http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/07/31...eut/index.html

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlib...RIVACY_ACT.doc

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2242861

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul30.html

The information is new and still a bit sketchy, but they claim they're not going to use creditworthiness scores (FICO scores), not use health records, and retain data for days instead of the previously proposed 50 years.

The DHS document also gives procedures for pax to request info being retained on them and supposedly correct problems; if true, this would be a major improvement over the current no-fly-list problems.

They also indicated that one of the goals and success metrics of this plan will be a reduction in the number of false-ids resulting in secondary screening or no-fly-list-type harrassment.

I inherently don't trust TSA admin or any such similar agency, but on the surface it looks like they've made some notable improvements. I guess we'll see what actually happens now.

I wish you were right, but the following things along with many others may very well increase your "security risk" score.

Change your address, get halted.
Change your phone number, get halted.
Change your spousal status, get halted.
Make a typo, get halted.
Inherit or win a lot of money, get halted.
Declare bankruptcy, get halted.
Don't pay a bill, get halted.
Get a ticket, get halted.
Give a large amount of money to a friend or charity, get halted.
Change jobs, get halted.
Lose your job, get halted.
File an insurance claim or get an insurance policy, get halted.
Sell your cars, get halted.
Complain about identity theft, get halted.
Dispute a credit card charge, get halted.
Stay in hotels a lot, get halted.
Sell your house, get halted.
Change of name after marriage, get halted.
Get in lots of auto accidents, get halted.
Close a bank or brokerage account, get halted.

I'm certainly not saying CAPPSIIa is perfect or a great thing, but it seems to be an improvement (however small) over CAPPSII, and I'm at least pleased to see that a published goal is to reduce (not increase) the number of people halted.

It will be interesting if true--these are the things on your list I tend to do at least once a year.

To top it off, I have credit cards billed and bank statements sent to no less than three addresses and my FF-account to another, across 2-3 states. The ID I use when traveling is always a US passport with no SSN or address on it--it refers only to the state in which I was born, where I haven't lived in 25 years. What would TSA/DHS use as my "address" when checking me out?

Yet somehow I doubt that some random grad student is who they're looking for. But then again, I don't see why they're looking for David Nelson either.

The biggest new concern I see so far in the new information is that they're expanding the program to catch people with outstanding arrest warrants, when it was originally promised the system was exclusively for catching terrorists.



[This message has been edited by studentff (edited 07-31-2003).]

The private sector vendor database that CAPPSII relies upon will also find its ways into the hands of the private sector for resale and private labelled data pulls. They are just being subsidized by the govt to create the best commercial database ever.

This system will be used to apprehend and prosecute major and minor criminals and also for smaller purposes like stalking and or debt collectors. Can you imagine someone being told "sorry you cannot fly, you did not pay your parking ticket in this state" and the parking ticket was issued incorrectly? It is going to happen.

I suspect they would use the address you provide when you purchase the ticket. A SSN isn't needed to access a credit report, just a name and an address. The address could even be a PO Box.

This new system scares me and IMHO, it's going way too far and I don't think it'll accomplish anything other than harassment of more people.

I'm a victim of identity theft myself and I put a fraud alert/victim statement on my three credit reports to prevent anyone from opening new accounts using my name. I somehow suspect having this on my report could futher victimize me with further scrutinty with this 'new' system. I could remove the fraud alert/victim statement at any time by mailing a letter to the credit bureaus, but that could put me at risk if someone tries to use my identity to open new accounts again.

This is a catch-22 and could mean those who are already victims of identity theft could further be vitimized by government harassment when traveling. Furthermore identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in America. Any terrorist with time on their hands to plan something out will likely find a way to bypass this system. Bottom line is more harassment of more people.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Just wondering. Why is it that we complain so much about the TSA but yet after 9/11 we wanted the better security? Now I do understand and say that TSA is not entirely better security, but, we do have people who actually want to do the job now and not just want the money. Yes the inconsistency is frustrating, but it's gonna take time to iron itself out.

I just wonder if we complain because we do not get our way anymore now that the airlines have no control over security? Or is it that yes, we want better security as long as we aren't the ones being screened. You know how many people I hear tell us (TSA) to stop screening americans and concentrate on the middle-eastern people. If that's not racism...what is?

Actually...we shouldn't use a system to select passengers who might be a flight risk. It should be entirely random. The reason: Because all the terrorists have to do is run trial people thru the system to see who is flagged and who is not. Then they have beaten the system. So instead of wasting money on a program to pick people....train the screeners better at identifying individual explosive device components, instead of a bomb in its entirety...cmon...how many people are that dumb. Just select random people for secondary...whether it be frequent flyer or not. It shouldn't matter if your name is John or Akbar. Are we supposed to let john walk through and not be stopped for screening and Akbar stopped everytime? No. That's profiling....even though it has some advantage points, it's not the best way to select people. We just need to treat TSA like a real federal agency and not a joke. They need to train their people better in both security and customer service.

I see alot of improvements to be made in TSA but we gotta give it a chance to iron out. Yes it's frustrating to be pulled for secondary screening....or to have your bag dump searched in baggage screening. But it's gotta be done somehow.

I think the biggest problem with our airlines is that they bow down to any customer who complains...especially a frequent flyer. I understand that some of you fly 3 and 4 times a week. But can a terrorist group not do the same thing? Can they not become frequent flyers too? There has to be some give and take in this process.

I talked to someone from Booz-Allen that was working on a similiar system (from the sales angle). Known identity theft victims were one of the red flags in their system choice for further examination.

I have done this also but I can't see that it did any good. No asks anything when asking for a credit increase or buying a new car.

Seems like an honest set of questions; I'll see if can but together an honest set of answers as applied to me.


Agreed wholeheartedly on the ironing out, but the only way to facilitate the ironing out is to point out problems (i.e., complain) to each other, screeners, supervisors, congressmen, etc.



A perfect security system would catch all terrorists while affecting/delaying no one else. That can obviously never be achieved, but we should always be striving to get closer to that goal using whatever information is available.

Actually, what upset me the most was not me being screened but watching others. Even as a US citizen, I'm still a mid-20s male, traveling alone 99% of the time, no checked luggage. I've been secondary screened only once since 9/11. Maybe if it happened more, it would have made me mad, but what upset me was seeing elderly people and attractive women travelling alone obviously being disproportionally singled out for extra security.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
You know how many people I hear tell us (TSA) to stop screening americans and concentrate on the middle-eastern people. If that's not racism...what is?

It is obviously racial/ethnic/national/religious discrimination. Polls show most Americans supported it immediately post 9/11 (including blacks, which was an interesting sign of the times considering all that group has suffered through with racial profiling on traffic stops. But it goes along with the "it doesn't matter if it's not me" mentality that you mentioned.).

Personally I have mixed feelings about it, mainly because common sense says that some form of this profiling would be extremely effective at weeding out the specific threat of islamic-extremists from foreign countries. But it wouldn't weed out all threats, and it is easily defeated by using US-citizen sympathizers/converts with a western-sounding name. But then again, there aren't that many Johnny-Taliban-Walkers and Jose' Padillas. But it seems the govt. (and many people) won't even go through that thought process of analyzing the pros and cons because they're so trained to automatically say "nationality/racial/religious profiling is bad" without even thinking.

But what really makes me mad is rumors that TSA is told to specifically NOT screen people from these groups out of "sensitivity" or fear of "looking bad." So they were screening 85-year-old WWII vets while the person statistically more likely to be a terrorist (sorry, it's true) is given a pass out of political correcness. My blood boils just typing that.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Because all the terrorists have to do is run trial people thru the system to see who is flagged and who is not. Then they have beaten the system.

Yup.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
So instead of wasting money on a program to pick people...

Big databases like that legitimately scare people too, because they tend to be misused, which is already being shown with this CAPPSII revision to include "criminal-screening." Technically, I have nothing to hide. But if I have an unpaid parking ticket in Arizona, I don't want some screener at O'Hare harassing me about it.

(This is the same reason I oppose "amber alerts," which seem like a great program on the surface. We were originally promised they would only be used for stranger abductions, not custody or marriage disputes. But just last week in Indiana, they issue an amber alert because a father, living in a house with his children and his wife, got up at 2 in the morning and drove his kids to TN. Now he's being charged with all kinds of stuff, but from what I can tell, he didn't actually do anything wrong. Weird, yes, but illegal, no.)

I honestly don't think most "normal people" with a few of the so-called security-risk-factors listed in an above post will be stopped by this system, but it's scary to think that those criteria are being tracked. And the govt. should accept that there will be false positives (like the current no fly list), and from the getgo, put in a real system to fix them (unlike the current no fly list).

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
.train the screeners better at identifying individual explosive device components, instead of a bomb in its entirety..

Yes. But another major source of complaints regarding TSA is the lack of "common sense" in the list of prohibited items. Knitting needles, silverware, and tiny pocket knives are not a serious threat to aircraft. We all know that cooperating with hijackers, not boxcutters, caused 9/11. And we all know that very effective knives/clubs/whips/whatever can be made from common objects that are present on aircraft (broken glass bottles, heavy books or even laptops, belts, etc.). Therefore "common sense" says we go back to the old rule about no blades over 2", and TSA should focus on real threats that it can effectively prevent, like guns, large knives, swords, bombs, etc.

And declaring an in-flight emergency or evacuating a terminal because a pen-knife is found is a side-effect of these policies that needs to go too.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
I think the biggest problem with our airlines is that they bow down to any customer who complains...especially a frequent flyer.

The frequent flyer (and the TSA itself) have to deal frequently with a program that seems to have been largely created to provide feel-good window-dressing security for the once-a-year travelers while being politically correct. The frequent flyer is more prone to complaining because it affects them more and the problems that need to be ironed out are more visible to them.

The window-dressing aspects and the lack of common sense take a toll on the attitudes of frequent flyers, and my guess is that they take a serious toll on the morale of well-intentioned TSA folks who actually joined to "help the country." Maybe over a period of time it really will get better, but that will only occur if complaints are addressed and bad management/employees are replaced with good ones as needed.

And personally, I think that it is impossible to completely secure every potential target in the country against terrorism, so at least some energy should be devoted to rounding up known terrorists and providing an effective deterrent to future attackers and their sympathizers. Maybe Afghanistan provided some deterrent, but I'm not entirely convinced.

So, at least that's why I complain. That, and I'm just wordy.

No.

Random security goes against the principles upon which this nation was founded. Unless there is probable cause, and I don't mean by race or skin color, then no one should receive any extra scrutiny. I don't give a d@mn about "implied consent" - that's a chicken@#$% dodge around the Fourth Amendment, no matter how legal it's been ruled. The Supreme Court has made mistakes in the past and this one is a glaring error.

Why does "it gotta be done somehow"? Extra passenger harassment is not going to prevent another tragedy. Intelligent screening that makes good use of technology will. We have to stop this harass first, assess later mentality. That means, no, we the frequent travelers will not cut you any slack while your agency tries to 'iron out' this mess. Your agency has had almost 2 years and 10 billion dollars to 'iron out' things and they're still a cluster@#$% that fails to respect travelers' civil liberties.

Until that changes, the perception of your agency will remain a joke. And that's being kind. Your agency is an enemy of American way of life and your leaders are a disgrace.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I agree in most part with you Spiff but you gotta lay off the attitude. This amendment rights crap is getting old fast. IMHO, we shouldn't have any type of secondary screening or selectee process. We could easily get better equipment, and train our employees a little better at identifying threats than keep harassing innocent people. Our biggest problem at the moment is inconsistency. I was talking with a supervisor the other day about this matter. I asked why we have "local policy", when we already have a national policy? Why doesn't every airport just follow the same guidelines? Why does everyone interpret the policies and rules differently? And that supervisor could not give me an answer. No one knows.

The problem started when NCS Pearson agreed they could have TSA fully staffed by that november deadline. They rushed to get employees into airports without finishing background checks and then the same thing happened when they brought the baggage screeners in december. I personally think the hiring and training process was not enough. Getting hired was a 3 hour computer test that could be easily completed by someone with common sense in 30 to 45 minutes, a physical, a medical, an interview and that was that. Then the training was 40 hours classroom and 60 on the job. Not to mention that with instructors doing everything but giving you the answers to the tests it wasn't difficult to complete training. Hopefully somewhere in TSA they are listening to these complaints, because at the individual airports it seems that they are not. I am staying with TSA even though I've posted elsewhere I was going to be taking a job in DC. I turned it down. My school loans were granted, so I can go back and finish my degree. I'm only staying on part time. So maybe my job will be a little more stress free.

I've thought about alot of things as well. Like I always tell people that if you are friendly to the screeners you shouldn't have a problem. But that's not true. I have flown around this past week and needless to say I had some choice words with a few supervisors around the nation. At least you know if you fly through GSO, friendliness does go a ways with us. We do our job to the best of our abilities, professionally and security-minded.

You sound like someone with some common sense, but I'm not giving up the fight on this issue. I have acknowledged that secondary harassment does not violate the Fourth Amendment because of the Supreme Court's misguided ruling on implied consent. I hope a future Court will reverse this error, not only for airport access and security, but also for the elimination of sobriety checkpoints and other areas where your consent is extorted out of you.


------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry