evening of July 19, 1969, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts drove his Oldsmobile off a wooden bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, drowning his passenger, a young campaign worker named Mary Jo Kopechne. The senator left the scene of the accident, did not report it to the police for many hours, and according to some accounts considered concocting an alibi for himself in the interim.
At the time, Kennedy managed to escape severe legal and political consequences for his actions thanks to his family's connections (which helped to contain the inquest and grand jury) and to a nationally televised "Checkers"-like speech broadcast a week after the accident. But virtually no journalist who has closely examined the evidence fully believes Kennedy's story, and almost 30 years later, the tragedy still trails the senator, with aggressive press investigations revived in five-year anniversary intervals.
Probably more than any other single factor, Chappaquiddick - a frenzy without end - has ensured that Ted Kennedy would not follow his brother John to the White House.
Wonder what happens to Michael Moore (Score:4, Insightful)
Ms. Coulter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that you? Nixon used every power at his disposal, from the FBI to the IRS to the CIA, in order to intimidate and even imprison his enemies. Look at what he did to Tim Leary: got him sentence to over 10 years in a federal prison for having, IIRC, less than two grams of marijuana in his car.
There were plenty of *allegations* made about Clinton and the IRS, but like 99.9% of the allegations made about him they turned out to be Dudge fodder and usually outright lies.
Re:Ms. Coulter? (Score:4, Insightful)
given the record (Score:3, Funny)
Just to point this out (Score:4, Interesting)
So to this, all I can say is that Ted should be modded up at least +3 Insightful
Anyone else think this was politically motivated? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he decide that he wouldn't tell anyone until the issue was resolved? Did the people in the airport not realize it was Ted? I'd have told everyone I know, and an airport usually has enought people in it that SOMEONE would have let a newspaper or TV station know... It happened FIVE times...
Further, wouldn't this have made a more favorable impact for the D's if the news came out during the DNC? Maybe they wanted to wait until people forgot about the DNC and started thinking about the RNC...
Or maybe it never really happened...
</tinfoil>
-bs
Maybe that's not the real reason. (Score:5, Funny)
Brainless bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the security people at airports are trained and no doubt encouraged by a litany of inflexible rules and consequences for those that don't follow them to the letter to simply "go by the book." What we wind up with is the mindless application of bureaucratic procedures by security drones. You couldn't convince me that we are all safer because of this.
It's not that politicians should receive special treatment; but it is ridiculous that one of the most recognizable men in American politics gets flagged by the computer and no one can do anything about it because no one dare stick his neck out for fear of being "flagged" for termination from his job.
On second thought though, with all the bullshit the average person has to put up with in every aspect of life that involves dealing with government agencies and their rules -- at least some of which I'm sure Senator Kennedy is responsible for -- I say hooray for inconveniencing the senator! Let's have more of this!
T. Kennedy (Score:5, Informative)
According to the 1990 census information [census.gov], 0.067% of Americans have the surname 'Kennedy' - given a rough poulation of 300million, that makes around 200,000 American Kennedys.
Now, also from the above information, 4.25% of the male population and 3.35% of the female population have names beginning with T.
This means that just from that single name on the no-fly list, roughly 7600 Americans could be excluded from flying.
It's utter, utter madness.
Re:T. Kennedy (Score:5, Informative)
> Again, what does that have to do with this story? His name doesn't start with a 'T.'
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy said Thursday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list."...
"A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects."
> Hey moderators, how about actually reading the posts before hitting the buttons.
Hey, poster! how about actually reading the article before posting?
Wrong again! (Score:5, Interesting)
On a somewhat related note, it took my girlfriend and I about 2 hours to cross into the States in late June. we were "pulled" aside - told to turn off our cell phones, remove all valuables from her car (but no camera's or recorders please!) and go into a building while they searched her car. After sitting there about an hour, a person who I assumed was the supervisor came over to us and said "Why are YOU here?" (being the only caucasian couple in "waiting"). We showed him the slip of paper they had given us - he wrinkled his nose, peered at us, went "hmmmmm" and handed the slip to a INS agent and went on his way. We were then very rudely "interviewed" by said agent. Even though my girlfriend drives a very nice 2000 model Grand Am - they wanted to know how much money we had on us - when I told them none, as we intended to use americna funds we would get from bank machines, they demanded to know how much money we had on our credit cards and in our bank accounts! Were they stupid enough to think we would leave the relative freedom of Canada to sneak into the States? Give me a break. I am happy to say that after that, our trip down to St. Louis and back was wonderful.
Oddly enough coming home, we got waved through Canadian Customs in about 30 seconds.
Re:Wrong again! (Score:4, Informative)
The 2nd question was because of your 'wrong' answer to the first. INS (or whatever they call themselves now) are required to ensure that you have enough funds to support your visit so that you won't resort to asking for handouts or robbery. The bizarre thing is that the law that codified this requirement was written a long time ago and the amount of cash required wasn't index linked, so it wouldn't cover a meal in a decent restaurant today. I can't remember exactly what the figure is, but it's something like $20.
When I was dating my now wife and make frequent trips into the USA without a green card, I used to keep $40 in my wallet just to avoid that hassle even though I, like you, used ATMs to support my stay.
Vote. (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote.
Re:Vote. (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:
Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.
Pure BULLSHIT. This lie serves one simple purpose: keep the two party corporate system in power. And people are stupid enough to believe this. Apparently nobody has ever taken the time to read up on how the voting system in this country actually works. They are content to mumble crap about the Electorial College and how futile it is to vote third party when in fact it is anything BUT futile. Just get them 5%, people. You get a third party a 5% share of the vote one time, and they can take care of themselves from that point on.
If you don't like the current candidates, vote for one of the candidates from the other 50 political parties in this country. Any 3rd party that gets in is going to have one agenda: CAMPAIGN REFORM. It's the only way for them to guarantee themselves a second term. Once those problems are fixed, this one party as two parties system is out the fucking door, and that's the best thing anyone could hope for in this country. It will put choice back into politics, and the rest will attend to itself.
If you won't vote, you are part of the problem. You live in this country, you CANNOT disclaim responsibility for political problems by refusing to exercise the only means you have by which to solve them. If everyone sitting around not voting got off their asses and voted 3rd party, they would OVERRULE all of the people voting R/D just by sheer numbers.
If you continue voting for the same two parties that keep running this country into the ground every single year, you are part of the problem. Republicans and Democrats care about one thing and one thing only: corporate payday. They are in the BUSINESS of selling laws to corporations with deep pockets. The only way to escape from this problem is to put more parties into the system to make it more resistant to corruption.
There is no mysterious savior that is going to appear and fix all of america's political problems. If the voters never wise up and take action, the erosion of freedoms at the expense of corporate interests is going to continue unabated, and someday the common people are going to be forced to take up arms and bring the government down the old fashioned way. If it goes far enough and the americans don't do anything about it, rest assured that someday the USA's foreign policy will tick off someone with the power to come in here and do it for us. You're fooling yourself if you think humanity has evolved to the point where another world war is not possible.
You are not an impartial observer. The mere fact that you draw breath on this planet obligates you. Try doing something that is becoming complete unamerican in modern times: take some responsibility and do something about the problems.
Another thing I noticed (Score:5, Interesting)
Kennedy's actual record of in-flight disturbances (Score:4, Informative)
NOT TURNED DOWN (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
A Kennedy aide said the senator nearly missed a couple of flights because of the delays
This is NOT "turned down for a flight". Sheesh!
My Story (Score:5, Interesting)
The e-ticket machines would not issue me tickets, telling me that I had to get my tickets at the counter. I was no longer asked if I wanted to upgrade to first class for special price... The boarding agents stuck little colored dots with initials on them on my boarding passes - apparently as cues to people down-stream. It got frustrating that everywhere I went I and my luggage were singled out for special attention. Up to the point where my luggage would not be accepted curbside, My luggage and I would be taken into a little room and searched. In one case, even sealed packages were opened. As I boarded the airplane, I was always one of the passengers called for a random search.
Durring one of these searches, I mentioned to the agent that I must have made someone's list somewhere. He shook his head up and down as he said "I can't say that sir!" I had my answer and just resigned myself to being watched.
Then one day, as suddenly as it started, it stopped. My guess is that I satisfied the intellegence built into the database that I was not a threat and it removed me from the list.
I do not know what I did to make their list nor do I really know what I did to get off of their list. I can tell you it is an unpleasant experience being there.
As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.
It was an accident (Score:5, Funny)
relevant bit on NPR yesterday,can be downloaded... (Score:5, Interesting)
There were a few other interesting, chilling tidbits regarding homeland security. Fun stuff:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?w
So, let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
The hell? All that happens is that Andy Anthrax finds out that he's on the list? So the next time he books a ticket, it will be as Barry Boxcutter.
Has anyone in the Department of Homeland 'Security' considered that this scheme is only going to stop innocent people who don't happen to have multiple identities? If we had any confidence in this list, then Senator Kennedy should have found armed agents waiting to take him down the moment he entered the airport. That this didn't happen just highlights that the whole no-fly list is a bad joke that's got way out of hand.
We need real security, not window dressing. And no, answering "National Security" in response to any criticism of the policy is not a substitute.
a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when idiot laws begin to affect those in power will something usually be done to correct it.
Maybe the Honorable Senator and John Gilmore can get together and work to getting TSA to be an organization that doesn't resemble authority from a Charlie Chaplin movie.
You have no right to correct your data... (Score:5, Insightful)
And whatever they claim otherwise, they're still getting data from credit reports and the like. So say you're one of the hundreds of thousands of identity theft victims. With ID theft you have rights, and the credit reporting agencies responsibilities, to attempt to fix bad data. Takes 200 hours of your time and never, ever really finishes, but all you lose is your potential new job and potential new car loan.
But in the meantime the bad data gets into the gov't files: now you never can fix it. And your taint creeps out to touch all your associates (like how the casino software catches ex-roommates of ex-roommates of card counters). Now not only do you not get hired after the NCIC screen in the background check, but your buddies and grandparents all get extra airport searches (they should add a nurse they way they do some of those searches... add in a breast or testicular cancer lump screen while you're there). And of course as 1 in 2500 of us is a terrorist [slashdot.org] any close check of you will find those suspicious degrees of separation in your Orkut links. Hi Mr.Tuttle, your new name is Toast.
From my favorite precient and well-written essay on privacy losses [privcom.gc.ca]:
If these errors were merely harmful to the innocent, that would simply be horribly injust and an affront to the ideals of the US. But these errors are also stupidly harmful to safety. From Schneier [sfgate.com] (via my D.Nelson post)... "almost everyone who fits the profile will turn out to be a false alarm. This not only wastes investigative resources that might be better spent elsewhere, but it causes grave harm to those innocents who fit the profile..."
Re:So what will it be folks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what will it be folks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the really obscene part, which comes from the 9/11 commission reports: in every flight, at least one (and in one case all four) of the highjackers on the flights set off the metal detectors. They were screened by security afterwards, and allowed to pass. We even have it on video. The sad truth from what happened on 9/11 is that we did't really need more security-we needed to make the security we already had functional. Of course, this is the country that passes new gun laws instead of enforcing the ones it already has, so why break with tradition?
Re:So what will it be folks? (Score:5, Insightful)
or we learn to live with some inconvenience
You're kidding right?
This guy is a U.S. Senator. Not just that, but probably one of the most well-known senators (love him or hate him). This goes way beyond a little quirk in the system.
I highly doubt that the next attack is going to be the same as the last one, we need to focus on the unidentified threats, but instead we focus on implementing systems that get us used to losing our rights. Fuck it, the 9/11 terrorists actually accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing the way we think and act!
And when I speak of a system, I mean the end-to-end system, not the computer system.
Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li (Score:5, Interesting)
With the screen list, they put several big S's on your boarding pass, and then you get shunted into the "extra-thorough" screening line going in. You'll recognize it next time you fly: it's extra long, extra slow, and it's where all the people with dark skin or funny clothes go.
What was described in the article is nothing like the screening I've seen. I've never had an airline worker tell me I can't fly, in fact they never mention it. I wouldn't have realized the significance of the S if it didn't happen every time I fly.
Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li (Score:4, Insightful)
Though it is the most frustrating thing to have happen to you. You entire privacy is completely violated and the process solves absolutely no problems.
The second time it happened to me in the Reno, Nevada airport (which is a freakin horrible airport) they lost my laptop and a $250 watch. How the hell do you do that?
Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li (Score:4, Informative)
1) Don't carry anything valuable. They'll make you dump everything on a table, which they don't watch very well. For security staff, they're pretty slack about other people's stuff.
2) Wear cheap, flat 'deck' shoes, like $12 pairs fron a cheap show chain. You may lose them at some point.
3) If you wear a belt, use a cheap flat belt. You may have it torn open at some point.
4) Wear clean underware, with no holes. You may wind up with your pants around your ankles with 20 strangers there, as you try to stand straight, with no belt, and your arms straight out from your sides. (Happened to me at San Diego, in the hole they call Gate 1.)
Expect to be laughed at by the wanker TSA employees. Do not make any remarks or show any expression in response. Remarks about a**holes results in an extra hour or two in a small room while you wait for a cavity search 'specialist'.
Re:Publicity Stunt (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, my guess is that he called in a favor, got himself put on the no-fly list. Then, when they were going to let him fly anyway, he probably, insisted that he was doing his civic duty to not let himself fly, since he knew he was on the list.
Re:Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that not true. Counter personel will always check ths list and follow the rules, and act based on those rules no matter who is in front of them. If a ticket agent ignored the list and the rules and let someone on the airplane, they would be roasted.
Security personel are always drilled that you follow procedure no matter who is standing in fornt of you. If you don't follow procedure, if you act based on their own initiative, then you take all responsibility for your actions. If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.
Re:Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
WHAT THE FUCK!!?
Seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like this. Obviouslyhe set himself up as a publicity stunt......oh wait.....HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THIS LIST. Yep, you're just another one of those fools who for some reason don't want to believe that the current administraion could EVER mess up even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Maybe you've had your head in the ground since 9/11 but this country has routinely been harassing and banning people from air travel based on the flimsiest correlation (it's not even real "evidence") with some list of characteristics that MIGHT make them a terrorist.
It's stupid, and un-american and it's only matter of time untill they harassed someone important.
Re:It's just as stupid ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You think that your St. George is any less likely than Nixon to abuse the power of the Presidency? I'll give you three guesses who Bush Sr's political mentor and patron was. Here's a hint: he came from Yorba Linda and had a dog named Checkers.
Re: Ironic (Score:5, Funny)
> Funny how a democratic senator is blacklisted after speaking at the DNC. Coincidence?
Maybe he's in trouble because the DNC wasn't held in an approved Free Speech Zone.
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
I love slashdot. Where else would you find wild anti-republican conspiracy theories considered insightful? Ohh... wait...
The whole situation in this country is just getting rediculous. Is it possible for people to believe that George W. Bush is a terrible politician, but a decent guy who just has a difference of opinion with you? I'm so sick of republicans acting as if they represent all of what's right and good in this country and claiming that the democrats represent immorality and stupidity. I'm also tired of the democrats acting as if all the republicans are either slaves to the corporate interests, and either evil crooks or else slobbering boobs who've been convinced to go along with the crooks. Jesus Christ ! Is it that unlikely that we just have differences of opinion? Is is that hard to beleive that Bush isn't trying to gather more power for himself for evil purposes - that he's just trying to keep us safe?
You can bitch all you want about Bush having said that he'd be a uniter and not a divider. Personally I think that's a stupid thing to say, but it's definately not as if Bush is intentionally trying piss off half the country. He's been being attacked since before he got into the office, with liberals saying he looked like a monkey, that he was stupid and talked funny and a religious zealot and incompetent. Are you at all surprised that this country is very divided, when half the people think their president is defeding them from evil, and the other half thinks the president looks/talks like a monkey?
I understand completely if you disagree with the president's policies, and you'd like to voice your opinion. I think there are plenty of valid disagreements you could make with the bush administration. The problem is that all I seem to hear is : "Ohhh that Bush - He's just evil! We invaded an innocent country all for oil and haliburton, after he stole the election in florida. And have you heard how talks all goofy?"
I can take criticism of the president - it's important and needs to be done. But not when the main critisim is that he's :
1) evil
2) incompetent
3) looks/talks like a monkey
If I beleived half of the critcisms being made of Bush, I'd be calling for armed revolution. The problem is that most of them just don't hold water at all. So he lied to us about iraq having WMD? What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD? Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD. Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie? That doesn't do anything at all to help him. You'd have to beleive (which i'm under the impression that a lot of liberals do these days) that bush has the intelligence of a four-year old and about as much morality as Adolf Hitler.
Can we please raise the level of political discourse in this country? I would love to argue about the military efficacy of invading Iraq. I'd love to debate the merits of McCain Fiengold. I'd love to talk about social security and whether it can or should be exteneded and fixed. It looks like all i've got to look at this election year is a man who is an evil, stupid, incompetent ape, or a man who was apparently in vietnam thirty years ago where, depending different sides of the story, was either a hero or a shmuck. Do you honestly think that if Kerry gets elected, this country will be 'unified' again? You're going to hear all sorts of outrages charges against him, too. Just you wait...
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that incompetence is not one of the things you can take people criticizing the President about. Incompetence is being unable to competently perform one's job. When that job is as important as President of the United States, incompetence is utterly unacceptable
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Misleading point here... Russia, Germany, France, et al were calling for continued inspections searching for the WMD. Only Britain was at the similar conclusion... And Britain, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, et al. only came to that conclusion after Bush released his satellite pictures of trucks and other misleading or false information at the UN. Did Kerry lie? No. Did Clinton lie? No. Did Blair lie? I doubt it. Bush and his staff were the only ones privy to the inside information that he claimed "proved" that Iraq had WMDs. To claim the others, who were merely saying "yes, given the evidence you show us Mr. President, and given that we trust you and don't think you're a liar, we come to the same conclusion."
The conclusion later proved to be false, evidence later proved to be false (and falsified - see the 9/11 report) - therefore, the people who believed the falsified evidence are exonerated... and the ones who knew it was false are implicated.
-T
The Real Reasons For Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but it's worth it.
I'm sick of all the outright lies about the war in Iraq coming from the anti-war left. It's disgusting. Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. Iraq was not Disneyland before the war. It was a totalitarian hellhole in which people were getting killed by the thousands. Talk to an Iraqi sometime. They will tell you stories about how on their sister's wedding night a drunk Uday Hussein showed up and decided to rape her death and slit the throat of the groom. These weren't isolated incidents, they happened every day.
Only 6,000 have been "wounded" and only a fraction of those are serious wounds. Saying that 10,000+ were "mangled" is an outright lie. Let's take the highest number of wartime civilian casualties in Iraq: right around 12,000. Let's take the lowest figure for the number of Iraqis killed each year by Saddam Hussein: 24,000. That's at least 12,000 lives saved in Iraq, and that figure is likely too low by at least half. If you're going to talk about the morality of war, don't gloss over the costs of inaction. Nice ad hominem attack, but have you ever considered that maybe MI6 has better intelligence than we do and believed that Hussein was a threat. Have you ever tried reading the Butler Report that said that there was no evidence of politicization of British Intelligence? I'd guess no, because that would challenge your worldview. This kind of leftist cant is both prima facie ridiculous, but it crowds out legitimate criticism of the war by those who don't get their rocks off by reading Chomsky. If you're going to increase intelligent public discourse, calling someone a "poodle" for having an informed opinion that you don't like is not the way to go about it.Re:oh yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Random? How about you go to the root of the problem? Start with "Tom Ridge", and see how long things stay the way they are. Mind you, "Edward Kennedy" was probably a good first choice for getting some noisy hell raised about the situation.
Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor? Anyone?
Re:oh yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Or I wonder if they've got an "immunity" list, so that even if there WAS a terrorist going around as Tom Ridge, the name would never be put on the list. That would be just as good!
Ender-
Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
[...] They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same [...]
This clause is sometimes put forward by congressmen to try to avoid tickets, since they are "going to and returning from" their sessions. See Sen. Robert Byrd: Invoking an ancient rule to avoid a modern law [capitolhillblue.com] to find out more.
Re:What was the true inconvenience? (Score:5, Interesting)
a fucking hell. I was kept in a glass booth for an hour, had my ID taken
away, asked questions and basically humilated.
It is OK when I am travelling alone, but it gets ugly when I am "randomly"
selected from amidst my coworkers and business partners.
It's not about inconvienience: it's about justice (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that I was marginally inconvenienced, but it was not the end of the world. It cost me maybe 10 minutes of my life. How much of this is that Ted Kennedy doesn't like being treated like the masses?
Perhaps some. But perhaps some of it is that he has been made aware of how people are being treated, and doesn't like it. I don't either. Are you old enough to remember the Cold War at its height? It was the same kind of crap: band-aid measures typically undertaken out of a knee-jerk reaction to some scare, real or imagined, and it winds up doing little if any good. "Duck and cover", anyone?
Same thing here. America has gone batshit crazy over terrorism, and needs to settle down. Bringing attention to crap like this is good for us all.
Re:What was the true inconvenience? (Score:4, Insightful)
But, like I said, they snuck in a "notwithstanding article blah blah" clause into the TSA, so they just toss out any FOIA requests about the system or its rules.
Is there just one list? Several lists? Who knows.
The TSA's scope is potentially much bigger than just airports, too. Just wait until there are TSA patrol cars out on the highways, and you can be pulled over, searched and arrested on "secret" laws or rules.
Maybe it's illegal to drive a hybrid civic with a "defeat Bush in '04" sticker. Who knows. They could make a regulation making it illegal to be any blacker than Will Smith.
Sure, it violates your constitutional right to due process. That is, being able to read and understand the laws you're charged with violating, which some lawyers might argue is somewhat important to presenting a defense.
But hey, we're fighting terror.