US demands air passengers ask its permission to fly

Old Oct 12, 07, 7:45 pm
  #1  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Angry US demands air passengers ask its permission to fly

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...nto_data_hell/

Under new rules proposed by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) (pdf), all airline passengers would need advance permission before flying into, through, or over the United States regardless of citizenship or the airline's national origin.

Currently, the Advanced Passenger Information System, operated by the Customs and Border Patrol, requires airlines to forward a list of passenger information no later than 15 minutes before flights from the US take off (international flights bound for the US have until 15 minutes after take-off). Planes are diverted if a passenger on board is on the no-fly list.

The new rules mean this information must be submitted 72 hours before departure. Only those given clearance will get a boarding pass. The TSA estimates that 90 to 93 per cent of all travel reservations are final by then.
Write your congressional representatives.
whirledtraveler is offline  
Old Oct 12, 07, 9:53 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: YYZ
Programs: Haven't been flying for a while... :(
Posts: 476
Congratulations TSA, you have just told terrorists to buy full-fare tickets before trying to hijack a plane. All while inconveniencing every travelling business-person or roaming salesperson in the United States.
lavalyn is offline  
Old Oct 12, 07, 9:55 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DL Silver, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, BW Diamond
Posts: 26,395
It's been discussed already.
Jaimito Cartero is offline  
Old Oct 12, 07, 11:05 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero View Post
It's been discussed already.
Perhaps we were not loud enough?
birdstrike is offline  
Old Oct 12, 07, 11:07 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Washington DC, DCA
Programs: AAdvantage, DL Skymiles, United MP
Posts: 3,931
What about those in universities overseas who have a last-minute emergency with their family, like a death? Or a last-minute business meeting? Will they still be able to make reservations 72 hours prior to depature?
MrAndy1369 is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 2:53 am
  #6  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,973
The TSA held a public hearing in Washington DC on 20 September, which heard comments from both privacy advocates and airline industry representatives from Qantas, the Regional Airline Association, IATA, and the American Society of Travel Agents. The privacy advocates came from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Identity Project. All were negative.
Fortunately, this is still in proposal stage.
essxjay is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 4:11 am
  #7  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DL Silver, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, BW Diamond
Posts: 26,395
Originally Posted by essxjay View Post
Fortunately, this is still in proposal stage.
Have rings been exchanged, or is it still in the making out phase? Let's hope this marriage isn't consummated. It would be worse than what Randy Marsh pumped out on Southpark this week.
Jaimito Cartero is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 11:58 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Programs: No single airline or hotel chain is of much use to me anymore.
Posts: 2,198
I think the last time I flew with MORE than 72 hours notice was in March!
Error 601 is online now  
Old Oct 13, 07, 12:04 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Under an ORD approach path
Programs: DL PM, MM. Coffee isn't a drug, it's a vitamin.
Posts: 12,921
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero View Post
It's been discussed already.
In the context of this proposal, that word should be spelled disgust.
Gargoyle is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 12:05 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richardson, TX
Programs: LT AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 520
Originally Posted by 601 View Post
I think the last time I flew with MORE than 72 hours notice was in March!
This is a really strange one. We were in Ireland a couple of weeks ago, planned to come home on a Saturday, but had to switch to Wednesday due to a death in the family. According to this, we would no longer have such flexibility. And what about standing by for an earlier flight, or what about non-revs? It's nuts.
jpmcdonough is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 12:25 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ORD, MDW
Programs: Lost it all!
Posts: 1,096
When will people learn that the "rules" TSA is putting into effect are doing nothing to stop terrorists? All it does is inconvenience the average traveler and make the average American citizen think that they're actually protecting us.

mlbcard is online now  
Old Oct 13, 07, 1:45 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by lavalyn View Post
Congratulations TSA, you have just told terrorists to buy full-fare tickets before trying to hijack a plane. All while inconveniencing every travelling business-person or roaming salesperson in the United States.
I think that would change too. You'd have to pick a flight and stick to it at the 72 hour mark.

BTW, my reading of this is that it would be only international travel. But, I could just be optimistic. Anyone have another take on it?
whirledtraveler is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 1:52 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ANC
Programs: AS MVPG 75K, UA 2P
Posts: 1,453
My Off-the-Cuff Comments to Kippie at the Secure Flight Hearing

MR. SCANNELL: Good morning. My name
is Bill Scannell. Iím a Bostonian by birth and
Iím Alaskan by choice. Iím Communications
Director for the Identity Project and Iíve
spent the past four and a half years watching
the Department of Homeland Security put forward
iteration after iteration of some sort of air
surveillance passenger program. First it was
called CAPPS II where a lot of data was
illegally transferred -- secretly transferred.
Peopleís Social Security numbers were put up
on the Internet. We saw various iterations of
Secure Flight and one by one they went down the
tubes. Why? Because itís just not right.
Itís just simply not right.
Osama Bin Laden is not going to be
sitting in row 15F eating a special meal flying
under his own name. The very idea or the very
concept that Dr. Evil is going to be using a
real name with his real ID is the big flaw in
your entire security plan.
The other big flaw is something called
the Constitution. The very concept that we
need to get government permission in order to
travel in our own country is deeply offensive.
And you all really quite rightly should be
ashamed of yourselves that you sit up here and
you continue to push these things because you
donít make us any safer, you donít do anything
for our security, and all you do is ratchet up
the level of fear and make our country a lot
less free.
The latest example of this, Mr. Hawley,
would be the results of the Privacy Act
requests that we did on the automated targeting
system. You may recall that this was a
hitherto secret, yet another secret, Homeland
Security Program monitoring the flights and
travels of American citizens. You keep track
of peopleís race. You keep track of what
people read. You keep track of the names and
telephone numbers of friends and family. This
is repulsive. And a lot of this information is
coming straight out of the reservation systems,
out of the GDSes. The same well will you be
pulling information for Secure Flight.
MR. HUBICKI: This wonít count on your
time, but just to correct that.
MR. SCANNELL: Sure.
MR. HUBICKI: We do not. That is not
TSA. Itís very important that everybody
understands the record. We can talk about this
when your time expires and we have an exchange.
MR. SCANNELL: Pleasure.
MR. HAWLEY: But that is not a TSA
function. None of that information comes to
TSA; none. And none of that is anywhere near
Secure Flight. Totally separate project. I
take your point, but just for clarification,
factually, TSA has nothing, zero, to do with
that program. And when you were saying, ďyou
get this, you get thatĒ I would like to have
for the record that TSA does not -- it doesnít
undermine the validity of the point youíre
making, just in terms of the factual record,
that does not happen to involve TSA.
MR. SCANNELL: And, sir, with due
respect, as Iím sure you can understand when we
look at whether it be the idiocy of quart
baggies to taking shoes off, to mothers
drinking breast milk, to illegal data transfers
and secret data transfer, you can understand
that from my perspective, sir, after four and a
half years of actively working to stop your
department from doing this that when you tell
me this your credibility is around zero and I
hope that you respect that I would see it that
way.
I hope that you can also understand
that when we look at the global reservation
systems that that is one big well where all of
this information is coming out of. That you
may put your TSA Secure Flight bottling plant
next to this well, that you may put your ATS or
your APIS bottling plant on the well, but itís
the same water. You may be putting it in
different bottles, but itís the same water
coming out of the same well, going into the
same department. And this is wrong. Letís
talk about a sane security program, sir. What
about I realize that this will cost you and
your contractor friends a lot of money, but why
not simply check people for weapons and
explosives when they show up at the airport.
If they donít have them, let them board. When
they check their bags, letís make sure that
thereís nothing in that bag that causes a
danger to the flight. And if thatís okay,
well, letís let the bags on too. And what
about cargo? If the cargo is safe, letís let
that on too.
I donít understand what someoneís
identity or anything has to do with any of
this, sir. And, again, Iím embarrassed for all
of you. Thank you.
MR. HAWLEY: Before you go, thank you
for your statement, I do respect the point of
view that you expressed. You may not have been
here at the opening --
MR. SCANNELL: I was.
MR. HAWLEY: -- when I indicated that
we had a number of outside reports, Secure
Flight working group, General Accounting --
General Accountability Office, Government
Accountability Office, GAO --
MR. SCANNELL: Iíve read them all.
MR. HAWLEY: -- and we did in fact take
those to heart and in February when I spoke
with the Senate Commerce Committee we
rebaselined, rebuilt the program taking those
issues to heart. So I think there are a number
of large-scale issues that you raised and weíre
not going to resolve here and I respect those
opinions. If we just narrow it down to Secure
Flight, what we tried to do with Secure Flight
is say, yes, we understand thereís a lot of
issues around a lot of these other things, but
for Secure Flight which it seems that the
minimum responsibility of the government ought
to be that when you identify people who are in
fact serious terror risks to flights --
MR. SCANNELL: Youíd get a warrant and
you arrest them.
MR. HAWLEY: -- that the government
should not let those people onto planes. So
that what Secure Flight does is simply watch
list matching and nothing else.
So what weíve tried to do since this
rebaselining is to rebuild the system with a
very narrow focus, very controlled access to
whatever information it gets in all those
rules. So what I hope that you, as you
evaluate this, as you consider these other
large scale issues, please do get into the
detail of this Secure Flight rulemaking and
that we are in fact attempting to limit to the
necessary data and then protect that data and
then get rid of that data.
MR. SCANNELL: Well, sir, I hope you
appreciate Iíve been criticizing you publicly
for years. And I always dislike it when
someone criticizes me, but theyíll never do it
to my face. So I thought it was important to
a, criticize you to your face. I mean, look, I
created KipHawleyisanidiot.com.
MR. HAWLEY: Thatís you?
MR. SCANNELL: Thatís me.
(Laughter.)
MR. SCANNELL: So, I mean --
MR. HAWLEY: Iím one of your
subscribers.
(Laughter.)
MR. SCANNELL: Not that we keep track,
but I did notice a lot of hits from within your
agency, sir. But to that point, this idea of
we donít want these people flying, I donít want
terrorists or bad guys anywhere. I donít want
them on my street. But the fact is, the very
notion, sir, of turning our airports into some
sort of an air point Charlie is deeply
offensive to me.
I had a high-paying job as a VP with a
software company when CAPPS II was announced. I
spent so much of my previous life first as an
intelligence officer serving in the United
States Army and later as a reporter in Eastern
Europe, Iíve seen these bad movies before. And
I was so upset by this very notion of getting
permission from you and your agency to travel
that I quit my job and that I devoted my life,
or right now a good chunk of it -- I have two
boys now and a wife, but a good chunk of it to
make sure that you donít get away with this.
And I want you, please, when you leave here,
when you go to sleep, please sleep on this.
Because youíre really not making anyone safer,
sir, really. Thank you.
BillScann is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 1:53 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum
Posts: 12,073
Wow this is crazy. Insane.

I can't believe the TSA has gone this looney. We knew they were mad, but this crazy???
UALOneKPlus is offline  
Old Oct 13, 07, 1:57 pm
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum
Posts: 12,073
Originally Posted by BillScann View Post
MR. SCANNELL: Good morning. My name
is Bill Scannell. Iím a Bostonian by birth and
Iím Alaskan by choice. Iím Communications
Director for the Identity Project and Iíve
spent the past four and a half years watching
the Department of Homeland Security put forward
iteration after iteration of some sort of air
surveillance passenger program. First it was
called CAPPS II where a lot of data was
illegally transferred -- secretly transferred.
Peopleís Social Security numbers were put up
on the Internet. We saw various iterations of
Secure Flight and one by one they went down the
tubes. Why? Because itís just not right.
Itís just simply not right.
Osama Bin Laden is not going to be
sitting in row 15F eating a special meal flying
under his own name. The very idea or the very
concept that Dr. Evil is going to be using a
real name with his real ID is the big flaw in
your entire security plan.
The other big flaw is something called
the Constitution. The very concept that we
need to get government permission in order to
travel in our own country is deeply offensive.
And you all really quite rightly should be
ashamed of yourselves that you sit up here and
you continue to push these things because you
donít make us any safer, you donít do anything
for our security, and all you do is ratchet up
the level of fear and make our country a lot
less free.
The latest example of this, Mr. Hawley,
would be the results of the Privacy Act
requests that we did on the automated targeting
system. You may recall that this was a
hitherto secret, yet another secret, Homeland
Security Program monitoring the flights and
travels of American citizens. You keep track
of peopleís race. You keep track of what
people read. You keep track of the names and
telephone numbers of friends and family. This
is repulsive. And a lot of this information is
coming straight out of the reservation systems,
out of the GDSes. The same well will you be
pulling information for Secure Flight.
MR. HUBICKI: This wonít count on your
time, but just to correct that.
MR. SCANNELL: Sure.
MR. HUBICKI: We do not. That is not
TSA. Itís very important that everybody
understands the record. We can talk about this
when your time expires and we have an exchange.
MR. SCANNELL: Pleasure.
MR. HAWLEY: But that is not a TSA
function. None of that information comes to
TSA; none. And none of that is anywhere near
Secure Flight. Totally separate project. I
take your point, but just for clarification,
factually, TSA has nothing, zero, to do with
that program. And when you were saying, ďyou
get this, you get thatĒ I would like to have
for the record that TSA does not -- it doesnít
undermine the validity of the point youíre
making, just in terms of the factual record,
that does not happen to involve TSA.
MR. SCANNELL: And, sir, with due
respect, as Iím sure you can understand when we
look at whether it be the idiocy of quart
baggies to taking shoes off, to mothers
drinking breast milk, to illegal data transfers
and secret data transfer, you can understand
that from my perspective, sir, after four and a
half years of actively working to stop your
department from doing this that when you tell
me this your credibility is around zero and I
hope that you respect that I would see it that
way.
I hope that you can also understand
that when we look at the global reservation
systems that that is one big well where all of
this information is coming out of. That you
may put your TSA Secure Flight bottling plant
next to this well, that you may put your ATS or
your APIS bottling plant on the well, but itís
the same water. You may be putting it in
different bottles, but itís the same water
coming out of the same well, going into the
same department. And this is wrong. Letís
talk about a sane security program, sir. What
about I realize that this will cost you and
your contractor friends a lot of money, but why
not simply check people for weapons and
explosives when they show up at the airport.
If they donít have them, let them board. When
they check their bags, letís make sure that
thereís nothing in that bag that causes a
danger to the flight. And if thatís okay,
well, letís let the bags on too. And what
about cargo? If the cargo is safe, letís let
that on too.
I donít understand what someoneís
identity or anything has to do with any of
this, sir. And, again, Iím embarrassed for all
of you. Thank you.
MR. HAWLEY: Before you go, thank you
for your statement, I do respect the point of
view that you expressed. You may not have been
here at the opening --
MR. SCANNELL: I was.
MR. HAWLEY: -- when I indicated that
we had a number of outside reports, Secure
Flight working group, General Accounting --
General Accountability Office, Government
Accountability Office, GAO --
MR. SCANNELL: Iíve read them all.
MR. HAWLEY: -- and we did in fact take
those to heart and in February when I spoke
with the Senate Commerce Committee we
rebaselined, rebuilt the program taking those
issues to heart. So I think there are a number
of large-scale issues that you raised and weíre
not going to resolve here and I respect those
opinions. If we just narrow it down to Secure
Flight, what we tried to do with Secure Flight
is say, yes, we understand thereís a lot of
issues around a lot of these other things, but
for Secure Flight which it seems that the
minimum responsibility of the government ought
to be that when you identify people who are in
fact serious terror risks to flights --
MR. SCANNELL: Youíd get a warrant and
you arrest them.
MR. HAWLEY: -- that the government
should not let those people onto planes. So
that what Secure Flight does is simply watch
list matching and nothing else.
So what weíve tried to do since this
rebaselining is to rebuild the system with a
very narrow focus, very controlled access to
whatever information it gets in all those
rules. So what I hope that you, as you
evaluate this, as you consider these other
large scale issues, please do get into the
detail of this Secure Flight rulemaking and
that we are in fact attempting to limit to the
necessary data and then protect that data and
then get rid of that data.
MR. SCANNELL: Well, sir, I hope you
appreciate Iíve been criticizing you publicly
for years. And I always dislike it when
someone criticizes me, but theyíll never do it
to my face. So I thought it was important to
a, criticize you to your face. I mean, look, I
created KipHawleyisanidiot.com.
MR. HAWLEY: Thatís you?
MR. SCANNELL: Thatís me.
(Laughter.)
MR. SCANNELL: So, I mean --
MR. HAWLEY: Iím one of your
subscribers.
(Laughter.)
MR. SCANNELL: Not that we keep track,
but I did notice a lot of hits from within your
agency, sir. But to that point, this idea of
we donít want these people flying, I donít want
terrorists or bad guys anywhere. I donít want
them on my street. But the fact is, the very
notion, sir, of turning our airports into some
sort of an air point Charlie is deeply
offensive to me.
I had a high-paying job as a VP with a
software company when CAPPS II was announced. I
spent so much of my previous life first as an
intelligence officer serving in the United
States Army and later as a reporter in Eastern
Europe, Iíve seen these bad movies before. And
I was so upset by this very notion of getting
permission from you and your agency to travel
that I quit my job and that I devoted my life,
or right now a good chunk of it -- I have two
boys now and a wife, but a good chunk of it to
make sure that you donít get away with this.
And I want you, please, when you leave here,
when you go to sleep, please sleep on this.
Because youíre really not making anyone safer,
sir, really. Thank you.
BRAVO, BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UALOneKPlus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread