Airline Passenger Screening: Caps II

[evildave]

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~1887790,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61891,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

So, we have this program they want to do: investigate and rate everyone before they can ride on a commercial airliner.

You are green: As normal.

You are yellow: You get extra checks every time you try to board a plane.

You are orange: You get an anal exam every time you try to board a plane.

You are red: you can never fly at all.

Officials designing CAPPS II hope the new system will flag only 5 percent of domestic airline passengers for closer scrutiny.

An estimated 1-2 percent who get "red" coding will be barred from boarding and face police questioning. They may be arrested.

Ahh, great. So, all you need is a bit set in the database, and you can never, ever travel by air. If you don't like it, be arrested. I can see great potential in monkeying with people's records to get them into the "orange" or "red" categories. Officially and unofficially. There's probably no way to appeal the status.

Naturally, someone who has a nice, secure clean, green status with lots of airline miles and is THEN recruited by terrorists can expect only trivial (pre-2001) airport security measures to apply to them. After all, they're already "clear".

Just another excuse to start investigating everybody while we build a police state that would make the worst of Orwellian predictions seem optimistic and upbeat.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~1887790,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61891,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

So, we have this program they want to do: investigate and rate everyone before they can ride on a commercial airliner.

You are green: As normal.

You are yellow: You get extra checks every time you try to board a plane.

You are orange: You get an anal exam every time you try to board a plane.

You are red: you can never fly at all.





Ahh, great. So, all you need is a bit set in the database, and you can never, ever travel by air. If you don't like it, be arrested. I can see great potential in monkeying with people's records to get them into the "orange" or "red" categories. Officially and unofficially. There's probably no way to appeal the status.

Naturally, someone who has a nice, secure clean, green status with lots of airline miles and is THEN recruited by terrorists can expect only trivial (pre-2001) airport security measures to apply to them. After all, they're already "clear".

Just another excuse to start investigating everybody while we build a police state that would make the worst of Orwellian predictions seem optimistic and upbeat.

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Show me your constitutional right to not take Amtrak or Greyhound. How is this an infringement on "rights" as defined by the constitution, and not as defined by 21st century ACLU standards? Honestly, if you're saying this is an abridgement of rights, please define which rights.

If it's nothing more than an abrdigement of convenience, as I'm sure you'll find, then please refer to the "boo hoo" at the beginning of this thread.

[fishbob]

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Show me your constitutional right to not take Amtrak or Greyhound. You can't get there from here by Amtrak or Greyhound.

"An abridgement of convenience" was one of the terrorist successes. In the US, time is money, and the government's abridgements of convenience have cost the US bazillions of dollars so far. Plus people are more gripey and whiney and boo-hooey than before - another win for the terrorists.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Jocko
If it's nothing more than an abrdigement of convenience, as I'm sure you'll find, then please refer to the "boo hoo" at the beginning of this thread. I'm sure you'll be just as nonchalant when you become "red" due to a bureaucratic mistake and can't fly anymore.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Cecil
I'm sure you'll be just as nonchalant when you become "red" due to a bureaucratic mistake and can't fly anymore.

I would be more concerned if I became "orange", to be honest.

[The Don]

Of course large-scale government data integration projects never, ever, ever have any data quality problems or teething troubles.

btw. at 5% of 163 million passengers, that implies that there will be about 8 million arrests a year under this scheme.

Does the U.S. have a large enough law enforcement function to cope ?

Also, as a terrorist, if my round trip ticket is bought on a business account am I in the clear ?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jocko
Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Show me your constitutional right to not take Amtrak or GreyhoundAmendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[pgwenthold]

Whenever I see a proposal of new security measures, the first thing I wonder is, would it have stopped what happened on 9/11?

Restrictions against bringing sharp objects on board? Might have slowed them down, yep.

Not allowing parking near the terminal? No curbside check-in? Wouldn't have phased thim in the least.

How many of the 9/11 hijackers would have been affected by this program?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by fishbob
You can't get there from here by Amtrak or Greyhound.

"An abridgement of convenience" was one of the terrorist successes. In the US, time is money, and the government's abridgements of convenience have cost the US bazillions of dollars so far. Plus people are more gripey and whiney and boo-hooey than before - another win for the terrorists.

You forgot to mention the ANSWER protesters in DC. I was stuck in traffic because of their antics one day....score another win for the terrorists.
:rolleyes:
-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Whenever I see a proposal of new security measures, the first thing I wonder is, would it have stopped what happened on 9/11?

Restrictions against bringing sharp objects on board? Might have slowed them down, yep.

Not allowing parking near the terminal? No curbside check-in? Wouldn't have phased thim in the least.

How many of the 9/11 hijackers would have been affected by this program?

You forgot:

Locked and hardened cockpit doors. Would the 9/11 hijackers been affected? Yes.

Armed pilots. Armed pilot vs box-cutter weilding nut jobs? Win goes to the armed pilot, as long as he shoots straight. Another "Yes".

Sky marshalls on flights. See above.

There are many barriers, some small, some not so small. The trick for the prospective hijacker is to defeat them all. I don't care for his chances of success, post 9/11.

-z

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by The Don
btw. at 5% of 163 million passengers, that implies that there will be about 8 million arrests a year under this scheme.
From the article: Officials designing CAPPS II hope the new system will flag only 5 percent of domestic airline passengers for closer scrutiny.

Domestic airlines carried 612 million passengers in 2003, according to the Census Bureau; the current system flagged 15 percent of them, according to Hatfield. The five percent is not for arrests but for additional "scrutiny," and apparently is a reduction by 2/3 over the current system. Some percentage of that 5% is marked as "red" and 1-2% of those may be arrested. So at an absolute max it would be .01% of people being arrested, and almost certainly more like .0001%. And really, if they start catching people for outstanding warrants and such is that really a bad thing?

Yes, there will be screwups. But given that there is apparently already a system in place why not try to improve it?

[Tmy]

Dont you have the right to sorta go where you want. Assocation I guess? The govt just cant force you to stay in one place.

Id be kinda strange to had red card status and NOT be in jail? How woudl that happen. Is there some sort of due process to get that changed.?

[shanek]

Originally posted by evildave
You are green: As normal.

"Normal" meaning what? Right now, "normal" means being stripped of your shoes and being molested with a metal-detecting wand while some government flunkie rummages through your personal effects. That really makes me frightened to think of that the "extra checks" might be!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Show me your constitutional right to not take Amtrak or Greyhound.

9th Amendment. Plus, there's NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the Constitution giving the Federal government this power, so it is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as well.

[Richard G]

2nd Amendment says "right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

The Federal Goverment (FAA) has passed laws that expressly forbid people from bearing arms on airplanes. That is a violation of everyones rights.

Without this unconstitutional restriction, airlines would still be free (under private property rights) to restrict firearms on their flights. They are not free to do this however, as the Federal Goverment mandates it.

Fly on a plane, or enter an airport terminal, and you magicly lose all your rights at the door. . I will never fly again.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You forgot to mention the ANSWER protesters in DC. I was stuck in traffic because of their antics one day....score another win for the terrorists.
:rolleyes:
-z

That reminds me. The weekend the war started I was, like a good American, supporting the tourism industry by going to Atlantic City to play poker. On the way home, my buddy and I were listening to the news reports of protesters blocking steets in large cities.

I hate traffic. Hate it. Large reason why I live in the sticks.

As we entered Philadelphia, I told him that if we got stuck by those goons I was going to either run someone over or at least try my best to pick a fight with the marchers.

"Where did you get that broken arm?"

"I was attacked by the peace marchers"

I mean, I really hate traffic.

I have no point. Unless Ashcroft is watching that is. Maybe I can get a "green" rating out of this.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Richard G
2nd Amendment says "right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

The Federal Goverment (FAA) has passed laws that expressly forbid people from bearing arms on airplanes. That is a violation of everyones rights.

Without this unconstitutional restriction, airlines would still be free (under private property rights) to restrict firearms on their flights. They are not free to do this however, as the Federal Goverment mandates it.

Fly on a plane, or enter an airport terminal, and you magicly lose all your rights at the door. . I will never fly again.

1) You may have left something out of your telling of the Second Amendment. There were a few more words last time I checked.

2) "Magicly lose all your rights?" "All?" So if you go on a plane you can be legally executed without a jury trial?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


9th Amendment. Plus, there's NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the Constitution giving the Federal government this power, so it is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as well.

Why cite an amendment? Shouldn't it just be pointed out that Jacko needs to identify where the federal government gets the legal power to do this in the first place?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Why cite an amendment? Shouldn't it just be pointed out that Jacko needs to identify where the federal government gets the legal power to do this in the first place?

Sure, but it never hurts to have the direct words of the Constitution on your side.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Sure, but it never hurts to have the direct words of the Constitution on your side.

Actually, if such a power were in the constitution, then the Amendments you mention wouldn't exactly help your case, would they? They (more or less) restrict the federal government to the powers mentioned in the constitution, so if such a power is included (say through the "commerce among the several states" or anything else) in the Constitution then those amendments would not prevent exercise of that power.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Show me your constitutional right to not take Amtrak or Greyhound. How is this an infringement on "rights" as defined by the constitution, and not as defined by 21st century ACLU standards? Honestly, if you're saying this is an abridgement of rights, please define which rights. . .


I'm sure you wouldn't be quite as blase if you ralized that the current no fly list (you know, the one that has hassled thousands but has as yet to nab a single terrorist, or for that matter a single common criminal) has no one who will admit to having responsibility and no one seems to know how you get off of it if your on it mistakenly. But you know I'm glad it exists, that way I can be sure that anyone whoever says an unkind word about this glorious nation or our divinely inspired leadership will endure the ignomy of being publicly arrested for it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Suddenly

2) "Magicly lose all your rights?" "All?" So if you go on a plane you can be legally executed without a jury trial?

Well, what do you call it when fighter planes escort an airliner? It seems to me that everyone aboard is then subject to execution without any trial.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Sure, but it never hurts to have the direct words of the Constitution on your side.

These days using your constitutional rights appears to get you labeled as a troublemaker or something worse, you know.

No, I'm not saying that with any sort of approval.

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


9th Amendment. Plus, there's NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the Constitution giving the Federal government this power, so it is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as well. Well, one could try the commerce clause and "necessary and proper." And probably get away with it...

[Snide]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Actually, if such a power were in the constitution, then the Amendments you mention wouldn't exactly help your case, would they? They (more or less) restrict the federal government to the powers mentioned in the constitution, so if such a power is included (say through the "commerce among the several states" or anything else) in the Constitution then those amendments would not prevent exercise of that power. Dang...beat me to it...

[Tmy]

Going to the airports is a scary thing. Its like entering a war torn 3rd world country. Everyone is kinda freaked, security is everywhere, and you keep your mouth shut for fear ofthe authorities will swoop down on you and drag you away.

[Jon_in_london]

I would just like to say nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh to all you yanks! In spite of all your ridiculous fruity alerts and invasive airport searches and insulting fingerprinting, you missed a gent carrying live ammo onto a plane.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3396667.stm

Fortunately, us redoubtable Brits caught 'im and sent 'im down the nick.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by jj


Well, what do you call it when fighter planes escort an airliner? It seems to me that everyone aboard is then subject to execution without any trial.

Deaths from necessity are different from deaths intentionally caused for the purpose of punishment.

If the government finds out a plane is hijacked with a big bomb on board and it headed for the super bowl, if I'm killed when it is shot down, that is a necessary killing. No trial isn't really an issue.

If the government shoots down the plane because of my Ashcroft comment a few posts ago on the pretext that smart-alec comments like that get our brave soldiers killed and therefore I'm guilty of murder and terrorism and am subject to the death penalty, that's an execution. They should have tried me first.


(exagerated for your protection)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by jj


These days using your constitutional rights appears to get you labeled as a troublemaker or something worse, you know.

No, I'm not saying that with any sort of approval.

Trouble is that some people have a goofy idea of what a constitutional right is. They seem to believe that if they really believe the constitution stands for something, that is the end of the inquiry, and all laws to the contrary must be the evil product of constitution hating scum...

Opinions aren't enforceable, absent a specific grant of the judicial power. A good thing if you don't dig utter chaos.

I'm all for protecting and using rights, but people that get strident over their "imagined" rights give me a headache.

My favorite: "But they didn't read me my rights!!"

Somehow there are those that think this is a get out of jail free card. It usually takes at least an hour of calm discussion before I can get them to at least consider that Miranda isn't quite so general, no matter what they saw on that TV show...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Suddenly


My favorite: "But they didn't read me my rights!!"

Somehow there are those that think this is a get out of jail free card. It usually takes at least an hour of calm discussion before I can get them to at least consider that Miranda isn't quite so general, no matter what they saw on that TV show...

Does it mean then that if the cops don't read you your rights and they question you, you can then have all the answers you gave thrown out?

[jj]

Originally posted by Suddenly

My favorite: "But they didn't read me my rights!!"

Somehow there are those that think this is a get out of jail free card. It usually takes at least an hour of calm discussion before I can get them to at least consider that Miranda isn't quite so general, no matter what they saw on that TV show...

Henh. Well, and those who insisted that a university disciplinary committee was the state...

[fishbob]

You forgot to mention the ANSWER protesters in DC. I was stuck in traffic because of their antics one day....score another win for the terrorists.

-z
Does this fall under the gripey and whiney terrorist win or should this be in a different category?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Does it mean then that if the cops don't read you your rights and they question you, you can then have all the answers you gave thrown out?

As far as the "rights reading" aspect it applies only to "custodial interrogation," which means you have to be in custody (not just "consenting to come down to the station and answer a few questions") and be interrogated. (so screaming out a confession without being asked a question doesn't count)

There is a huge gray area to be sure, as well as countless exceptions and such.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~1887790,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61891,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4


You are green: As normal.

You are yellow: You get extra checks every time you try to board a plane.

You are orange: You get an anal exam every time you try to board a plane.

You are red: you can never fly at all.





.

ah, a colour designation that would not offend is going to be used rather than:


You are white: As normal. (unibomber types get on)

You are yellow: You get extra checks every time you try to board a plane. (no need to change this colour, if you are yellow you could be a Chinese spy; just need a lie detector to make sure)

You are light/tan brown: You get an anal exam every time you try to board a plane.

You look suspiciosly Middle-Eastern, polynesian, hispanic or black: you can never fly at all, as you are smuggling drugs/ carry a Koran or an Almanac, and don't eat pork products and speak with a funny accent and have a name that is hard to pronounce.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Richard G
2nd Amendment says "right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

The Federal Goverment (FAA) has passed laws that expressly forbid people from bearing arms on airplanes. That is a violation of everyones rights.

Without this unconstitutional restriction, airlines would still be free (under private property rights) to restrict firearms on their flights. They are not free to do this however, as the Federal Goverment mandates it.

Fly on a plane, or enter an airport terminal, and you magicly lose all your rights at the door. . I will never fly again. I doubt that your boycotting airlines will significantly reduce their income, but it appears that you will be penalizing the airlines because the feds passed a law you view as unconstitutional. Would you approve of the weapons ban if the airline mandated it. Wouldn't that be as unconstitutional as the feds doing so and more worthy of your boycott? I guess I'm asking whether "private property" rights trump the Constitution? And do you patronize businesses that post a gun ban (has the constitutionality of that been challenged?)? Anyway, I believe we often have to forego exercise of some rights in certain situations. For instance being enjoined from causing a riot by shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the standard example of a justifiable abridgement of free speech. I'm not sure that a federal law is involved, but laws regarding public disturbance surely apply.

[Richard G]

I guess I'm asking whether "private property" rights trump the Constitution?

Private property rights are IN the Constitution. And they are equal with every other right. A place of buisness (private property) may ask you to leave for any reason they want.


I do not patronize buisnesss with gun bans, and I write them letters telling them why. Most buisnesss cave under the heat, and revoke their bans.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Richard G


Private property rights are IN the Constitution. And they are equal with every other right. A place of buisness (private property) may ask you to leave for any reason they want.

Nope. Check out the Civil Rights act of 1964, and the cases upholding it. If you are doing business with the public you can't toss someone out for being white, for example. [QUOTE][B]

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Richard G


Private property rights are IN the Constitution. And they are equal with every other right. A place of buisness (private property) may ask you to leave for any reason they want.


I do not patronize buisnesss with gun bans, and I write them letters telling them why. Most buisnesss cave under the heat, and revoke their bans. If businesses can legally ban guns on their property, what is the "heat" that causes them not to do so? I suspect that considerations of public safety permit such bans. As far as being asked to leave a public place goes, a business that serves the public is not entirely unrestricted in denying people access; e.g., I believe persons may not be ejected or denied access merely for reasons of their ethnicity. It seems to me that Plessey v Ferguson has been pretty much supplanted by current civil rights laws. Are these laws unconstitutional?

[Richard G]

Heat...loss of buisness when a few hundred thousand people complain to said buisness:

Home Depot Reverses Decision On New Firearm Policy

Early in December, word spread that Home Depot (HD) had posted a store in another state against lawful concealed. When CSSA contacted HD to confirm the accuracy of the reports and to find out what their intention was in Colorado, different people at HD had different stories. One statement was that they would "neither confirm nor deny" whether they planned to adopt a nationwide CCW ban. The other story was that they had a long-standing policy that prohibited anyone, including lawful CCW holders, from bringing any weapon into a HD store and that all stores would be posted.

CSSA sent an email alert to our members, asking them to contact HD to present their views on such a ban. For a week, CSSA members and gun rights supporters from across the Nation bombarded HD with their views and information on the right to self-defense, statistics on lowered crime when CCW statutes have been enacted, and that safe crime zones only make the criminal safe. Home Depot operators clearly were feeling beleagured by the many calls. Statements from responsible parties inside HD confirmed that they had been preparing to post their stores but management was going to be meeting to discuss this policy before any further action would be taken. We have been told that, subsequent to the management meeting, the HD policy was that lawful concealed carry by patrons would not be banned, but employees would continue to be barred from carrying in its stores.

Activists for self-defense won a significant battle. We are told that major national anti-freedom gun-ban groups have been pressuring stores to post against CCW wherever they can and there may be future threats like the ones that was defeated at Home Depot. CSSA will let you know when we learn of them and confirm the credibility of the threat.

http://www.cssa.org/newsletter.html

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Richard G
Heat...loss of buisness when a few hundred thousand people complain to said buisness:


http://www.cssa.org/newsletter.html It slipped my mind that NRA members would feel distinctly underdressed if they couldn't pack their sidearms while prowling the aisles of Home Depot. And I suppose that in the rural west, businesses do have to cater to that mentality. I guess it's a case of the folks packing the heat applying the heat.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Lemastre
I guess it's a case of the folks packing the heat applying the heat.


that's comforting...


I am concerned about what some posts on this thread are suggesting...

right to bear arms being taken to such an extent that persons/companies can not say what items carried by a person are or are not allowed on their property/establishments. Airports and bars banning firearms, then people applying pressure to put a stop to these restrictions?

What is the argument? a slippery slops argument? if we allow airports and bars to ban firearms then firearms will be banned everywhere? I like my airports, airplanes and bars gun free. Of course I have never known it any other way so I am culturally biased here.