Read Transcript (txt, 1Kb)
It just means that in addition to making sure the name on your government ID matches your reservation, domestic airlines will also start asking for your birth date and gender. I should also point out that Secure Flight will be phased in over the next few months, so you may or may not even be asked for this information the next time you travel. The program will not be fully in place until 2010.
The Secure Flight program is a "behind the scenes" security feature that is intended to:
- Identify known and suspected terrorists;
- Match individuals against government terrorist watch lists keeping travel safe.
- Facilitate passenger air travel; and
- Protect individuals' privacy.
Follow the links below for a plethora of information on Secure Flight
- What’s In a Name Blog Post 5/15/2009
- Secure Flight Q&A Blog Post 6/2/2009
- Top 5 Secure Flight Questions Answered
- Frequently Asked Questions from travelers, aircraft operators, and travel agencies.
(From the questions we’ve read, it seems that passengers are concerned they’re going to get to the checkpoint and be told they can’t fly since the name on their boarding pass is not an exact match to the name on their government ID. No worries! Secure Flight does not affect the way you are screened. The name you give the airline while booking your travel is used to perform watch list matching before your boarding pass is even issued, so small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.)
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
105 comments:
Bob, you've confused requests with requirements here in the past, so could you please clarify whether airlines will simply start asking for people's birth dates and genders, or start requiring that people provide that information?
It's not directly related to your post, but I remember that at one time, either TSA or FAA (I forgot which) required airlines to request proof of identification from passengers, but did not require airlines to require it (in other words the airlines were required to ask for it but not to demand it, and people were allowed to decline), so it wouldn't be surprising that airlines would only be doing just what you said -- asking for these things -- this time as well.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
What safeguards are there to prevent the passenger database that will be generated by SecureFlight from being used by other government agencies -- say, police departments for warrant service, or any other agency that may have interest in an individual's travel plans?
What does "small differences" mean? If my Drivers License lists my name as "John William Smith", will "John Smith" work on my boarding pass? Will "John W Smith"?
"Match individuals against government terrorist watch lists keeping travel safe."
Bob, you're going to catch a full eyefull of SCK#$%2 over this statement.
Watch lists don't keep travel safe. Effective, efficient screening of weapons, explosives and incindearies does.
I have a flight with AA on 8/15.
Currently AA's system does not allow for middle names or initials at all. So tickets I booked in July will only have first name, last name and no more.
I called AA and they said that feature will be available but not for some time, like next year.
Let's hope TSA and its TSO's use more common sense than has been shown in past months.
I'm not holding my breath!
Who would have thought that $4,700 would create a national emergency?
Even allowing for the differences in our shared language I think this post might have been written a little more thoughtfully.
When you say 'perk' I think you mean benefit.
I'd respectfully suggest that not being confused with - and potentially treated as - a terrorist is not a 'perk'!
Whilst I appreciate it is not the job of the TSA to make policy as a lawyer I worry about watch lists presuming people guilty without a court finding them so.
Bob, you wrote:
Small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.
Is there any reason why TSA can't come out and say that small differences will not impact travel? All these wishy-washy words don't provide much assurance ...
What security safeguards do you have on any databases you keep, and how will those safeguards protect this extra data?
Will I be REQUIRED to provide this data, or ASKED to provide this data?
How long will this increase passenger wait times for an average trip?
And most importantly: how much is this program costing?
In my experience, airline websites do not permit full middle names of passengers, only initials. And what about those of us who have two middle names? The airline websites don't accept two middle names. Since my passport lists both middle names, will I have a problem getting through?
Also, and perhaps most importantly, if you share a name with a "terrorist" (and that definition is getting a lot wider these days - thanks to the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act") how do you get your name taken off the list or the list updated to reflect the fact that there are MULTIPLE people with this name. As a regular traveller to the US I have this problem.
A Nonymous.
If someone following the TSA's "requests" allows the information to fall into the wrong hands (read: criminal intent), may I sue the TSA for that incident? Has a complete PIA review been made of this "request" policy?
YAPTOP (Yet Another Poorly Thought Out Policy)
So now the TSA is mandating that I disclose additional PII to commercial airlines. I'm sure the TSA is requiring that the airlines properly secure this data and not use it for any other purposes beyond Secure Flight....right?
Can someone please, please explain to me how ID == Security. Because I don't see it. I'd be happy to fly sitting next to anyone on the terrorist watch list (an given how large it is I might have already done that) as long as the TSA does its job and keeps weapons and bombs off the planes.
Tens of millions of dollars flushed down the toilet on Secure Flight (and CAPPS II and their ilk) to keep what DHS/TSA claims is the few hundred people actually on the no-fly list, most of which they claim aren't in the USA, off of airplanes.
Instead of all of these ID checks, papers-please checkpoints, and intrusive questions, wouldn't that money have been better spent rounding up the few hundred people and putting them on trial in a court of law (with due process)?
I await the first stories of people being denied travel either at the ticket counter or at the boarding gate because of minuscule differences in their name. Hopefully they will be "sympathetic" cases (veterans, pregnant women, minorities) that the media deems worthy of coverage. (Of course now that Democrats are running TSA, the liberal media runs very few stories criticizing TSA. :( )
I also await the first stories of the still-inevitable false positives. And now that the airlines and DHS/TSA falsely believe Secure Flight is accurate, the unfortunate innocent false positives are likely to face much harsher treatement: greater likelihood of detention, arrest, etc.
TSA should be disbanded and replaced with effective private screening focusing on a prohibited items list containing only weapons, explosives (real ones, not water bottles), and incendiaries. The leaders responsible for concocting these un-American Stasi-like papers-please checkpoints, secret blacklists, and domestic-travel permission requests should be barred from public service for life, have their pensions revoked, and be brought up on criminal charges for their actions.
Bob and team,
Any word on the apparent Secure-Flight requirement that anyone who books their ticket within 72-hours of travel or changes their itinerary within 72 hours of travel (say due to a flight cancellation, weather delay, reroute, etc.) will be subject to HaraSSSSment via SSSSelectee SSSScreening?
BOB you have some valid points, but it is not enough.
The Secure Flight program is a reincarnation of CAPPS II, which was killed because of privacy and effectiveness concerns. This new incarnation does not significantly address these concerns. There is insufficient transparency and oversight in the program.
* Identify known and suspected terrorists;
If a terrorist is "known", then you don't need to identify them. Suspected terrorists are just like any criminal suspects. You cannot take away their rights without due process. Secure Flight does not constitute due process.
* Match individuals against government terrorist watch lists keeping travel safe.
Watch lists don't keep people safe. Secret watch lists are subject to abuse and manipulation that can be used for harassment and political purposes. This increases risks rather than decreasing them.
* Facilitate passenger air travel; and
Passenger air travel has been and can be possible without Secure Flight. There's no need for facilitation by the government.
* Protect individuals' privacy.
Epic fail. Secure Flight requires the airlines to collect additional personal information without ANY restrictions on what they (the airlines) may do with that information. To protect privacy, tickets should be anonymous.
What accommodations will be made for transgender individuals?
Nazi Germany had pretty good documentation control. Look how well it worked out for them.
Per NoClu..."effective screening of weapons, explosives, etc"? How about a bag of money? Ha! Don't forget, TSA people consider themselves cops now and are looking for EVERYTHING. The original mission of keeping flight threatening material and people off the plane has greatly expanded. Also, re this new Secure Flight process. Will airlines be adding gender, birth dates and such to the new tickets. Some airlines don't even have provision for a middle initial or name. Will TSA be coordinating with the airlines about this or are alot of people going to be turned away at the checkpoint?
I have never been able to figure out what the problem is with providing the required information to the government. I mean, state governments issue birth certificates, you have to provide that certificate to receive a SSN and when you file taxes, the IRS gets all of the same info. So why do so many people get all a lather when TSA begins requiring information that you have already provided to other federal agencies? If someone could explain the logic, I sure would appreciate it, because I just seem to be missing something.
My name is too long to fit on online forms or boarding passes. I am doomed to constant strip searches.
Meanwhile, Mr. Terrorist, who obviously knows best to fly under an assumed name, is home free...
What safeguards are there to prevent the passenger database that will be generated by SecureFlight from being used by other government agencies -- say, police departments for warrant service, or any other agency that may have interest in an individual's travel plans?
What effect will the requirement to ask about sex have on transgendered persons? I can see many incredibly humiliating scenarios coming forward where someone's biological sex (appearing on their gov't issued ID) seems not to match their visible gender markers or how they'd like to be identified. Any policy which could end with TSA agents inspecting people's genitalia seems like it would be horribly oppressive to a substantial class of people.
So Bob, how does asking for all this private information protect my privacy? It seems like you're INVADING it rather than protecting it.
It boils down that I still have to ask my government for permission to fly. Seem to remember the US making fun of places like the USSR and other Eastern Bloc countries that required that, as the US would NEVER require papers or permission to travel.
Fast forward 25 years ...
Al
Are you going to match names against the same watch list that made me a permanent SSSS victim? I can assure you I am not a terrorist, and my name could not conceivably be confused with anyone else's. The result is I don't believe in your "intelligence" data and seriously doubt the mechanisms through which watch lists are created. I also know it isn't very difficult for a real terrorist to fly under an assumed name. This creates a hassle for innocent people and does not help catch any "bad guys".
ID does not equal security.
Anonymous said: "I have never been able to figure out what the problem is with providing the required information to the government."
The big problems with Secure Flight aren't that you have to provide personal information to the government. One thing Secure Flight DID fix over CAPPS II was instituting some pretty good rules about what the government can dow with tje data for and how long they can keep it. That being said, there's very little oversight established to ensure these rules are followed.
There's still a privacy hole, though. Secure Flight mandates that the airlines collect more personal information, and it doesn't put any controls on what they (the airlines) can do with the data.
But the fundamental problem is that Secure Flight lets the federal government decide--in secret, without oversight, and without due process--who may fly and who may not. This does nothing for security. It's a potential for those in power to harass their political enemies by getting them added to the no-fly lists with virtually no risk of being caught. This actually increases the risk to the traveling public (and our democracy) while doing nothing to decrease threats to aircraft.
It also FAR exceeds the TSA's legal authority to conduct administrative searches for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
Suppose someone on the no-fly list was actually prevented from flying because of this. (The odds of this are infinitesimal, yet we all have to suffer the process for this remote chance.) Is he going to be arrested and charged? No, because he's only suspected of having connections to a terrorist organization. There has been no due-process, yet he is being prevented from freely traveling within the country. That's a civil rights violation.
Consider the alternative. If we did let a known terrorist fly on an airplane, but we made sure there were no weapons available to him, how big is the risk?
In the mean time, consider the hundreds or possibly thousands of innocent people who will be inconvenienced or harassed because of a near-match. The TSA claims Secure Flight will reduce the chances of this, but they cannot eliminate them. Even if the false positive rate is very low, because of the numbers of people checked every day, this is still going to interfere with the the lives of many, many innocent passengers.
For crying out loud, PILOTS have lost their jobs because they match names on the no-fly list. Nobel Peace prize winners have had to get special dispensation from the State Department because they were on the no-fly list.
Anonymous said… My name is too long to fit on online forms or boarding passes. I am doomed to constant strip searches. Meanwhile, Mr. Terrorist, who obviously knows best to fly under an assumed name, is home free...7/18/09
---------------------------------
Dearest doomed, you are not as doomed as you think. This program is being phased in and will not be in full effect until sometime in 2010. Also, I’ll cut and paste this from the blog post: (From the questions we’ve read, it seems that passengers are concerned they’re going to get to the checkpoint and be told they can’t fly since the name on their boarding pass is not an exact match to the name on their government ID. No worries! Secure Flight does not affect the way you are screened. The name you give the airline while booking your travel is used to perform watch list matching before your boarding pass is even issued, so small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.)
-------------------------
A. Nonymous said… Also, and perhaps most importantly, if you share a name with a "terrorist" (and that definition is getting a lot wider these days - thanks to the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act") how do you get your name taken off the list or the list updated to reflect the fact that there are MULTIPLE people with this name. As a regular traveller to the US I have this problem. 7/17/09
---------------------------------
That’s why they’re asking for your DOB. With your DOB, name and gender, you can be differentiated from the actual person who’s on the watch list.
--------------------------
Anonymous said… In my experience, airline websites do not permit full middle names of passengers, only initials. And what about those of us who have two middle names? The airline websites don't accept two middle names. Since my passport lists both middle names, will I have a problem getting through? 7/16/09
-------------------------
Please see my response to “Doomed” above.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Adrian said...
The big problems with Secure Flight aren't that you have to provide personal information to the government. One thing Secure Flight DID fix over CAPPS II was instituting some pretty good rules about what the government can dow with tje data for and how long they can keep it. That being said, there's very little oversight established to ensure these rules are followed.
--------------
Talk with the GAO about that Adrian, that is the government watch-dog agency.
--------------
But the fundamental problem is that Secure Flight lets the federal government decide--in secret, without oversight, and without due process--who may fly and who may not. This does nothing for security. It's a potential for those in power to harass their political enemies by getting them added to the no-fly lists with virtually no risk of being caught. This actually increases the risk to the traveling public (and our democracy) while doing nothing to decrease threats to aircraft.
------------
Time for the tin foil hats again, ‘eh Bob?
------------
It also FAR exceeds the TSA's legal authority to conduct administrative searches for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
------------
Adrian, you might want to actually READ the law that gives TSA its authority and mandates its services. You seem to be under some misconceptions.
------------
Suppose someone on the no-fly list was actually prevented from flying because of this. (The odds of this are infinitesimal, yet we all have to suffer the process for this remote chance.) Is he going to be arrested and charged? No, because he's only suspected of having connections to a terrorist organization. There has been no due-process, yet he is being prevented from freely traveling within the country. That's a civil rights violation.
------------
Sorry again Adrian, but no one has the civil right to fly. Travel, yes. Fly, no. No one is preventing you from walking, riding a bike, driving, taking a boat, or flapping your arms to travel. Heck, you can even charter an aircraft if you like. But you do not have a right to fly on someone else’s aircraft without their permission.
------------
Consider the alternative. If we did let a known terrorist fly on an airplane, but we made sure there were no weapons available to him, how big is the risk?
------------
Define the term “weapon”. Before 9/11 box cutters were not considered weapons, now…
------------
In the mean time, consider the hundreds or possibly thousands of innocent people who will be inconvenienced or harassed because of a near-match. The TSA claims Secure Flight will reduce the chances of this, but they cannot eliminate them. Even if the false positive rate is very low, because of the numbers of people checked every day, this is still going to interfere with the the lives of many, many innocent passengers.
------------
There are about 2600 folks on the “no fly” list. Just how many people do you honestly think this is going to interfere with anyway? 12? 20?
------------
For crying out loud, PILOTS have lost their jobs because they match names on the no-fly list. Nobel Peace prize winners have had to get special dispensation from the State Department because they were on the no-fly list.
------------
Hmmm. How many?
Bob: asking or requiring?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Anonymous said...
What accommodations will be made for transgender individuals?
July 17, 2009 2:39 PM
I'd say those individuals get screened by a male AND female TSO. Are you asking for yourself or are you trying to be a dweeb? >_<
Tsoron said:
Sorry again Adrian, but no one has the civil right to fly. Travel, yes. Fly, no. No one is preventing you from walking, riding a bike, driving, taking a boat, or flapping your arms to travel. Heck, you can even charter an aircraft if you like. But you do not have a right to fly on someone else’s aircraft without their permission.
---------
You don't have a right to fly, but as a common carrier and not a Private carrier, airlines can not deny passage just because they want to. Rather the common carrier clause of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 requires that an airline cannot refuse to transport you, except as provided by specific terms of their published conditions of carriage. These conditions of carriage are non-discriminatory, but typically prevent a passenger from being carried at government request. In such a case it is not the airline who is prohibiting you from traveling, rather it is a governmental entity as the airline is forced to comply with government regulation.
TSORon blubbered....
Sorry again Adrian, but no one has the civil right to fly. Travel, yes. Fly, no. No one is preventing you from walking, riding a bike, driving, taking a boat, or flapping your arms to travel. Heck, you can even charter an aircraft if you like. But you do not have a right to fly on someone else’s aircraft without their permission.
------------
And that is exactly the point Ron. These are not the goverenments airplanes.
They belong to private companies so the Terrorist Support Agency should get out of the way of private enterprise.
That is what freedom is about, something that TSA should try to learn.
This name issue that all of you are blowing out of proportion once again. Your boarding pass should have your first and last name. Just like your ID has. If you start adding nicknames or what your grandma called you when you were a little person things get confusing. You don't write all these other names on your bank account or you library card do you? We have to be able to reasonally be able to match the names to the ID's that we are given.
Once the new Secure Flight provisions go into place on 8/15/09, what will happen to a traveler if they refuse to give their date of birth to an airline or travel agency at the time of ticketing?
Anonymous said...
This name issue that all of you are blowing out of proportion once again. Your boarding pass should have your first and last name. Just like your ID has. If you start adding nicknames or what your grandma called you when you were a little person things get confusing. You don't write all these other names on your bank account or you library card do you? We have to be able to reasonally be able to match the names to the ID's that we are given.
July 20, 2009 11:05 PM
------------
I understand that doing so may make it difficult during the screening process, but according to common law, as long as there is no intent to defraud someone else you can go by any name one chooses. There is no legal requirement which makes only a name change petition via the court system the only type of valid name change.
RB said...
"TSORon blubbered....
Sorry again Adrian, but no one has the civil right to fly. Travel, yes. Fly, no. No one is preventing you from walking, riding a bike, driving, taking a boat, or flapping your arms to travel. Heck, you can even charter an aircraft if you like. But you do not have a right to fly on someone else’s aircraft without their permission.
------------
And that is exactly the point Ron. These are not the goverenments airplanes.
They belong to private companies so the Terrorist Support Agency should get out of the way of private enterprise.
That is what freedom is about, something that TSA should try to learn."
RB you still don't get it. Whether you like it or not, the government actually owns and controlls the sky in which the private planes fly. You may not know that, but its true. Just like the government owns the "airwaves" on which people broadcast television or radio shows, the government owns the sky in which private companies do business.
If we take that together with the fact that no one does have the right to fly, it is very very easy to see that the government can regulate flying. That would explain why the FAA exist long before TSA was around.
But nice to see how you let your biases single out TSA. In doing so we see that you do not have an honest opinion by considering all the facts and relevant data.
TSORon wrote:
"Hmmm. How many?"
Ever hear of Robert Gray, Erich Scherfen and Nelson Mandela, Ronnie?
I said (paraphrased) that the lack of transparency in Secure Flight, specifically who controls the watch lists, creates a new security problem by giving those in power the ability harass their political enemies.
TSORon replied: Time for the tin foil hats again, ‘eh Bob?
Oh please!
In the past several years, we've had a government that established Free Speech Zones, instituted illegal warrantless wiretapping on a massive scale, repeatedly suggested that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, lied about intelligence reports to the public and members Congress, suppressed and misrepresented the results of scientific studies, and eliminated transparency on an unprecedented scale. I don't think I'm stepping very far out on a limb to consider that no-fly and selectee lists that have zero oversight might be abused by those in power.
TSORon also said: Sorry again Adrian, but no one has the civil right to fly. ... [Y]ou do not have a right to fly on someone else’s aircraft without their permission.
You're mixing apples and oranges. It's the airline's plane, not the government's. If I enter into a contract with a common carrier for transportation, I don't see what authority the federal government has to step in and say no. Certainly, not without compensation to both the airline and the would-be passenger.
---
I said that if we keep weapons off planes, then there is very little risk having an actual terrorist on a flight.
TSORon replied: Define the term “weapon”. Before 9/11 box cutters were not considered weapons, now…
I don't see your point. Box cutters are now considered weapons, so those wouldn't be on the plane. The cockpit doors are now secured. Passengers and crew will now fight back. So what substantial risk could a known terrorist (let alone someone merely suspected of having links to a terrorist organization) impose?
TSORon said: There are about 2600 folks on the “no fly” list. Just how many people do you honestly think this is going to interfere with anyway? 12? 20?
Well, based on news reports, it's been hundreds if not thousands so far. With the addition of DOB and gender, it might be reduced somewhat. Even so, I'd have a problem with even a dozen innocent people each year being forced to forfeit their paid airline tickets by a government with a secret list.
And how do you know it's only 2600 people on the no-fly list? Have you read it? No? Me neither. Secret stuff. Government can add anyone at any time, without oversight.
TSORon asked: Hmmm. How many [pilots and Nobel Peace Prize winners have been on the no-fly list]?
Three that I know of:
James Robinson is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general and a commercial pilot. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/19/tsa.watch.list/index.html]
Erich Scherfen, a Gulf War veteran and commercial airline pilot. [http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/08/grounded_muslim_airline_pilot.html]
Nelson Mandela, Nobel Peace Prize winner. He was eventually removed from the list by an act of Congress, but not before Condoleeza Rice had to give him special dispensation to enter the US on multiple occasions. Note that this was not a matter of matching a similar name, so Secure Flight's intrusive requirements wouldn't have helped. Nelson Mandela was placed on the watch list because of his membership in an anti-apartheid organization. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm]
Adrian said...
"The cockpit doors are now secured. Passengers and crew will now fight back. So what substantial risk could a known terrorist (let alone someone merely suspected of having links to a terrorist organization) impose?
TSORon said: There are about 2600 folks on the “no fly” list. Just how many people do you honestly think this is going to interfere with anyway? 12? 20?
Well, based on news reports, it's been hundreds if not thousands so far. With the addition of DOB and gender, it might be reduced somewhat. Even so, I'd have a problem with even a dozen innocent people each year being forced to forfeit their paid airline tickets by a government with a secret list."
------------------------------
How would secured cockpit doors stop suicide bombers?
Those reports you cite are before TSA has taken over the selectee and no-fly list. This take over was effective Feb. 14, 2009. So not only will DOB and gender reduce mistakes of identity, TSA has already proven that as an agency it can manage to greatly reduce those selecteed for the selectee and no-fly list.
"Whether you like it or not, the government actually owns and controlls the sky in which the private planes fly. You may not know that, but its true. Just like the government owns the "airwaves" on which people broadcast television or radio shows, the government owns the sky in which private companies do business."
You must have gotten your law degree the same place TSmORon went to medical school.
Another Anon said...
RB you still don't get it. Whether you like it or not, the government actually owns and controlls the sky in which the private planes fly. You may not know that, but its true. Just like the government owns the "airwaves" on which people broadcast television or radio shows, the government owns the sky in which private companies do business.
...........................
No Anon, what you don't get is that the people of the United States owns the sky and all other things you think the government owns.
"We the people....
Perhaps you should go back and retake your civics classes, you don't seem to have learned much the first time around.
TSORon wrote:
"TSORon said: There are about 2600 folks on the “no fly” list. Just how many people do you honestly think this is going to interfere with anyway? 12? 20?"
According to the very agency for which you purport to work,
"The number of people on the No Fly and Selectee lists is classified, but the number is much less than 755,000."
There are many who believe the list is growing larger by the day and now contains over 1,000,000 names.
The actual "no-fly" list is not the problem, it is the rest of the list that impacts hundreds of travelers each and every day.
Do you understand, Ronnie, that when people use the term "no-fly list" they are referring to the entire watch list system?
BTW, does anyone have info on any movement in Ibrahim vs. Homeland Security?
Bob, in the spirit of criticism of all things TSA, I have a few complaints about you. In no particular order:
1. You sneeze wrong.
2. Your not tall enough.
3. You have 2 days a week off from work.
4. The color of your hair; I find it offensive.
5. When the critics of TSA on this blog crack their whips at you Indiana Jones style, you don't jump high enough.
6. Your reading this too slowly.
7. How dare you have a family. Are not we enough for you?
8. Your shoes are funny, and I think your feet smell a bit foul.
This list could go on and on, but why bother? TSA never addresses the issues at hand. All you ever do is puppy post and avoide the issues.
Sincerely,
TSA Critic
Anon said: Whether you like it or not, the government actually owns and controlls the sky in which the private planes fly. You may not know that, but its true.
The Government doesn't own anything. The Government is not a live person/entity. ALL of the things mentioned belong to the CITIZENS of this great country, not the "Government"
What accommodations will be made for transgender individuals?
Sandra said...
There are many who believe the list is growing larger by the day and now contains over 1,000,000 names.
The actual "no-fly" list is not the problem, it is the rest of the list that impacts hundreds of travelers each and every day.
Do you understand, Ronnie, that when people use the term "no-fly list" they are referring to the entire watch list system?
---
You make no mention of the actual number of individuals on the list. The number of names really doesn't matter, because you should know that any criminal probably has an alias, or 12. The actual number of individuals in the watchlist system is the important number, not the number of names.
People out there can believe what they want to believe about the watch list system, but they're almost guaranteed to be wrong about it.
And you can bring up the sob stories of the 5 year old whose name matched someone's on the NF or SEL list, or the CNN reporter. But they're wrong. THEY were not on the list, their name matched someone who was, and all that needed to be done was a simple verification. Not taking any blame away from the TSA, but it doesn't help when an airline employee says "you're a no-fly" when that is definitely not the case.
Bob,
You've repeated an official quote from TSA several times here:
The name you give the airline while booking your travel is used to perform watch list matching before your boarding pass is even issued, so small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.
And passengers should be able to bring aboard liquids in excess of 100ml for infants ... except for all those reports of when they can't. And passengers should be able to bring about any amount of cash for domestic travel without problems ... except when they can't. And passengers should be able to show any approved ID at a checkpoint ... except when they can't.
Is there any reason why TSA won't come out and make a bold promise that says "minor differences in names will not affect travel"?
From another Anonymous poster:
"So not only will DOB and gender reduce mistakes of identity, TSA has already proven that as an agency it can manage to greatly reduce those selecteed for the selectee and no-fly list."
Cite, please.
The FBI "nominates" those who are put on the list, not the TSA.
Its sad that there are so many people out there who are more concerned about the "rights" of criminals than they are about their own safety. If you are a criminal and don't want your name popping up on a list, don't fly!
Others make the ridiculous assumption that this will add to airport delays. How long does it take to answer the question, "what's your birth date?"
What a bunch of whiners! If these measures make flying one bit safer or help to avoid misidentification, then I'm all for it.
As for those of you who find it too much of a hassle or intrusion into your personal life, join the criminals and don't fly!
It's funny to me that people have the ridiculous position that the government doesn't have the right to control private companies' airplanes.
Where are you people living? The government (albeit on the state or local level) mandates non-smoking in public facilities - even going so far as to ban it in bars. The government imposes taxes on businesses that they do not own and establishes a wide variety of laws regulating commerce and workplace conditions.
You think the government does not own the air? Tell that to the current President and our other elected officials who want to impose carbon taxes on businesses in order to clean up the air which you claim they do not own.
According to the Constitution, it is the government's responsibility to "provide for the common defense" and to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. A case can easily be made that these policies do just that!
Sandra said...
“Do you understand, Ronnie, that when people use the term "no-fly list" they are referring to the entire watch list system?”
Sandy, other people misconceptions are not my fault. My statement was accurate, if you choose to interpret my statement in such a way as to make it incorrect then that’s your error.
So no, I don’t understand. Nor do I care.
Fine I will give my name and birth date.
Joe Terroist will make up a name and birth date and get a fake ID to match (just like we all did when we wanted alcohol before we were of age) This list will not stop anyone that has a brain and wants to get around the system
Let's assume for a moment that the selectee and no-fly lists do enhance security. (I've not seen any convincing evidence of this, but let's take it as a given for this discussion.)
The goal is to determine if a would-be passenger in on one of the lists. Furthermore, we want to do this with as little invasion of privacy as possible.
Given those goals, the current system is just about the worst possible one you could design. It requires PII to leak to the airlines, it has a huge attack surface, and it's subject to trivial data-entry errors.
Consider this alternative: Let the airlines sell tickets to anyone, anonymously if they so choose. Then, at the security checkpoint, the TSO who checks your ID could also check it against the selectee and no-fly lists (instead of against the boarding pass).
According to TSORon, there are merely 2600 (names or individuals) on the no-fly list. This is a trivially small number. The TSO checking IDs should have a simple terminal. Once he/she checks the ID's anti-counterfeiting measure, he/she uses the terminal to run the name against the lists. The terminal says "OK", "selectee", or "no-fly".
Since almost everyone is using government-issued photo ID with a mag-stripe, barcode, or (God forbid) RFID tag, there should be no appreciable slow-down in the line if the terminal can read the ID directly. In fact, verifying that the electronically-readable data on the ID matches the human-readable data makes it that much harder to use a counterfeit ID.
If someone's ID is acceptable but not electronically readable, the TSO would type the data into the terminal. This is a small amount of data and it happens only occasionally.
The ID almost always contains middle names, DOB, and addresses, which can be used to help disambiguate innocent passengers from suspects.
There's no more concern about matching a boarding pass to the ID, since the ID is the only thing that matters.
There's no more data trail that requires being cleaned up, as there is no record created for each passenger.
The checkpoint terminals could connect to a computer locked safely away in the same room that the WBI viewing is done. It could download updates to the lists regularly through a VPN connection for security.
The lists remain secret and secure. The passengers don't have to surrender personal data to airlines. There's no ongoing IT cost of cleaning up the government logs (because there are no logs). There are fewer places for someone to attack the system (e.g., buy with one ID, present another along with a faked boarding pass). There's less room for human error (e.g., passenger miss-enters DOB when buying tickets online). Passengers have fewer things to juggle through the security checkpoint (making them calmer and therefore supposedly helping the behavior detection officers spot suspicious people).
One thing that bothers me a lot about the TSA policies, is that the justification for the intrusion and inconvenience rarely matches the stated purpose and often increases other risks to the passenger. If you really wanted to make sure people on the lists don't get into the sterile area (and thus onto the airplanes), you wouldn't design Secure Flight in the way it has been designed.
Anonymous said:
You make no mention of the actual number of individuals on the list. The number of names really doesn't matter, because you should know that any criminal probably has an alias, or 12. The actual number of individuals in the watchlist system is the important number, not the number of names.
The number of names absolutely matters. If I have a list of 2600 people with no aliases, then I won't catch any of those people who are traveling under an alias. On the flip side, if I have one extra alias for each of those people then I have doubled the odds that I will "catch" someone who isn't on the list but whose name matches someone who is on the list. The number of names affects both the false negative and the false positive rates.
Anonymous went on to say:
People out there can believe what they want to believe about the watch list system, but they're almost guaranteed to be wrong about it.
Yup, that's a good point. Almost nobody knows anything certain about the list, because the list is secret, the policies controlling it are secret, and the oversight (if there is any) is secret. I don't know anything about the accuracy, completeness, or appropriateness of the entries in the list.
Neither do you.
@Duane:
"Fine I will give my name and birth date.
Joe Terroist will make up a name and birth date and get a fake ID to match (just like we all did when we wanted alcohol before we were of age) This list will not stop anyone that has a brain and wants to get around the system"
Exactly.
Further, birthdates are written differently in countries other than the US, i.e., 22July2009 rather than July 22, 2009. How are the airlines going to write the date? That alone is going to cause confusion.
What guarantee do we have that the FBI/TSA knows the exact birth date of each and every person on "The List"? None. That, too, will cause confusion.
Folks, be aware that it might not upset you to have to give your name as used on your government issued ID (which screeners to this day will niggle over, i.e., Passport card or Military ID), as well as your gender and your birthdate. But you have NO GUARANTEE that the government data bases have correct information in them. You have NO GUARANTEE that your airline will enter the information you give them correctly. Does the saying "garbage in, garbage out" ring a bell?
This whole scheme is laughable because a determined terrorist will get past it very easily.
No Anon, what you don't get is that the people of the United States owns the sky and all other things you think the government owns.
"We the people....
___________________________________
Wow RB how much did it cost to buy sky. How much is it going per acre now a days? I would like to invest in that!
Marshall's SO said...
"From another Anonymous poster:
"So not only will DOB and gender reduce mistakes of identity, TSA has already proven that as an agency it can manage to greatly reduce those selecteed for the selectee and no-fly list."
Cite, please."
I don't need to cite. However, people who fly often already know it. You are no longer a selectee if you have to rebook because your flight was cancelled. You are no longer a selectee if you buy your ticket a specific time period before your flight. You are no longer a selectee if you have a one-way ticket, etc...
Since TSA took over managing these list on Feb. 14, 2009, selectees have all but vanished.
Now the most common "selectee" is someone who has no id, very expired id (over 1 year). Only a dozen or so "true" selectees fly each day.
I consider this proof that TSA has managed the selectee list better than those who did before - other government agencies and private corporations (airlines) who made people selectees without a thought.
Marshall SO said...
"The FBI "nominates" those who are put on the list, not the TSA."
And that is still true. But now TSA has MUCH great control over who is a selectee and has gotten rid of the silly things I mentioned above in a pervious post.
Before TSA took greater controll almost all selectee had nothing to do with the selectee list, for the reasons I mentioned above.
RB said...
"Another Anon said...
RB you still don't get it. Whether you like it or not, the government actually owns and controlls the sky in which the private planes fly. You may not know that, but its true. Just like the government owns the "airwaves" on which people broadcast television or radio shows, the government owns the sky in which private companies do business.
...........................
No Anon, what you don't get is that the people of the United States owns the sky and all other things you think the government owns.
"We the people....
Perhaps you should go back and retake your civics classes, you don't seem to have learned much the first time around."
-----------------------------
RB even if you do not like it the government does owns the sky. And yes, the government is the representative of the public. So the public owns the sky, and the government is given authority to regulate the sky by the public.
You seem to really like to argue semantics, which is pointless.
However, that you seem to make a distinction between public and government in the ownership of shared natural resources tells me you do not understand our form of government.
But you can argue all you want, make as many post as you like, but that does not change fact. The government has the legal right to regulate anything in the sky, from radio waves, pollutants, to airplanes.
But think of it this way, the government has the authority, given by the public, to regulate and control the space above the ground to the edge of the atmosphere. This is not my opinion. It is fact.
If you want to split hairs and say, no, the public has the right to regulate that, fine. But I hope you do not mean private corporations can regulate the sky, because they certainly do not.
By the way, this is the same authority that the government can regulate and control other public areas, like roads, national parks, beaches, etc.
Jim Huggins said...
"Is there any reason why TSA won't come out and make a bold promise that says "minor differences in names will not affect travel"?"
What is a minor difference? Isn't that a vague statement? Is that which is minor to you the same that is minor to me? How does someone quantify the term "minor"?
You people need to stop whining! Either:
1). Comply with the rules and submit your DOB
2). Don't comply and don't fly
3). Vote for people who support your political agenda
BTW, does anyone have info on any movement in Ibrahim vs. Homeland Security?
July 21, 2009 4:03 PM
..............................
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=06-16727&s=CA&d=36951
Scotty Mack said...
"Its sad that there are so many people out there who are more concerned about the "rights" of criminals than they are about their own safety. If you are a criminal and don't want your name popping up on a list, don't fly!"
Well, Scotty, if you personally are detained due to some confusion about your own identity, if you are the person subjected to having your rights violated, and you personally are treated "like a criminal", then come on by and share your story. Until then, your cavalier attitude towards other people's rights is just your opinion. My guess is that your attitude will change if you personally are the victim.
Thanks Anonymous for the link. I knew that much.
What I can not find out is if she proceeded to sue the FBI in federal court, as was allowed by the decision.
Adrian said...
Yup, that's a good point. Almost nobody knows anything certain about the list, because the list is secret, the policies controlling it are secret, and the oversight (if there is any) is secret. I don't know anything about the accuracy, completeness, or appropriateness of the entries in the list.
Neither do you.
---
Actually, I do. You assume wrongly. Unlike most posters on here who base their facts on assumptions and nitpicking, I know what I'm talking about. But that's all I'll say on the matter.
To the anonymous poster who relied to my request for a cite with:
"I don't need to cite." (Are you TSORon in disguise?)
Yes, you do need to cite exactly how the use of gender and DOB will "reduce mistakes of identity."
Quote from ScottyMack: "Its sad that there are so many people out there who are more concerned about the "rights" of criminals than they are about their own safety. If you are a criminal and don't want your name popping up on a list, don't fly!
Others make the ridiculous assumption that this will add to airport delays. How long does it take to answer the question, "what's your birth date?"
What a bunch of whiners! If these measures make flying one bit safer or help to avoid misidentification, then I'm all for it.
As for those of you who find it too much of a hassle or intrusion into your personal life, join the criminals and don't fly!"?
Scotty, the thing about rights is they have to be protected for EVERYONE or they're no good. PERIOD.
I'm concerned about my rights. I'm concerned about yours. But those rights also apply to EVERYONE in the US regardless of what they've done.
If the rights are not protected even for the "criminals", then those rights will not exist when we need them as the government can seemingly make almost anything criminal now.
Technically, if you've ever received a traffic ticket, you're a criminal. If you want to fight a ticket you've received unjustly, you rely on your rights under the constitution to do so. I've seen judges explain those rights even in traffic court. Would you believe in the system if you got railroaded into paying that fine because you couldn't question the cop who pulled you over or give your side of the story? Would you believe in the system if you couldn't present evidence that the cop acted improperly or did not follow the law? Would you want to be presumed guilty and have to prove your innocence or would you rather have the law provide solid evidence that you committed a crime?
The funny thing about rights is that many think they're for criminals - until they need them. How would you feel if you were unjustly accused of something and your rights were trampled on because you were a "criminal"?
We can have safety without giving up our rights. Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Flying was already the safest means to travel outside of a few isolated incidents. The panic of terrorism has sadly caused many in this country to give up liberty in order to be "safe." Unfortunately, TSA doesn't make us any safer but they're a poster child for what can happen when liberty is given up.
If you enjoy giving up liberty and welcome government intrusion into your life, then please move somewhere that is consistent with that line of thinking. China and North Korea are quite safe - not very much crime there at all. If you're not a criminal, you should have nothing to worry about there. Leave those who enjoy liberty and the rights afforded to us under the government alone.
Robert
Jim Huggins said...
Bob,
You've repeated an official quote from TSA several times here:
The name you give the airline while booking your travel is used to perform watch list matching before your boarding pass is even issued, so small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.
And passengers should be able to bring aboard liquids in excess of 100ml for infants ... except for all those reports of when they can't. And passengers should be able to bring about any amount of cash for domestic travel without problems ... except when they can't. And passengers should be able to show any approved ID at a checkpoint ... except when they can't.
Is there any reason why TSA won't come out and make a bold promise that says "minor differences in names will not affect travel"?
July 22, 2009 7:49 AM
---------------
Do you really have to ask? TSA has all these policies that TSO's are supposed to follow. An SOP that TSO's are supposed to follow. Customer service requirments TSO's are supposed to follow. Does that mean every single TSO of the thousands is going to follow every single policy to the letter? Or is that one person out of the 10s of thousands of TSO's going to have a bad day, like any normal person has sometimes, for whatever reason (there are thousands), tell a person who is exempt from the liquid rule they can't have thier liquids, and then have the media jump all over that story and turn it into a giant wild fire of crazyness. Like any other professional organization, no matter how much you trust your employees you have to cover your legal rear end just incase they screw up. So TSA says this SHOULD do this not this will do this. Doctors do the same thing when prescribing medicine, they will never tell you this WILL get rid of your problem just that it should. Thats the kind of country we live in where people can sue other people for the most ridiculous things. Example: Lawsuit against mcdonalds for not putting HOT on coffee cups.
Scotty Mack said:
Its sad that there are so many people out there who are more concerned about the "rights" of criminals than they are about their own safety. If you are a criminal and don't want your name popping up on a list, don't fly!
----
I'll direct you to this quote from Thomas Paine about the importance of 'being concerned about the rights of criminals':
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
from his Dissertation on First Principles of Government (July 1795)
I asked:
Is there any reason why TSA won't come out and make a bold promise that says "minor differences in names will not affect travel"?
TSOWilliamReed responded:
Like any other professional organization, no matter how much you trust your employees you have to cover your legal rear end just in case they screw up.
If that's really the reason ... then, IMHO, it shows seriously skewed priorities. Instead of trying to cover its collective legal backside, perhaps TSA should dedicate itself more fervently to improving the performance of its employees. And if TSA knew that problems with its employees would subject it to substantial legal problems, then perhaps they'd be more dedicated to making sure that those problems don't happen in the first place.
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
Like any other professional organization, no matter how much you trust your employees you have to cover your legal rear end just incase they screw up. So TSA says this SHOULD do this not this will do this.
I would be fine with TSA's usage of "should" if they would append an "or else" clause to deal with the handful of inevitable screwups that would occur in a professional organization.
E.g., "small differences in ID should not be a problem, or else the TSO who makes them a problem will be progressively corrected or disciplined."
E.g., "passengers should be allowed to bring more than 100 mL of medical liquids or baby foods. TSOs needlessly prohibiting them will be suspended and terminated for repeat offenses."
E.g., "passengers traveling with custom electronics should not experience excessive delays, harassment, refusal of travel, or confiscation of their items" if the items clear and ETD test (for explosive traces). TSOs engaging in such harassment and confiscation will be promptly terminated after the offense is confirmed by the passenger and one other source (e.g., witness, video tape, etc.)"
Of course, since TSA is a completely unaccountable unprofessional organization on an incurable power trip, none of that will ever happen, and passengers will continue to be subject to arbitrary harassment and confiscation of items, as TSA itself has admitted in several posts.
TSOWilliamReed said...
Jim Huggins said...
Bob,
You've repeated an official quote from TSA several times here:
The name you give the airline while booking your travel is used to perform watch list matching before your boarding pass is even issued, so small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.
And passengers should be able to bring aboard liquids in excess of 100ml for infants ... except for all those reports of when they can't. And passengers should be able to bring about any amount of cash for domestic travel without problems ... except when they can't. And passengers should be able to show any approved ID at a checkpoint ... except when they can't.
Is there any reason why TSA won't come out and make a bold promise that says "minor differences in names will not affect travel"?
July 22, 2009 7:49 AM
---------------
Do you really have to ask? TSA has all these policies that TSO's are supposed to follow. An SOP that TSO's are supposed to follow. Customer service requirments TSO's are supposed to follow. Does that mean every single TSO of the thousands is going to follow every single policy to the letter? Or is that one person out of the 10s of thousands of TSO's going to have a bad day, like any normal person has sometimes, for whatever reason (there are thousands), tell a person who is exempt from the liquid rule they can't have thier liquids, and then have the media jump all over that story and turn it into a giant wild fire of crazyness. Like any other professional organization, no matter how much you trust your employees you have to cover your legal rear end just incase they screw up. So TSA says this SHOULD do this not this will do this. Doctors do the same thing when prescribing medicine, they will never tell you this WILL get rid of your problem just that it should. Thats the kind of country we live in where people can sue other people for the most ridiculous things. Example: Lawsuit against mcdonalds for not putting HOT on coffee cups.
July 23, 2009 12:24 PM
..........................
So what I hear you saying William is that TSA cannot rely on its employees to do their jobs correctly.
I think there is a core problem when all policies and press releases must have wiggle room written in because the TSO's dealing with the public cannot be trusted to carry out polices as promulgated.
Seems to be a lack of training or poor use of discipline by management for those employees that have bad days!
Jim Huggins said...
I asked:
Is there any reason why TSA won't come out and make a bold promise that says "minor differences in names will not affect travel"?
TSOWilliamReed responded:
Like any other professional organization, no matter how much you trust your employees you have to cover your legal rear end just in case they screw up.
If that's really the reason ... then, IMHO, it shows seriously skewed priorities. Instead of trying to cover its collective legal backside, perhaps TSA should dedicate itself more fervently to improving the performance of its employees. And if TSA knew that problems with its employees would subject it to substantial legal problems, then perhaps they'd be more dedicated to making sure that those problems don't happen in the first place.
---------------------------
TSA has awesome employee improvment programs and great incentive and rewards programs to make employees do their jobs well. However the sad fact is that no matter how much any organization ever puts money into making their employees perfect, there is always going to be mistakes. TSO's are only human, the FBI can make mistakes. The police can make mistakes. Even the president screws up sometimes, do we send him back to school for it? Nope we are all only human and mistakes will happen, thats inevitable. Only thing you can do is protect your organization from the people that will take advantage of and exploit those mistakes.
TSOWilliamReed said...
---------------------------
TSA has awesome employee improvment programs and great incentive and rewards programs to make employees do their jobs well. However the sad fact is that no matter how much any organization ever puts money into making their employees perfect, there is always going to be mistakes. TSO's are only human, the FBI can make mistakes. The police can make mistakes. Even the president screws up sometimes, do we send him back to school for it? Nope we are all only human and mistakes will happen, thats inevitable. Only thing you can do is protect your organization from the people that will take advantage of and exploit those mistakes.
July 24, 2009 12:42 PM
...........................
When a TSO screws up a traveler is likely to walk away from the encounter poorer. A missed flight, confiscated property or any other number of things.
There is no recourse to the traveler. TSA does not respond to complaints in a timely or effective manner and in some cases covers up for the TSO's as happened in my complaint to FLL.
The current status in not acceptable!
Anonymous said...
edited...
I would be fine with TSA's usage of "should" if they would append an "or else" clause to deal with the handful of inevitable screwups that would occur in a professional organization.
E.g., "small differences in ID should not be a problem, or else the TSO who makes them a problem will be progressively corrected or disciplined."
E.g., "passengers should be allowed to bring more than 100 mL of medical liquids or baby foods. TSOs needlessly prohibiting them will be suspended and terminated for repeat offenses."
E.g., "passengers traveling with custom electronics should not experience excessive delays, harassment, refusal of travel, or confiscation of their items" if the items clear and ETD test (for explosive traces). TSOs engaging in such harassment and confiscation will be promptly terminated after the offense is confirmed by the passenger and one other source (e.g., witness, video tape, etc.)"
Of course, since TSA is a completely unaccountable unprofessional organization on an incurable power trip, none of that will ever happen, and passengers will continue to be subject to arbitrary harassment and confiscation of items, as TSA itself has admitted in several posts."
------------------------
Small differences in names on ID's now and when the new policy goes into effect will not cause concern to a passenger. This has been repeated at various times throughout the blog, but many chose to ignore it. Notice, a small difference in name is not, my ID says I am "John", but my boarding pass says "Mac", cause thats what I go by. Small differences might be, "John" thus, "Jon", "Jonh" (people to make type-o's), or "Bill" for "William".
You said, "TSOs needlessly prohibiting..." What does needlessly mean? Our SOP says certain liquids are allowed, such as baby formula, medicine, as long as it seems reasonable for the duration of the flight. A flight from Dallas to Houston is just over an hour. LA to NY a bit longer. Chicago to Paris very long. Instructions given to TSO's per SOP do not allow passengers to bring an unlimited supply of such material. But I ask again, what does "needlessly" mean to you? Does it mean something different to me, or to Bob, or someone else? You are critical of TSA for being vague, but then your solution is vague.
Modified electronics have various uses, and if someone who has spent 20 plus years working with IEDs is worried about something (a BAO), I would defer to their judgement. If TSA finds a computer with wires going from the battery pack to a hollowed out Koran strapped to the laptop computer which doesn't alarm the ETD, that is great cause for worry. If you find a block of cheese with wires coming out of it going to batteries, and knowing that a block of cheese looks exactly identical to C-4 on the x-ray, that is cause for great concern with an ETD alarm. And in cases like these, which actually happened, if the passenger is of a particular religious following, and gives strange answers (my mom likes cheese with wires in it an attached to batteries), those people should be detained by police and questioned fully. Its very very very easy in hindsight to clear modified electronics from those that people are attempting to mimic an IED to test security. Try doing it in real time.
You repeatedly use the term "witness" to say that a TSO should be fired after certain offenses. I find great fault with this. Some passengers are very mad TSA checks their property. You claim some TSO's are vendictive, well so are some passengers. You talk about protecting peoples rights, but I guess that doesn't include the rights of TSO's, does it? What is to stop passengers from not telling to truth to extract some sort of revenge? There has to be much more to it than what you say for a TSO to be fired, in my opinion.
TSOWilliamReed writes:
TSO's are only human, the FBI can make mistakes. The police can make mistakes. Even the president screws up sometimes, do we send him back to school for it? Nope we are all only human and mistakes will happen, thats inevitable. Only thing you can do is protect your organization from the people that will take advantage of and exploit those mistakes.
TSA expects passengers to follow the (non-published) rules every time they approach the checkpoint, absolutely perfectly, no mistakes. It doesn't matter if I've cleared the checkpoint successfully hundreds of times before; if I have a prohibited item with me this time, I'm not allowed to keep it. If TSA demands that level perfection from its passengers, it must also demand that level of perfection from itself.
Anonymous writes:
Small differences in names on ID's now and when the new policy goes into effect will not cause concern to a passenger. This has been repeated at various times throughout the blog, but many chose to ignore it.
Actually, that's not what's been said. This is what Bob quoted from the official TSA press release:
Small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.
Yeah, it's a nit-picky difference. But that little word "should" leaves a great deal of discretion up to the front-line TSOs. The vast majority of them won't cause problems. But going through screening shouldn't present any level of uncertainty to a passenger who knows the rules and doesn't have ill intent.
Jim Huggins said...
"Anonymous writes:
Small differences in names on ID's now and when the new policy goes into effect will not cause concern to a passenger. This has been repeated at various times throughout the blog, but many chose to ignore it.
Actually, that's not what's been said. This is what Bob quoted from the official TSA press release:
Small differences on IDs and boarding passes should not impact travel.
Yeah, it's a nit-picky difference. But that little word "should" leaves a great deal of discretion up to the front-line TSOs. The vast majority of them won't cause problems. But going through screening shouldn't present any level of uncertainty to a passenger who knows the rules and doesn't have ill intent.
-------------------
Actually it is what has been said, amoung other things, because I have said/written it many times myself.
What I wrote is true. Small differences will not matter, even with the new name policy coming into effect.
Now, there is the question as to what does "should" mean, and yes this might cause some confusion for passengers.
Should nicknames be allowed?
If you name is John and your boarding pass says Mac, because that is your nickname you go by, should that be allowed?
If you name is John and your boarding pass says Jon, or a type-o Jonh, should that be allowed?
To the first, no, to the second, yes.
But I understand what you are asking for. A very specific policy that will allow people to get through or not get through if their names do not match up, so they will know what to expect. How is that possible?
How close should a name on the BP be to the name on the ID? How many type-o's in the BP's name should be allowed? If the name is too long to fit on the BP, how many letters of that name is needed, if not just the first letter or the name? Should nicknames be similar to the persons real name to be allowed, or should any nickname be allowed? What if you name consist of multiple names, maybe 5 total, but your BP has only space for 2, will that be allowed?
What it really comes down to is how much sense the name on the BP matches up with what is on the ID.
If your name consist of 5 total names, and your BP has only space for 2 of your names, as long as those names can be match up, your ok.
If you nickname is not on your ID, you will need a new BP with your actual name on it.
If you have so many type-o's in your name on your BP so that it spells something not similar to your actual name, your out of luck, but how many mistakes does that take? What if your first name is 10 characters long? What if it is 4 charactres long? There is no way to quantify that. Then it will be up to the judgment of a TSO or STSO.
Anyways, hope this helps.
Anonymous writes:
What I wrote is true. Small differences will not matter, even with the new name policy coming into effect.
Now, there is the question as to what does "should" mean, and yes this might cause some confusion for passengers.
(followed by a long, useful series of examples)
Anonymous ... thank you for that clarification. Except I have a new problem. With respect ... who are you, and why should I trust your explanation?
The official TSA website contains none of the clarifications you've given above. Consequently, I don't have enough evidence to know if I can rely upon your answer. I don't think you're lying. But I
also don't know from what source you're getting that information, or if that source is reliable, or if your source has accurately conveyed that information to you.
Given the number of inaccuracies we've found in TSA communications in the past, you'll understand if I'm still a bit skeptical.
"Example: Lawsuit against mcdonalds for not putting HOT on coffee cups."
Dumb example. McDonlad's had been warned not to keep their coffee at high temperatures just to save a few pennies per pot. The person burned by the coffee was an 80 year old woman who suffered 3rd dregee burns due to said coffee, which was near 200+ degrees when it hit her lap.
What does "small differences" mean?
Some other Anonymous, on July 24 at 7:57 pm, wrote:
"If TSA finds a computer with wires going from the battery pack to a hollowed out Koran strapped to the laptop computer which doesn't alarm the ETD, that is great cause for worry....if the passenger is of a particular religious following, and gives strange answers ...those people should be detained by police and questioned fully."
Thanks, Anon. I kinda thought that was what this was all about, but now you've confirmed it.
Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
"Example: Lawsuit against mcdonalds for not putting HOT on coffee cups."
Dumb example. McDonlad's had been warned not to keep their coffee at high temperatures just to save a few pennies per pot. The person burned by the coffee was an 80 year old woman who suffered 3rd dregee burns due to said coffee, which was near 200+ degrees when it hit her lap.
July 26, 2009 8:07 PM"
----------------------
Uh, yeah. Where she was holding it between her thighs while driving. Of course that extra 20 degrees is what made the difference... Right!
Anonymous said...
""Example: Lawsuit against mcdonalds for not putting HOT on coffee cups."
Dumb example. McDonlad's had been warned not to keep their coffee at high temperatures just to save a few pennies per pot. The person burned by the coffee was an 80 year old woman who suffered 3rd dregee burns due to said coffee, which was near 200+ degrees when it hit her lap."
I agree, it is a dumb example. McD brewed their coffee much hotter than the industry standard to save money - you use less ground coffee to make a pot the hotter the water is. When the coffee hit her lap, it melted her skin off. She had to have multiple operations to repair the damage.
Anonymous wrote:
You said, "TSOs needlessly prohibiting..." What does needlessly mean? Our SOP says certain liquids are allowed, such as baby formula, medicine, as long as it seems reasonable for the duration of the flight.
...
A flight from Dallas to Houston is just over an hour. LA to NY a bit longer. Chicago to Paris very long.
But I ask again, what does "needlessly" mean to you?
Well, to me personally, the entire liquid ban is needless because the threat is not credible compared or practical compared to the very real threat of body-smuggled solid explosives, and what little credible threat there is could have been deterred through increasing random ETD swabs on liquid containers.
But within the context of the TSA ban, I define needless as any confiscation/prohibition by a TSO of any medical or infant/child liquid other than an absurd quantity that would be too much for even a 7-day trip (e.g., caseloads of liquid formula).
As for "reasonable for the length of the flight," clearly you (and perhaps all of TSA) have never heard of delays and diversions. I was on a Boston to Chicago flight a few weeks ago that took as long as a Boston to Paris flight, and that was a *good* experience compared to what a lot of JetBlue and AA customers have experienced in the past 2 years. It's up to parents, physicians, and patients to decide what is reasonable for the length of the flight and trip, not TSA.
Modified electronics have various uses, and if someone who has spent 20 plus years working with IEDs is worried about something (a BAO), I would defer to their judgement. If TSA finds a computer with wires going from the battery pack to a hollowed out Koran strapped to the laptop computer which doesn't alarm the ETD,
Ugh. :( You and I both know that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the custom USB devices, diagnostic tools, and custom battery packs, which are not nearly that suspicious, which the owners were happy to identify and explain, that TSOs insisted on confiscating anyway. (And TSA bragged about the confiscation of the battery pack in the press.)
The standard for confiscating any electronic item (non weapon, non incendiary) that doesn't alarm the ETD should be exceedingly high, because almost by definition, the failure to alarm means it's not an explosive. Holding the confiscating TSO disciplinarily and financially accountable for wrong confiscations would likely cut down on such abuses.
IMO of a checkpoint supervisor or screening manager is willing to confiscate a no-ETD-alarm electronic item, then they should be willing to refer the passenger to a LEO for arrest and trial on explosives charges(a real due-process trial, not a TSA kangaroo court) and willing to face the public and the press with that charge.
Stealing passengers' personal property "out of an abundance of caution" but not being willing to back it up in court is unacceptable.
You repeatedly use the term "witness" to say that a TSO should be fired after certain offenses. I find great fault with this. Some passengers are very mad TSA checks their property. You claim some TSO's are vendictive, well so are some passengers. You talk about protecting peoples rights, but I guess that doesn't include the rights of TSO's, does it?
The contempt TSA shows for passengers' rights daily is overwhelming. But the best witness would be good audio/video tape of the checkpoint which is not controlled by TSA, cannot be destroyed or misplaced by TSA, and can be requested by any passenger filing a complaint against TSA.
TSA has an interesting habit of only allowing video to be released when it benefits them. Kind of like cops.
What if I don't feel like providing my birth date or I just make one up??
Okay.. Perfect example of why I think this Secure Flight is a nightmare wanting to happen.
I recently flew on a SATO (Goverment Division) purchased ticket. Instead of it stating 'Doe, John, Mr', my ticket was made out to 'Mrdoe, John', which is really interesting, because none of my identification says 'Mrdoe' on it.
Anyone else see any issues here?
I am not sure where all this hate for TSA comes from, its unbelievable. Its really curious how you people can hate TSA so much. Well your not going to get a rise out of me, but I am going to tell you how it is.
TSA does not confiscate, you voluntarily abandon. Where you abandon the item doesn't matter unless its hazordous material. You can abandon at our trash bins, at the airline trashbins outside the checkpoint, donate to someone who isn't flying today, leave the item with family, you can even ask someone if they would mail you your items. The only thing keeping you from doing this is being late for your own flight. However, Police Officers working at the airport can confiscate just like any other police officer can. Improvised Electronics are not good things to people trained to find Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's aka bombs). Bombs sometimes come with electronics, and the bombs are usually improvised bombs...with improvised/customized electronics. Say you roll through a checkpoint and your funky electronic device is found. That supervisor is going to ask you questions. If you aren't acting suspicious in any way they will probably let you keep the item. However more then likely they will take the safer route (path of least resistance) and consider the possibility you are testing our checkpoint to see if you could get a bomb through with items that are not illegal. TSA does discipline and retrain and track TSO's that do not stick with procedure. However, as an example I will use myself as a TSO. If I am checking ID's and a passenger hands me his South West airline badge, I am going to ask for a different form of ID. The reason is because at my airport we have only one airline, alaska airlines. We only ever see one airlines badge and have no way to know if that South West airline badge is actually what its supposed to be. According to my SOP I can still accept it as valid however as an officer wanting to do his job correctly, I should cross reference the badge with a form of ID I am more familiar with. TSO's not allowing people to have their liquid exemption is unreal. I have never heard of such a thing but if it has happened I am positive that TSO was smacked on the wrist and retrained to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Now please if you will, pick my paragraph apart and twist my words however you see fit but it isn't going to change anything. Just like I know I will never be able to change your mind about TSA with simple blog posts. But know that even if you don't like it TSA keeps you safe, will probably move on to different forms of transportation other then airlines, and actually is a good federal organization just like all the other ones you have learned to live with. Remember the people wanted TSA to happen after 9/11 and since then we have toned down our rules greatly. We have only been around a short time and have adapted so quickly to every change thats been thrown at us, least you could do is cut us some slack rather then tighten a nooce.
Anonymous said...
"Example: Lawsuit against mcdonalds for not putting HOT on coffee cups."
Dumb example. McDonlad's had been warned not to keep their coffee at high temperatures just to save a few pennies per pot. The person burned by the coffee was an 80 year old woman who suffered 3rd dregee burns due to said coffee, which was near 200+ degrees when it hit her lap.
July 26, 2009 8:07 PM
---------
I understand that, however after that incident all styrofoam cups not including mcdonalds had nice big HOT! and CAUTION! labels printed on them. People that weren't even affected by it designed their own cups to protect their own legal rear ends. Since then I have yet to find a resturants styofoam coffee cup that didn't say HOT! or CAUTION! on it, lots of times in multiple languages too.
William Reed wrote:
"TSA does not confiscate, you voluntarily abandon."
William, TSA allows its bag inspectors to require me to "voluntarily abandon" any item he or she sees likes in order to avoid having my freedom of movement restricted. I'm not allowed to see a definitive list of what items are disallowed. To call that voluntary abandonement is quite a stretch.
Bob, it has been two weeks, and you still haven't said whether airlines will, as you wrote, start asking for people's birth dates and genders, or start requiring people to provide that information. Which did you intend to communicate?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Anonymous said..
"Modified electronics have various uses, and if someone who has spent 20 plus years working with IEDs is worried about something (a BAO), I would defer to their judgement. If TSA finds a computer with wires going from the battery pack to a hollowed out Koran strapped to the laptop computer which doesn't alarm the ETD,
Ugh. :( You and I both know that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the custom USB devices, diagnostic tools, and custom battery packs, which are not nearly that suspicious, which the owners were happy to identify and explain, that TSOs insisted on confiscating anyway. (And TSA bragged about the confiscation of the battery pack in the press.)"
-------------------
Right now I will only respond to part of your response as I simply do not have the time.
Yes, I do know what you are talking about, and I wonder why you don't see the big picture.
After the fact it is always easy to figure out the best course of action. It is easy to say this or that wasn't a danger.
You do not seem to consider all of the things TSA does find that hint at our nations checkpoints being tested from time to time.
To you its an ipod that has an added battery attached by wires simply to increase the playing time of the device. A BAO might see it as an electronic that has a timing device, with an added power supply to set off a detonator. So we find those devices, and we find what I mention together.
In the mountains of the middle east U.S. armed forces find in a cave replicas of airport checkpoints. Working x-rays, hand wands, walk-through metal detectors, ETD machines. Those are some of the practice fields terrorist us to attempt to figure out how to smuggle things through checkpoints back here and at other parts of the world.
Put it all together, and its very easy to see what those with massive amounts of experience dealing with IEDs worry when they find wires running from common electronic devices to battery packs, while at the same time they find computers with korans strapped to them, both wired together, the koran hollowed out.
When you take things out of context it is very easy to make a decision that seems rational.
I suggest looking at the larger picture, considering more of the facts, and even considering there are other facts that you may not know.
But I do know this. If you have such a device, and it becomes the object of observation by a BAO, you have to realize they have dealt with items most likely identical in other parts of the world that HAVE killed people. You should cooperate fully, explain what it is, without attitude, knowing full well what you constructed looks exactly like what terrorist around the world construct to kill people.
Anonymous said...
What if I don't feel like providing my birth date or I just make one up??
-------------------------------
I dont think you will find that to be a game you want to play. But, just in case you do, when you get out please stop back by the blog and tell us all about your experience.
I just wonder,what will prevent the passenger database that will be generated by Secure Flight from being used by other governments?
what about some privecy?
...and no terrorist will EVER be smart enough to find out the birth date of a random person with their same name and gender and plug in that person's birth date when buying the ticket!
Secure Flight makes sense, but there needs to a a "transgender/intersex" category in the gender request in order to deal with in-between people. If gender markers get put on boarding passes, it will cause problems when security officers perceive that the listed gender does not match the perceived gender of the passenger.
There's more Intersexed/Transsexual people than you realise.
In 3 states, they can get their Passports amended, but not their birth certificates. In another, whether they can or cannot get their BC amended depends on whether the surgeon was licensed to practice in the US at the time.
There are people who have rare conditions such as 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) who have a natural sex-change.
Which gender do they use?
For example, my (United Kingdom) BC says "boy", my passport says "F".
We have enough problems with the law without having difficulties with international travel. Or are we to be confined to travel by ship only?
i just wonder, What does "small differences" mean?
As someone who is transgendered, I can say that this secure flight policy has caused several issues for me when traveling through this countries airports. Let there be no confusion, I am not a crossdresser but am a transsexual which means I identify as a female and am living my life as such in all regards.
My ID says that my gender is male and my name is a male name. I present and live my daily life as a female in all aspects and use a name that I have chosen. When showing up at the TSA ID screener, I present as female but my ID shows a male name with a M for the gender marker. This is where the confusion starts for TSA.
Is there something that can be done so that transgender folks are not discriminated against or humiliated by TSA at the ID screening area?
Also, laws vary from county to county and some transgendered people will be able to get a name change but not a gender marker change. So, their ID will show a female name or a male name and an opposite gender. Example: Renee Smith, gender: M.
How will this situation be treated? Will the individual be outed in front of other passengers waiting their turn in line? Will they be subject to extra scrutiny?
As transgendered people, we do not choose this life. We are simply being ourselves and just trying to make it day to day like everyone else. However, when it comes to TSA screening, we are subjected to extra screening, discrimination, and humiliation.
I hope that TSA revises its policy
and makes some positive changes in this area in the near future.
A name without any biographic or demographic cross checks drowns in a huge sea of miss-spelled, similar, and similar sounding counterparts. Obviously it is beyond allowable time constraints and a major privacy issue for an airline clerk or TSA screener to cross check and make a judgment based on such parameters.
The answer is automation. At the time of booking collect the type of travel document to be used, document number, and a handicapped indicator. Prior to check in the data for any possible watch list matches can be vetted using the document information merged with the other information available about the “watch list” individual. The combined information would be sent to a Trust Authority that would measure the degree to which it matched the data on the issued document.
At the security check in point automation can merge preconditioned random selection, operator alerts, and vetted “watch list” matches for further interrogation and possible searches.
The collection of information, such as sex or age by the airlines at the time of booking is clearly a privacy concern. The travel document has this information already. There are relevant papers posted on http://fraudfreeid.com/WhitePapers.aspx
Any Constitutional issues?
Jason Diamond
What does "small differences" mean? If my Drivers License lists my name as "John William Smith", will "John Smith" work on my boarding pass? Will "John W Smith"?
I think its a good idea if it will help to filter out terrorists or known criminals. For the rest of us, it won't affect us.
What safeguards are there to prevent the passenger database that will be generated by SecureFlight from being used by other government agencies -- say, police departments for warrant service, or any other agency that may have interest in an individual's travel plans?
I just wonder,what will prevent the passenger database that will be generated by Secure Flight from being used by other governments?
what about some privecy?
Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment