US Air Travelers May Have To Register Three Days In Advance

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:23 pm

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.

The proposed rules require the following information for each passenger: full name, sex, date of birth, and redress number (assigned to passengers who use the Travel Redress Inquiry Program because they have been mistakenly placed on the no-fly list), and known traveller number (once there is a programme in place for registering known travellers whose backgrounds have been checked). Non-travellers entering secure areas, such as parents escorting children, will also need clearance.

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.

The proposals should be withdrawn entirely, argued Edward Hasbrouck, author of The Practical Nomad and the leading expert on travel data privacy. "Obscured by the euphemistic language of 'screening' is the fact that travellers would be required to get permission before they can travel."

Hasbrouck submitted that requiring clearance in order to travel violates the US First Amendment right of assembly, the central claim in John Gilmore's case against the US government over the requirement to show photo ID for domestic travel.

In addition, the TSA is required to study the impact of the proposals on small economic entities (such as sole traders). Finally, the TSA provides no way for individuals to tell whether their government-issued ID is actually required by law, opening the way for rampant identity theft.

ACLU's Barry Steinhardt quoted press reports of 500,000 to 750,000 people on the watch list (of which the no-fly list is a subset). "If there are that many terrorists in the US, we'd all be dead."

TSA representative Kip Hawley noted that the list has been carefully investigated and halved over the last year. "Half of grossly bloated is still bloated," Steinhardt replied.

The airline industry representatives' objections were largely logistical. They argued that the 60-day timeframe the TSA proposes to allow for implementation from the publication date of the final rules is much too short. They want a year to revamp many IT systems, especially, as the Qantas representative said, as no one will start until they're sure there will be no further changes.

In addition, many were concerned about the impact on new, convenient and cash-saving technologies, such as checking in at home, or storing a boarding pass in a PDA.

One additional point, also raised by Hasbrouck: the data the TSA requires will be collected by the airlines who presumably will keep it for their own purposes - a "government-coerced informational windfall", he called it.

The third parties who actually do much of the airline industry's data processing, the Global Distribution Systems and Computer Reservations Systems, were missing from the hearing. Â®

Say good bye to cheap last minute seat deals. Crap like this is why I refuse to travel to the US and why I continue to refuse to go visit my sister-in-law in Boston. As long as the US contnues to roll back civil rights and in general be douches to everyone, I'll steer clear.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:48 pm

This utterly sucks.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:55 pm

One less reason to go there.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:15 am

But we have Disney Land! Every Soviet Primier's dream!

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:50 pm

Euro-Disney.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:24 pm

Okay name an evil dictator that wanted to visit Euro-Disney.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:55 pm

Kim Jong Il may have been, but heavily disguised as a pompous, dwarven, boufon haired, wan, rotund cupid-caricature, wait thats' not much of a disguise, ok i made that up, but funny if he had been though, with his cognac, stoogie and a little donald duck balloon

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:56 pm

At least an evil dictator wanted to go to Euro-Disney.

shran · Post by **shran** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:10 pm

Where do they need the information for? give us a proper reason first.
Fighting terrorism? show us some decent results.

and remember: 'he hwo sacrifices his freedom for temporal security is not worth his freedom." or something like that.

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:31 am

Take it from an American: a policy does NOT need to make any particular sense, nor show or even promise effective results, to be adopted during the current wave of hysteria in my country. It's a shame that it is putting off people like yourselves, because there is a lot to see here. I'm sure you would all feel the same way about me considering a trip to your respective homelands. C.f., the late great Joe Strummer's "Safe European Home"....

Does anyone here recall Tom Ridge's color coding? That's all the example I need to support the first sentence above.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:27 am

The idiotic paranoia that "America" shows with air travel is pathetic. From big things like this, to little things at security.

You can't take an emery board on the plane, but you can take a pencil. Now, an emery board... well, someone could force you to have your nails done. They are not stiff enough to be uses as a weapon past poking someone's eye. A pencil can be sharpened to a point and easily thrust into someone's neck. But hey... at least they took my toothpaste!

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:49 am

Exactly. If I'd been onboard one of the planes on 9/11, I guarantee I would've found a nice Samsonite suitcase or a serving tray or something to use against the terrorists' freaking box-cutters. To me, a box cutter is not very intimidating, and anything can become a weapon, given proper motivation. Next, they'll outlaw spoons, right? Or newspapers?

I refuse to fly in my own country. Sad, especially since my family dates back oh, 15,000 years or so on this continent.

And the quote you were looking for, shran, is: " He who would sacrifice essential liberties for a measure of temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin.

I couldn't agree more. 200 some-odd years later. Of course, the guy had an IQ of 220 and was way ahead of his time, so...