Apparently the TSA folks do have that ability, even if not the legal authority.

In theory you are correct. I doubt the illegality would stop a screener who has visions of a Big Catch, and several such detentions have been reported in this forum.

The screeners can't "enforce" the alerts, although that term was coined by the thread starter; it does not appear in the article. This, however, does:What exactly constitutes being out of character, and how many screeners would have the nous to know it if they saw it ?

I just think the potential for false alarms outweighs any benefit this particular aspect of the alert program may have.

Exactly.

And given that stereotypical child abductions do not involve commercial air transport, it provides the TSA with one more stat to add to its list of "accomplishments."

I can hardly wait for the announcement that, thanks to this new partnership, no abducted children have been permitted aboard scheduled airliners.

How does the amber alert thing erode our civil liberties? Besides, according to this article (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ber_alert.html) the search efforts will be in and around the child's home community. That should affect only a handful of locations. That's much better than having all 40k +/- TSA people keeping an eye out. As far as the PR angle is concerned, I will offer an alternative theory to consider. What if TSA announced their partnership with the center for missing and exploited children in an effort to deter potential child abductors from utilizing an airline as a means of escape? They usually broadcast these amber alerts on the TV, radio and on those electronic traffic signs on the freeways to include physical descriptions and vehicle license plates. This adds one more location where people congregate to the list. I don't think TSA needs job justification since public law establishes their existence plenty.

Picking a nit here, how does one distinguish a potential child abductor from an actual one?

As for the PR angle, whose the beneficiary here: The TSA or The Center for Missing and Eploited Children? I doubt the later would gain much from such a joint endeavor.

My primary objection to this vague proposal is that crime deterrence is not a proper function of the TSA. Their proper function is to keep certain objects from entering the sterile zone. They don't seem to be doing such a fine job of it.

No, the danger for mission creep is too great, as is the potential for wrongful detention and arrest.

By potential, I am referring to the dirt bag who thinks he can take some kid for a plane ride under the impression that no one is looking for him or the kid at the airport. Now that the word is out, that is becoming less and less of an option. Personally, I think the Center for Missing and Exploited Children wins more with this. They add another Federal department to the list of partnerships, get tons of press out there calling attention to the issue of Amber Alerts and how they are making a difference in saving children (I think 200 or so have been saved via the Amber Alert). Take me for instance...sure, I knew OF the Amber Alert, but because of the press and this forum, I now know more about the Center and their mission than ever. That is a win as far as I'm concerned. I have to say, I'm rather disappointed that this has gotten as mixed up as it has. I get the feeling that the majority of people putting down this endeavor are doing so purely out of dislike for the agency, in this case the TSA, associated with it. I wonder what the response would be if American Airlines, or (add company/agency name here) joined up and put it out to the press. :(

How often did it happen before "the word got out"?

The same response here, regardless. Vigilante airlines are not welcomed.

And what makes you think the "dirtbags" pay any attention to amber alerts ? Even if they somehow read this minor news item.

It doesn't, and I never suggested that it did. TSA and the current administration are the ones engaged in liberty erosion.

So what's your point? It's a good idea because only a few airports are going to have their security compromised and the Constitutional freedoms of their passengers further limited for a stupid, useless and ineffective PR move?

No, it is not. I live in SF. According to you there are at least 4 unsolved child abductions. That means that here, at my home airport, my friends with children run the risk of improper detention, I do as well, and, instead of focusing on preventing lunatic Muslim fundamentalists from blowing up the planes that I'm on, TSA will scrutinizing children and comparing them to the back of milk cartons.

TSA's job has nothing to do with deterring potential child abductors from using airlines. Child abduction is not an airline security issue any more than tax evasion or copyright infringement. TSA has proven itself incapable of executing the mission with which it has been charged. It should not be taking on completely unrelated missions and is doing so here solely and exclusively as a PR move. As I've mentioned, I'm opposed to Amber Alerts on freeways because I've read studies that indicate they increase accidents. I'm opposed to TSA getting in the Amber Alert business because, as I said, not one child's life will be saved and the cost of this window-dressing is just too high in terms of inconvenience, harassment, and Constitutional violations.

I have no idea why you're defending this plan, given that even you admit that it's unlikely to have any positive result. This is knee-jerk "anything for the children" thinking, and I don't share it and, apparently, neither do most on FT.

Please identify one such dirt bag. Has there ever been one? Ever? In the entire history of aviation, has there been even one instance of a commercial plane being used in connection with a child abduction?

How so? Now I'm convinced that the Center for Missing and Exploited Children is either a bunch of publicity seekers who don't give a damn about the constitution, or else a bunch of nervous-nellie whiners who think the entire world should be made child-safe. Either way, they've lost credibility in my book, and I'll bet I'm not the only one.

At the expense of that department carrying out its stated mission.

How many have died on freeways because of Amber Alerts?

Whereas I see the Center as a bunch of tyrannical whiners. That's a loss, as far as I'm concerned.

Everyone of us who has condemned this move has explained, specifically and in detail, why it's a bad idea. You've failed to address any of our explanations and, instead, have insisted that this plan will, somehow (you haven't explained how), discourage child abductors from taking abducted children on commercial airplanes -- something you admit that they don't do anyway.

I suspect that American Airlines would lose frequent fliers, not to mention becoming the source of ridicule among those of us who look past pointless placebos for solutions to the problems of the world.

I don't think they do, that wasn't my point. I simply don't think "dirtbags" use commercial air travel to transport their abductees. Do you know otherwise?

IMO, I don't think Wally Bird was disagreeing with you. He was expanding upon your point. At least that's how I read it.

Oh, OK. Looking back I can see it that way, too.

Sorry, Wally Bird. :o
I guess I'm a bit defensive this morning. Apparently this crummy weather has adversely affected my attitude. I'll work on improving it (my attitude that is, since I can't do anything about the #!&$#@ weather) but I'm not making any promises until spring.

Entire "missing child" industry is beyond paranoid, irrational
 

Good. Hopefully this anecdote will reduce the credibility of the "amber alert" hype even more. Getting TSA or anyone else involved in this abuse-prone program is a bad idea. Mission creep, TSA or otherwise, is extremely dangerous and quite real.

I used to live in Indiana, an area quote prone tornado activity. Therefore to have advance warning, and as recommended by virtually every public-safety organization, I kept an NOAA "alert" weather radio that would set off an alarm for severe weather activity in my county. I have it programmed to avoid spurious alerts (i.e., those for other counties).

One morning in 2005 the alarm went off at around 2 a.m. for an Amber Alert for a child who had been abducted more than 125 miles away (abduction way south of IND; I was in W Lafayette). What possible use could waking up residents hundreds of miles away be in recovering this child? Did they really expect me to get dressed and go prowl my neighborhood? Tens of thousands of sleeping residents use these radios for personal and family safety.

To make matters worse, the "abduction" was by the father involved in a custody dispute. When the concept of amber alerts was forced down our throats a few years ago, we were promised that they would only be used for the most dangerous stranger abductions and not for custody spats.

I wrote to NOAA and the L-E agencies involved to complain. What possible good was this middle-of-the-night alert? Posting alarms on highways signs is rational; waking up much of the state is not. Why were alarms set off statewide and not just in nearby counties? Don't you think this mission-creep on weather radios will cause citizens to disable them, increasing weather-related injuries/deaths and defeating the original good purpose of the system?

Police never responded and NOAA responded with total BS. No apology, no explanation for why the alert was abused for a non-stranger abduction. They were so brazen as to defend setting off alarms statewide, ignoring the system's county-code mechanism which was designed to prevent false-alarms from over-broad alerts.

I discussed this situation with various family members a few months later, and they couldn't seem to understand my outrage. Their response was literally that it would be OK to wake up every adult in the state if "it would save one child." They refused to accept that general sleep loss from such wakeups would undoubtably cause more traffic and work-related injuries and deaths the next day.

"Think of the children" is an extremely dangerous statement that brings up deep-seated biological and cultural urges to protect offspring and is easily used to justify invasive programs that rational people would never otherwise tolerate.

IMO nobody who has ever been personally involved in a missing-child situation should be allowed to work for or act as spokesman for any of the missing-child programs and agencies. The emotions are just too high for these people to make rational decisions.