Feds to test airline passenger risk-detection system: YIKES!

From Nando times, which you may have to sign up for

I am so profoundly freaked out by the prospect of this system. They couldn’t profile the snipers in Washington, or any number of serial killers, what makes them think they can profile a potential hijacker/terrorist? Of course, YOU being the law abiding citizen WILL get profiled incorrectly -and you think its a pain in the butt to get an erroneous black mark off your credit rating, just wait until this monster is unleashed. Innocent until proven guilty. Yeah right. Some how I don’t think this is going to stop at the airline industry.

That’s why I drive every where I go.

It’s a little disturbing. On the other hand, the folks who do security for El Al have been critical of U.S. air travel security. They maintain that it’s a waste of time to concentrate on the luggage, and that we should be paying attention to the travelers, instead.

Let’s face it, your sweet old grandmother, flying somewhere to visit the grandkids, could be carrying a machete without presenting a risk to anyone, but someone who can’t provide a plausible explanation for why he’s flying somewhere could be a risk even if he doesn’t have any “weapons” at all, but has some serious martial arts training.

Very good points Early Out , I agree we need to do something, I just can’t believe that once this gets started it’s going to stop at the airline/security industry. Soon, if you want to buy a car or sign up for school or rent an apartment, they will ask big brother/data base and barf out comes everything on you from your shoe size to the results of your last blood test.

Sorry, that should be:

…they will ask big brother/data base and, **barf **, out comes everything on you from your shoe size to the results of your last blood test.

At first glance, this is disturbing to me, too. ACLU site has this:

Sorry Mr. Janx, your code red. Ummm, your shirt doesn’t match your socks!

Also, dont we, ya know, the people get any kind of say in this stuff.

Every time I hear about things like this, I get images of the eye scan machines in the movie, Minority Report.

You think that’s bad – before Janx corrected his sentence, I thought they were going to test our barf in order to determine our threat levels! I don’t even want to think about the procedures for obtaining test samples.

I’m just imagining what kind of repercussions a clerical error could have in this situation.

As I understand, being labled a “red” (sorta takes you back, doesn’t it?) lasts for * fifty years. * How horrible if a keystroke error gave you no recourse for getting your status corrected. (Please let me know if I misunderstood.)

For the life of me, I can’t understand why health records can have any bearing on your “terrorist threat” level, unless it’s mental health, and I doubt many would-be suicide bombers seek help for it.

There are no clerical errors in Alpha Complex, Citizen. The Computer is your friend. Please report to the food vats and await further instructions.

2trew, funny you should mention that. I was just reading Send In The Clones the other day.

Right… they want your health records, your financial and credit records…

So, if someone had a bankruptcy 6 years ago they get flagged yellow or something?

The irony, of course, is this STILL wuld not have caught the Sept 11 hijackers who had NO criminal records and were even complying with INS requirements to a large extent.

Of course, I’d think any Arab male will automatically be a yellow, as will any Muslim. Which would be a reason they do NOT want the criteria made public, because they they’d be accused of discrimination.

You’re right, this isn’t going to stop with the airlines. And when a person can’t travel, can’t hold a job, can’t rent a place to live… what do you think will happen then?

Exactly…how long before we’re subject to monitoring while on the freeway (terrorists have to drive, too!)

It’s a sad thing that people die in horrific acts of violence, but death is a part of life as is sorrow and joy. My freedom is too high a price to pay for being protected against terrorism. I’d rather my children be destroyed by a suiside bomber than to have them have to live with the crap the government is trying to pull “to keep us safe.”

Who decides whether my reason for traveling somewhere is “plausible” or not? Is “I felt like it” a “plausible” reason for traveling? Last I heard SCOTUS had ruled that we have a Constitutional right to travel, with or without a “plausible” reason. c.f. Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

This just scares me to death. I have to go back to the US to take care of family business, but it is stuff like this and the new DHS that came into affect at 1201 am 1st March that makes me glad I left the US.

I don’t know if I dare go back…

Sure, but if that’s the best explanation you can come up with, then you’d better be prepared for some serious luggage searching, and perhaps being seated (without you actually knowing it, of course) next to a sky marshall.

No one’s saying you can’t travel if your reason for doing so sounds suspicious. The point is that someone whose rationale for traveling makes perfect sense is someone on whom it’s probably not worth spending much security-checking time. And if that person happens to be carrying a little Swiss Army knife, confiscating it isn’t really necessary.

Security attention would be put to better use if it were focused on people who, when asked why they were flying, came up with answers like “I just felt like it.” Instead, they spend several minutes going through my suitcase, when, if they simply looked at where I’d been (stamps in the passport), looked at my home address, and looked at where my plane ticket was taking me, it would be immediately obvious that I was heading home from a two-week vacation. With a genuine terrorist, the pieces of the puzzle wouldn’t fit together like that.

Oh, I get it. You as an alleged non-terrorist was stopped and checked and since you are above reproach based on your itinerary you’re ticked off. Sort of like those guys who get nicked for speeding and bitch that the cops would do better to go catch “real” criminals.

BTW, if I were a “genuine terrorist,” wouldn’t I make sure that I gave a “plausible reason” for traveling? And maybe carry things in my luggage that make it look like, say, I was on my way home from a two-week vacation?

See, that’s the thing about Constitutional rights. I shouldn’t have to come up with a reason why i want to exercise them. I shouldn’t have to justify my desire to speak, or travel, or have an abortion, or refuse to allow troops to be quartered in my home in peacetime. “It’s my Constitutional right” ought to be all the justification that anyone should ever need to offer.

** Violet ** wrote…

This is one of my points. Big brother IS watching you!

** SpoilerVirgin ** wrote…

What? You’ve never been to a frat party?

**Lissa ** wrote…

I can’t either, that was not my point. The point is that as all the info on you gets digitized, it ends up in a database somewhere, as all the databases are linked together, there will be nothing about you that someone can’t find out. Nike will be able to send me highly specialized marketing info based on the patterns of my shoe purchases, the health insurance company at my new job will not sell me a policy because I once tested positive for cancer, The National Do Gooders of America will know that I once used the word abortion on an internet bulletin board frequented by teenagers AND that rat faced customer service rep on the other side of the counter will know that security once found a butt plug in my carry on luggage. All of the scenarios above point out situations where information about you is simply learned by any one who wants to know, for what ever reason, regardless of the fact that this information is profoundly NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Take the paranoia one step further and you can see how based on private information a government could start rounding up and doing away groups of people based on their “profile”, Mcarthy would have LOVED to have had a tool like this.

** 2trew ** wrote…

That made beer shoot out my nose.

** Broomstick ** wrote…

That person will be sent to the food vats to await further instructions.
Actually, I have the paranoid idea that companies like TRW have wanted a system like this for long time, just think of how valuable a report with all this info would be to, say, an employer or a credit card company - or that guy who has been stalking you since you turned him down as a prom date. When I worked in hospitals in the states digital medical records were a very sensitive issue, just for the reason of confidentiality and the liability should that info fall into the wrong hands.

** Leifsmama ** wrote…

I am so with you on this. We spent years fighting communism, we (as a country) can not stand the idea of a totalitarian government telling it’s citizens how to live - if this is true then would someone please explain to me what the hell this is/would be?

** Otto ** wrote…

This is really why I started this thread
I don’t think I could have put it better.

** Washte ** wrote…

Well, the sorry truth is that I love my country, I’m very proud to be an American but the way things have changed in the last 5 years, I’m not in any hurry to go back just yet. BTW, what is ** new DHS that came into affect at 1201 am 1st March ** can some one splane me please?

** Early Out ** wrote…

Again, ** Early Out I agree with your principle, we have to do something, however its my opinion that the government couldn’t organize a pot luck dinner, just imagine all the ways a system like this could permanently screw the lives of lots of otherwise innocent people, and the government, with all its awesome organizational abilities, would NOT be held accountable for any decision it made about you, to YOU, or anyone else -YIKES!!

** Otto ** wrote…

Gosh, it’s so nice to see that I’m not the only one who feels this way and that the USA is not just a bunch of mindless sheep. HOORAY FOR US! My next question is how can they do something like this without legislation, when it clearly squishes the constitution.