richard

What constitutes a "dangerous item." Isn't it more "dangerous people"?

We allow people to possess guns, knives, etc. and we hold them accountable.

We allow people to DRIVE CARS which if they are "bad" people can result in huge number of lives lost due to their intentional acts.

I don't see why we should not let people board with "dangerous items" -- perhaps not high explosives but certainly things like knives.

mdtony

Ah, but then you'd have to engage in, God forbid, profiling. And we all know that in this politically correct world, we can't do that. No, let's focus on the crew who have been working for the airline for like 10 years, and let the guys who paid for their tickets in cash waltz on through. Let's screen soldiers in full uniform travelling with a government ticket on orders while we let a bunch of guys who just came over from Yemen walk right by.

I'm telling you, it's like Airplane. The guys with the bombs waltz on through security while they focus on the little old ladies with walkers. And why do they do that? Because they're worried that the folks who should get some extra scrutiny will fuss, and they know the little old ladies and the crew won't.

richard

MDtony, I used to agree with you but I don't now. I have two reasons.

I have too much empathy for people who happen to be of middle Eastern descent and are continually hounded at the airport, first through security, then at the gate.

We travel frequently. It is bad enough to have intermittent problems and bad experiences with security. But what if we always had to go through this?

Look at those secondary searches at the gate. Remove all your stuff. Have a low-end worker paw through your things. Assume the position. Loosen your belt, etc.

I would hate to be on someone's "profile" and have to have this happen *every* time I fly. It would be unbearable.

The other reason is that profiling will lead to the government tracking all citizen's movements into, within and out of the country, along with each citizen's personal business. This is the most scary part of all. It is why I am so alarmed about what I see at the airports because it is spreading without public resistance and resulting in the most rapid and significant abridgement of rights and encroachment by government seen before.

It has happened before, but usually during wartime, and the government lacked the technology to do what is being done now.

That is why I object completely to profiling.

A voluntary system might be acceptable, where I go through a voluntary background check performed by the airline, and the information obtained is strictly kept confidential by rule of law just like the census and (supposedly) my tax returns (ha ha). But otherwise, I want my traveling to be anonymous, completely anonymous, like hopping on the bus is now. I don't want anyone to have the ability to track my movements or yours, I think that makes it too easy to use for totalitarian means.

FWAAA

I'm sure this will come as a surprise to some of you who feel that everything looking like a rule (especially a federal rule) must be legal and must be the law of the land - But the current search for, and confiscation of, everything sharp and pointy is not lawful.

US law prohibits the possession of deadly or dangerous weapons in sterile areas. The constitutionality of that search and prohibition was decided many years ago.

What has not been adjudicated is the lawfulness of the current procedures and the confiscation of toddler's cutlery, ordinary pocketknives, children's scissors, etc.

Just because Norman Mineta's office issues secret rules doesn't make them the law. When someone who doesn't mind missing their flight (and maybe being arrested) fights this, the current rules will be tossed.

mdtony

I'm not talking about profiling based upon race or national origin only. That should be only one factor that's taken into consideration. Things like criminal records, method of purchase, and so on need to be factored into the profiling. It should not be based upon national origin alone, but that should be one of many factors.

Not really. Even if the government tracks everyone's movements, which is something that I think is highly unlikely -- keep in mind that we're only talking about subjecting some people, who will likely be non-citizens, to extra scrutiny, not tracking their movements -- what's the issue? You're in public. You're travelling from airport to airport. Where's your expectation of privacy?

And if the government becomes a totalitarian government, the last thing I'll be worried about is them tracking where I go. Because I'll be making on last trip that they can track, out of the country.

richard

The Washington Post recently carried an informative article about datamining and profiling -- the government has every intention of tracking travellers movements and all kinds of other behaviors and attributes in order to use advanced data mining predictive analytics to figure out who is a higher risk for abberrent behavior.

The CIA has made many recent investments, publicly disclosed, in companies that do this.

This is not anything unlikely, it is happening now.

The cover may be "non citizens" but they are working to profile everybody. Tie this in with the call for a national ID card and biometrics and you have the complete system in place.

So what is wrong with this, you ask? So what if the government profiles and tracks everyone?

I think it is wrong because I do not trust government. Neither did the framers. I believe that a national police force goes against the grain of our democratic republic, and that the Federal government's role in our daily lives needs to be very limited because they are not accountable locally.

For instance, assume you and I form a protest movement and recuit many others to peacably fight the new security moves. What stops some government person from using this profiling information to track where we are and where we are going, and undermine our efforts? And we would never be able to prove anything. In extreme cases, they could initiate audits of our tax returns, and without any trouble use the new laws to do warrantless monitoring of our cellphone and phone calls and emails.

Some people are just fine with that but I am not.

pitflyer

Since everyone here likes to complain I thought I'd throw in a change of pace. As somoene who was afraid for the worst after 9/11 in terms of security hassles I've been very pleasantly surprised. I've never had to wait more than 30 minutes to get through BOTH baggage check and security (though I'm elite on most airlines I fly). I've only been checked at the gate once, and that was quick and in the end let me board quicker as I got AROUND the line (they plucked me out of the line to board, and then let me cut in front of others after they skimmed my bags). I've only been double-checked at the security checkpoint once and that was by a most pleasant older-aged gentleman who I actually had a nice conversation with while he wanded me over. I've travelled internationally and noticed only marginal differences.

PS -- I've flown about twenty times since 9/11, nothing compared to many of you, but still a fair number of times. I also won $40 gambling two weeks ago so maybe I'm just on a lucky streak right now http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

richard

I was lucky for a while and didn't know what the fuss was about, Pitflyer but got whacked about 5 out of the last ten flights with secondary searches at the gate, secondary wanding at the checkpoint, etc.

mdtony

Let me get this straight. You don't want a national police force. So then you'd like to get rid of the FBI? They are, after all, a national police force. They can arrest you anywhere within the US and its territories if you commit a federal crime.

As for the tracking issue if they want to, they already have the tools to track you. And if they start to stifle legitimate protest -- which nobody is suggesting get done, by the way -- then you'll have a hell of a lot more to worry about than just the tracking of your movements. I don't see that happening. Look at the folks who protested the military action in Afghanistan. Those clueless idiots were allowed to protest. And those that want to protest the treatment of the detainees in Cuba are being allowed to do the same. So if the government doesn't take action against these folks, why would they take action against folks who don't like waiting in airport security lines?

PremEx2000

Richard:

Your original post ends with "what do you think?" Well, I'll tell you what I think. I think you are pretty much 100% wrong. Taking your original points in turn:

"I am not regulated by the FAA. I am not an airline. I do not sincerely care a whit about "FAA regulations." Airlines are regulated but I am not."

You are if you buy the ticket.

"Yes, I am committed to following "uniformed crewmember instructions, lighted signs and placards." But I am rather tired of being bullied from the moment I arrive at the airport."

I'd hate to see what they're doing to you while you are in the airport bathroom!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

"The sign on the way in says that I can be searched/harrassed and have no constitutional rights even as I drive into the airport. I never agreed to this."

Where's the sign that says that you have "no constitutional rights"?? Can you tell me where you saw this one?

"We are all being bullied, us sheople. Bullied at "security," where some joker in uniform tried to get me to take out my wallet and put it in a tray on the conveyor belt, to disappear somewhere on the other side while I am submitting to being wanded and patted down and taking off my belt buckle (why not just drop the pants while we are at it.)"

I suggest that you mention to the security people that you don't want to lose sight of your items and have them wand you based on that.

"(There are no "FAA regulations" that say I have to put my wallet into the little tray, and if there are, they are unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. I am not a Federally regulated person.)"

Wrong. You bought the ticket, so you bought the whole deal. Don't like it, contact the ACLU and ask them to sue. I assume that You're a card-carrying member since you care so much about constitutional rights? You believe in the Bill of Rights? So you must be a member or at least a supporter. If you aren't and you don't reply that you are either a supporter or a member of the ACLU, you're "we're losing all of our constitutional rights" arguments fall flat!

"Bullied because I cannot have business meetings anymore inside of airport security at the club where I am a member. My associates cannot come into the airport and meet me anymore, because they do not have some piece of paper saying they are travelling that day."

Welcome to the new reality.

"Bullied at the gate because if I am foolish enough to try to board first, I'll be stuck for ten minutes having all the contents of my carry on removed and pawed over, even though I just went through a thorough screening at the gate."

If you don't have SSSS on your ticket, you shouldn't be searched. And wait till a few others board. That's the easiest solution.

"And then, bullied on the airplane, with "FAA regulations this" and "FAA regulations that.""

Huh?

"Is anyone else upset about this? Do we all just let the Federal government move in and take over our lives whenever we travel?"

No, not particularly.

"I am willing to take a bit of risk at the airport and on the plane. If I wasn't, I'd stay home."

But are you willing to take stupid risks?

"There are a million ways for terrorists to strike at the United States outside of the airport. I am not willing to sit back and willingly live in a society where my movements are all tracked, and where I have absolutely no rights of any kind."

Uh-oh, this sounds like "black helicopter" talk now. We're really moving into the end-time conspiracy stuff now!!

"This is happening now, folks, and we all have to decide if this is how we want to live."

How we want to live? How does my fellow alumni who was on the Boston United flight want to live? Well, considering that he's dead, it can't be answered. How does my wife's coworker want to live? Considering that he was on that same flight, the question is moot. How does my buddy's boss want to live? Considering that he was on the American Boston flight, that question is also moot. How does my wife's friend's friend want to live? Well, thankfully she survived her cutaneous anthrax -- probably sent by a "black helicopter" type who used to work for the defense department -- but I guess anthrax really isn't germaine to this aviation discussion anyway.

"What do you think?"

I just told you what I think. And I probably won't be responding to your follow up criticism. I'm really busy at work.

sbrower

Okay, time for a little message from the lawyers.

Personal Viewpoint Disclaimer: I think that many of the rules are annoying and/or a serious mistake. I think that the National Guard at the airport is a serious mistake because they don't have a mission, they are there for "looks", and I disagree that the "looks" are reassuring. Finally, I think that the delays are likely to cause more total economic dislocation (note: economic, not emotional) than the damage to the WTC.

However, as a legal matter, I would suggest that people not cavalierly say "Oh, I would just get arrested to show the rules are invalid." The airlines have almost unlimited discretion about whether or not to transport you. A very recent court decision in California dealt with a passenger who was denied boarding in 1998 (well before the current events). They denied her boarding because she was so angry about not getting her first class seat (screw-up with award upgrade) that she refused to take the seat they offered her in coach. She left her luggage in the aisle and told the purser to find a place to put it. They had the police escort her off the plane when she refused to leave. (A few hours later, after a brief police interrogation, the same airline flew her to her destination in first class.)

The court noted some of the applicable federal statutes. For example, 49 United States Code section 44902 states:

(a) Mandatory refusal. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring an air carrier . . . to refuse to transport:
(1) a passenger who does not consent to a search under section 44901(a) of this title establishing whether the passenger is carrying unlawfully a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance . . .
(b) Permissive refusal. Subject to regulations of the Administrator, an air carrier . . . may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety.
(c) Agreeing to consent to search. An agreement to carry passengers or property in air transportation . . . is deemed to include an agreement that the passenger or property will not be carried if consent to search the passenger or property for a purpose referred to in this section is not given.

In this case (the first class lady) they found that the carrier reasonably made a decision that she was, or might be, inimical to safety. They basically said that as long as the reason wasn't based on an improper criteria, and that it was somehow related to a concern about safety, that the airline could refuse to fly someone without limitation.

richard

Thanks for your responses.

Just a few notes:

1. I've *never* gotten an "SSSS" on my BP, and I am careful not to board first at the gate any more (anyone else see how ridiculous this is) but that doesn't mean I haven't been subject to secondary search.

2. The "black helicopter" stuff -- where does that come from? That is an ad hominem attack not quite up to the standards of discussion, ehh?.

3. I do not doubt the airlines have total discretion as to who they carry, and I would never want to change that. I believe businesses should have the right to do business with whomever they want. My beef is with the "FAA regulations" that are passed through the airlines to customers, implying that I as a customer are subject to FAA regulations, which I continue to insist that I am not.

The *airlines* that fly interstate can be regulated by the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. I, on the other hand, am not sure how constitutional it is for the FAA to "regulate" me. That doesn't mean that courts wouldn't enforce it, but it also doesn't mean it's constitutional if you see what I mean.

I am going to sound like a broken record, but it all boils down to how much trust you have in the government, any government. All evidence in history points to the fact that you should have very little, but many people think that the federal government's increasing intrusion into our daily lives is a price they are willing to pay and do not see an issue with it.

I do not think that I will really change anything but I do think that by building an awareness of the nature of what is happening in the US -- with comprehensive profiling and national ID cards on the way, for starters -- perhaps there will be somewhat of a groundswell of support for taking things a little more slowly and being a lot more circumspect instead of this mad rush that has (understandably) followed 9/11.