The pilot program of a Trusted Traveller System has now been announced. Some 5000-10000 frequent fliers will have the opportunity to participate in a program the TSA’s spokesman admits offers “limited features and limited benefits.” Make no mistake: this is not a get out of the security line free card. From the article:
Registered travelers will have to pass through the same basic security as all other travelers, and like everyone else, will be encouraged to remove their shoes and their outer garments, said Yolanda Clark, a spokeswoman for the agency.
But Ms. Clark said those approved for the program would not face the more careful inspection known as secondary screening unless they set off an alarm as they passed through the metal detectors. Under the current system, some passengers are chosen for secondary screening at random and some because they meet a set of criteria that are secret but are believed to include factors like paying cash for a ticket or booking travel at the last minute, or flying one way.
So, these people will voluntarily give personal information to the TSA, and still have to stand in the security line in socks. Such a deal. I can certainly think of better ways to spend $5 Million of taxpayer dollars.
For that matter, how do we get the idea that cash purchases, one way tickets, or traveling on short notice makes one a potential terrorist? Doesn’t knowing that these things might be suspicious mean that a halfway intelligent terrorist might avoid them? I seem to recall that Mohammed Atta and his collaborators bought round trip tickets with a credit card in advance, and there is some evidence to suggest they made test runs — making them regular if not frequent fliers. I can think of lots of legitimate reasons someone might pay cash for a ticket, or fly one-way, or fly on short notice. Family or business emergencies happen. People without credit sometimes need to fly. College students might only need to fly to campus in fall, or home from campus in summer.
At the other end of the flying public spectrum, we have the Do Not Fly list. A judge has ordered the Government to reconsider what information to release about how that list was compiled. From the article:
Government lawyers refused to turn over much of the material sought by the A.C.L.U. because they said it involved sensitive security information or other material exempted from public disclosure.
But Judge Breyer said the withheld material included “innocuous information” about aviation protocols, publicly available information from newspapers and the names of senior transportation officials.
This is an important case. The TSA Do Not Fly list is effectively a black box; nobody knows how a person gets on the list; nobody knows how to get someone off the list; there is evidence that some people are on the list for politically motivated reasons. This is not as simple as “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t worry about it.” And remember, the courts aren’t even close to ruling on the matter. This is just ruling about what information must be released under the Freedom Of Information Act.
Somewhere in the middle we have a judge who has ruled that a “Privacy Policy” is not a “Contract.” In short, he said that if you don’t read it and you don’t sign it, you can’t act surprised when it changes, or doesn’t say what you thought it did, or it gets superseded by something else. In this case, it was a Government request for information. We are not talking about saying data is private and then selling it to telemarketers. More commentary than you want to shake a stick at here.
This brings me to my last point. The suit claims the release of information — at the Government’s request — violates the “Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.” It seems to me that the War On Terror has consistently ignored the Rule Of Law when the Law is inconvenient. For example, the memos asserting that we can use torture in Iraq as long as it’s really necessary because there’s a War on. To heck with international law, and treaties, and the Geneva Convention. Never mind what might happen to American Prisoners Of War in the future.
The United States also intends to ignore international law at the end of the month, when we hand “Sovereignty” over to the interim Government of Iraq. The International Committee of the Red Cross insists we must release or charge all prisoners before then. The last paragraph of that link specifically says “The US has made clear it will continue to detain some Iraqis after the transfer of sovereignty as part of its security operations.” Saddam might be a special case. After all, people will notice if he isn’t handed over.
I am deeply worried about the philosophy of “The Law doesn’t apply because we are at War.”
Here is a very interesting article about Anti-Terror Cyber-Vigilantes. They are “Unencumbered by bureaucracy or by laws requiring warrants or prohibiting entrapment….” That’s right, “bureaucracy” like the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. An expert points out “But remember, you are still being a spy, and that carries risks. People might try to kill you. You might violate the law. You might screw things up.” Yeah yeah. It’s all for the greater good, right?