Oct 22 2008

Large Aircraft Security Program and “Watch-List Service Providers”

Even before the Secure Flight proposal goes into effect (and before there is any experience of whether it can be implemented or how it will work), the TSA is proposing to extend its air travel control and surveillance principles from passenger airlines to general aviation and all-cargo flights.

On October 9, 2008, the TSA issued a press release and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for a so-called “Large Aircraft Security Program” (LASP) for unscheduled and noncommerical flights.  LASP is explicitly modeled on Secure Flight, but with an additional twist: Instead of being required to submit personal information about each passenger to, and receive permisison from, the TSA, operators of “large” general aviation and cargo aircraft will be required to submit this data to, and get permisison from, a new class of private commercial data aggregation companies: “Watch-List Service Providers”.

Read More

Oct 22 2008

TSA won’t give up on “Secure Flight” travel permission and surveillance scheme

The DHS and TSA announced their final rule for the Secure Flight program for the control and surveillance of airline passengers during a photo op today at Reagan National Airport.

We aren’t among the journalists to whom the TSA’s anonymous spin doctors chose to leak their plans.  We’ll have more comments after we have reviewed the complete 195-page regulatory notice in more detail.

But our first reading of the “final rule” released today, as well as recent TSA and DHS comments about Secure Flight, including their press release today and testimony at a Congressional hearing we attended last month, suggest that their plans remain essentially unchanged from the Secure Flight proposal announced last year, and which we urged the TSA to withdraw as illegal in our testimony at the TSA’s public hearing and our more detailed written comments.

The DHS’s current spin on why we should love Big Brother and welcome Secure Flight is that it would reduce the number of people who are improperly prevented from flying or improperly subjected to more intrusive “secondary” search and/or interrogation, by “transferring watchlist matching from the airlines to the government”.

But the solution to the problems with “watchlists” is not to tighten their enforcement, but to replace secret administrative “no-fly” and “selectee” determinations with judicial determinations of dangerousness, made by judges in response to government motions for injunctions or restraining orders, and presentation of evidence sufficient to show that they pose a danger to aviation so great as to warrant restriction of their Constitutional and human rights to freedom of travel, assembly, and movement.  We don’t need to establish a new system of (secret) administrative pseudo-justice.  That’s what the courts are for, and they already have an established system of due process and review, including procedures for dealing safely with classified evidence related to national security. Read More

Oct 21 2008

TSA Expands Electronic Boarding Pass Scanning Program

The Transportation Security Administration is expanding its electronic boarding pass pilot program. This system will make it easier for TSA to be able to gather and track individual travel data. The program began in Houston in December 2007 and added more airports in April. Here’s how the program works, according to TSA:

The electronic boarding pass contains a two-dimensional (2-D) barcode encrypted with specific passenger information, such as the traveler’s name and flight information.

At the checkpoint, passengers present their cell phones or PDA to a TSA travel document checking officer. The officer will scan the encrypted barcode using a handheld device to verify its authenticity. Passengers will still be required to show photo identification so officers can validate that the name on the boarding pass matches the name on the ID.

In fact, why doesn’t TSA take this to the next step? If the agency already knows who has a boarding pass from data sent by the airlines (to verify the pass’s authenticity), then why doesn’t TSA just tell travelers to use our ID cards as our boarding passes? “Save a tree — show your ID.”

TSA is already planning on using the boarding pass scanners nationwide to collect data. “Once the hand-held scanners are deployed nationwide, TSA will also use this technology to track wait times using standardized automated data collected at checkpoints. This development is expected to happen within about a year,” says TSA. Read More

Sep 15 2008

Government Claims Secure Flight Will Save Us From Watchlist Horrors

Once launched, passenger prescreening program Secure Flight will solve the problems of mismatching innocent individuals to the terrorist watchlists, according to government witnesses at a hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security said that Secretary Chertoff has approved Secure Flight. DHS is awaiting approval from the Government Accountability Office before it can implement the passenger prescreening program. The GAO’s review will not be completed until December 10, according to the GAO’s Cathleen Berrick. Currently, the GAO is awaiting DHS estimates for costs and timelines of implementation.

“According to TSA officials, the “initial cutover” or assumption of the watch-list matching function from one or more air carriers for domestic flights is scheduled to begin in January 2009. However, as of July 2008, TSA had not developed detailed plans or time frames for assuming watch-list matching from all air carriers for domestic flights,” Berrick said (pdf).

TSA’s Kip Hawley said Secure Flight will cost the government about $1 billion to implement over 10 years, but he did not have an estimate for how much it will cost the airline industry. However, Berrick said that these numbers were not applicable for the latest iteration of Secure Flight.

In a statement (pdf) submitted for the hearing record, The Identity Project urged the Committee “to scrutinize closely the watchlists, their uses, and the processes of and reasons for the addition of names.” The Identity Project detailed the many problems associated with the watchlists. For example, “a nun, Senator Ted Kennedy, and former presidential candidate John Anderson have all been wrongly deemed suspects. Several innocent individuals have filed lawsuits in order try to stop the harassment they received when they attempt to fly commercially, including a licensed commercial pilot.” Read More

Aug 14 2008

TSA threatens airlines who tell people they’re on watchlists

Let’s see. You’re hassled mercilessly by airline employees, who won’t let you check luggage, won’t let you print a boarding pass, won’t let you check in, and bring cops and airport security people to confront you when you appear to resolve the situation. But under a new plan by TSA, the airline risks a $25,000 fine if they tell you WHY they are hassling you.

USA Today reports that TSA’s upset when airlines explain the hassle by telling people they’re on a TSA watch list. TSA will not tell people when they are on such a list. TSA won’t tell people when they ARE NOT on such a list. They want the airlines to do the same — keep mum, but keep harassing the public.

TSA and the DoJ counterterrorism center twice barred a Malaysian woman from flying, ordered her arrested, kept her in custody for hours, and eventually allowed her to fly out of the US only long enough for them to permanently cancel her US visa without notice, so she could not return to Stanford to finish her PhD. The victim, Rahinah Ibrahim, sued them. Even in court, TSA refuses to confirm or deny whether she was on the watch list. Idiots!

TSA’s lists are secret, just as in all good government institutions. TSA’s regulations are secret, just as in all good government institutions. Let’s hope TSA doesn’t propose new regulations next month with $25,000 fines against web sites or the press if they tell people that secret watch lists exist and that you’re being hassled at the airport because TSA suspects you of being a terrorist without a shred of evidence.

(Of course, airlines have been known to screw up, and they love to blame government regulations when it’s their own damn fault. But despite the airlines’ eagerness to check IDs so that their customers can’t resell unused tickets, it was the government that imposed the current system of harassment, and put 400,000 to 1,000,000 alleged communists — oops, wrong bogeyman, it’s not the 50’s any more — I meant “terrorists” — on these secret blacklists.)

Jul 28 2008

DHS Ignores OMB Government Approval Process on TSA’s Questionnaire Form for Travelers Without ID

Since June 21st, TSA has required all air travelers in the United States to present identification when entering a secure area at airports. Prior to then, a person could simply say they had lost their ID or didn’t want to show it, and they would be subjected to a secondary screening to enter the area. Now you can only get through security if you can convince TSA and their behavioral detection specialists that you lost or forgot your ID and are “cooperative” with their efforts to identify you by means of commercial data. Part of that process involves filling out their Certification of Identity form.

It appears that DHS has ignored the process of procuring an OMB (Office of Management and Budget) number for their new form. The OMB process requires publication of a notice in the Federal Register and the opportunity for public comment whenever the government gathers information from the public. The law clearly states that someone can’t be punished for failing to answer questions on a government form unless the questioning agency has an OMB number associated it. Despite this, TSA’s new Certification of Identity form states that failing to answer the questions may result in your inability to fly. Further, false statements made by travelers when using the form may be punishable by up to five years in prison. DHS is again showing that it doesn’t believe the rule of law applies to them. Read More

Jul 08 2008

TSA “identity verification” procedures

In a series of posts in their blog, the TSA has expanded on its claimed authority for the changes to “ID verification procedures” announced in a press release last month.

Lawmaking by press release exemplifies the evils of “secret law” which the Supreme Court declined to consider in Gilmore v. Gonzalez. The TSA now says that, “Our position is that Gilmore v. Gonzalez affirmed our ability to require ID for transportation via air and the law that formed TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) empowers the TSA to make these decisions.”

In fact:

  1. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Gilmore v. Gonzalez reached its decision without addressing whether it would have been permissible for the airline or the TSA (or anyone else) to require Mr. Gilmore to show evidence of his identity, or to prevent him from travelling if he failed to do so. The court found that, as of that time and in that particular case, Mr. Gilmore could have flown without showing ID. Read More
Jun 24 2008

First Reports Of What It’s Like Flying Without ID Arrive

Travelers who willingly refuse to show ID to the Transportation Security Administration are now barred from flying. The new rule went into effect over the weekend. Now, in order to board the plane after forgetting one’s driver’s license, it seems you have to answer questions about your political party affiliation and previous addresses. TSA’s press release said that “cooperative passengers” without ID may be subjected to additional screening protocols, including enhanced physical screening, enhanced carry-on and/or checked baggage screening, interviews with behavior detection or law enforcement officers and other measures. It turns out that “and other measures” include questions about political party affiliation and other questionable invasions of privacy, according to an article that appeared on Consumerist.

Finally satisfied that I didn’t have ID, Laurie took my boarding pass and went away. She came back a few minutes later having photocopied it, and also had an affidavit that she requested I sign. It asked for my name and address, and stated in small print at the bottom that I did not have to fill it out, but if I didn’t I couldn’t fly. It also said that if I choose to fill it out and then provided false info, I would be in violation of federal law.

After filling out the affidavit, Laurie called a service to verify my address. The service needed me to then correctly answer three questions about myself, which Laurie relayed to me. The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was “You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?” I got all three right, and only then did Laurie clear me to go through security.

As there is no published law governing what conditions the TSA has now placed upon individuals who have the temerity to travel without ID, only by reports such as these will we be able to ascertain what’s playing on the screen today at our nation’s security theater. The cost of admission is but your civil liberty and common sense. Contact us with your story.

Jun 23 2008

TSA Changes Airport ID Requirement; ID-Less Could Be Denied Right to Fly

The Transportation Security Administration has changed its airport ID requirement. These changes allow the agency to deny the right to fly to individuals who “willfully refuse” to present government-issued identification at an airport security checkpoint. The TSA’s press release, which is how we learn about changes in the law, now reads in part as follows:

Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.

This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers. Cooperative passengers without ID may be subjected to additional screening protocols, including enhanced physical screening, enhanced carry-on and/or checked baggage screening, interviews with behavior detection or law enforcement officers and other measures.

In Gilmore v. Gonzales (Gilmore was represented by The Identity Project Director James Harrison), we learned that the pre-June 21, 2008 policy allowed individuals who willfully refused to present government-issued identification to fly if they submitted to extra security screening. This new regulation is a substantial change that was made without public review through the usual Federal Register notice and comment process. Read More