Myth Buster: TSA's Watch List is More Than One Million People Strong
MYTH: TSA's watch list has more than 1 million names on it.
BUSTER: First, TSA doesn't have a watch list. TSA is a customer of the Terrorist Screening Center, a component of the FBI that is responsible for maintaining the consolidated terrorist watch list. The center has said publicly that there are less than 400,000 individuals on the overall consolidated watch list, 95 percent of whom are not U.S. persons and the vast majority of whom are not even in the U.S.
TSA uses two subsets of this list, the no-fly and selectee lists. These small subsets of the overall list are reserved for known or suspected terrorists that reach a threshold where they should not be allowed to fly, or should get additional scrutiny.
MYTH: There are 1 million names on U.S. Government terror watch lists.
BUSTER: There are less than 400,000 individuals on the consolidated terrorist watch list and less than 50,000 individuals on the no-fly and selectee lists. Individuals on the no-fly and selectee lists are identified by law enforcement and intelligence partners as legitimate threats to transportation requiring either additional screening or prohibition from boarding an aircraft.
MYTH: The ACLU's math estimates that there will be 1 million people on government watch lists this July.
BUSTER: Assumptions about the list are just plain wrong. While a September 2007 report may have said that there are 700,000 records on the terrorist watch list and it was growing by an average of 20,000 per month, that is not the same as the number of individuals on the watch lists. A new "record" is created for every alias, date-of-birth, passport and other identifying information for watch listed suspects. The ACLU does not account for the name-by-name scrub that took place in the Fall of 2007 by all government agencies involved with the lists through the Terrorist Screening Center. This review reduced the no-fly and selectee lists by almost 50 percent and eliminated records of individuals that no longer pose a threat.
MYTH: Ted Kennedy, Catherine Stevens, and "Robert Johnson" are all on the no-fly or selectee watch lists.
BUSTER: These individuals are NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists. They, and other Americans, are being misidentified as individuals on the selectee list. Today watch list matching is carried out by the airlines for every passenger manifest. In cases when individuals with similar names are misidentified, folks experience inconvenience like no remote check-in but they are allowed to fly. Once TSA's Secure Flight initiative is in place the number of misidentifications will be GREATLY reduced. Under Secure Flight, TSA assumes watch list matching from dozens of airlines and implements a uniform, efficient matching process. Today the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a single point of contact for individuals who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding difficulties they experienced during their travel screening at transportation hubs--like airports and train stations--or crossing U.S. borders.
FACTS ABOUT TERROR WATCH LISTS:
- Terror watch lists keep legitimate terror threats off of airplanes every day, all over the world.
- According to the Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, terror watch lists have, "helped combat terrorism" and "enhanced U.S. counterterrorism effort."
- Our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities work tirelessly and in some cases under great physical danger to identify individuals that pose a terror threat. The simple truth is that it would be negligent to not use this information to our advantage.
Christopher
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission, myth busters
posted by Bob at
3:46 PM
136 Comments:
Is this a blog or your new place to post press releases?
July 14, 2008 4:01 PM
When I was in the service we controlled sensitive but unclassified data for reasons of Operational Security, or OPSEC. Basically, seemingly innocent data could be used by an enemy. So, I can understand TSA withholding names actually on the lists. However, I can't understand why are the exact numbers on the No Fly and Selectee lists sensitive info. How is the exact number in any way too dangerous to release? What could any potential enemy do with that number? OPSEC isn't supposed to be a blanket excuse for withholding data, there has to be a legitimate vulnerability that could be exploited if the information is released. Please provide specific reasons why the exact number should be considered sensitive data. Especially since you already give a ballpark figure.
July 14, 2008 4:14 PM
If you were serious about ID security, you wouldn't trust the potential terrorists to print boarding passes for you.
Why don't the airline companies trust you to check the IDs against the watch list? Are they afraid you'd reject too many of their customers?
July 14, 2008 4:18 PM
All the various lists, watch list, no-fly list, whatever list it is, will forever have misinformation and fear spread around, until clear, truthful information and not vague numbers are released.
As anonymous #2 said, it makes no sense to withhold things such as the exact numbers, but we don't know much about it. If there is a reason, then say it and put the rumors and fud to rest.
July 14, 2008 4:25 PM
You should link to real sources to support your "mythbusting".
If we are to trust what people post on blogs, we might believe that "The preparation of [liquid] bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite." -- here
July 14, 2008 4:27 PM
Sorry, TSA, but let's provide Americans with more facts, and less lies!
Copied and Pasted from EFF.org, originally posted October, 2007:
EFF Comments on Terror Watch List
Since 2003, the government has been building, testing and using the Terrorist Screening Database, stitching together several disparate terrorist lists from various agencies into one vast, centralized database that is a single consolidated watch list of suspicious individuals. Information in the TSDB can be used to decide whether individuals will be allowed to enter the country, get on an airplane, become citizens, or if they will be detained at routine traffic stops. It?s a central factor in other programs, like Secure Flight, the Transportation Security Administration?s proposed plan to ?screen? millions of travelers.
This week, EFF filed comments on some proposed changes to the Terrorist Screening Records System, which includes the watch list as well as other records. EFF urged the FBI to reconsider its 2005 decision to exempt the TSRS from crucial Privacy Act requirements, which makes it impossible for citizens to use the courts to access or challenge false or inaccurate data that may have found its way into the system. (In place of Privacy Act provisions, the FBI substitutes its own complaint system ? which follows no timelines and has no independent oversight or accountability.)
False and inaccurate data is a well-documented problem for the TSRS. For instance, in 2005, the Department of Justice?s own inspector general found that the watch list had major data accuracy flaws. And last month, the DOJ?s IG again issued a damning assessment of the system, finding that it had a substantial error rate, suffered from incomplete and inaccurate information, and noting that the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which runs the list, was slow to respond to citizen complaints.
In a sample of 105 records, 38 percent were found to have inconsistencies and inaccurate information. Even more disturbing is the fact that, as the Washington Post notes, ?nearly half the initial name matches proved worthless.? And the TSC?s slow response time means that innocent travelers who happen to find themselves caught in that margin of error would have to wait months to have problems addressed.
The problems with the watch list show that the Privacy Act is as necessary now as ever. Citizens must have an enforceable right to access data collected about them, and to correct that data. And if watch lists are going to be compiled, the TSC needs to have reliable systems in place to assure accuracy and completeness of information. Without these reforms, problems with misidentification and wrongful inclusion on the watch list are likely to continue.
END of article.
Here are some links:
Original article:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-comments-terror-watch-list
Review of the Terrorist Screening Center:
Chapter 7: Database Accuracy and Completeness:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0527/chapter7.htm
Audit of Terrorist Screening Center:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0741/final.pdf (PDF Link)
Washington Post: Terrorism Watch List Is Faulted For Errors:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601386.html
Yikes! This doesn't sound good. Kinda makes you wonder why the TSA is WASTING taxpayer money on this failed program. (Well, the TSA in general is a failure, but one issue at a time, please!)
July 14, 2008 4:37 PM
So whether it is names or individuals or records or people on "the list" depends on the particular "myth" you want to debunk.
The respected individual person "Ted Kennedy" isn't on the list, but there might be several do-badders with alias records that match "Ted Kennedy", it's all a just a "misidentification".
This post is about as clear as mud in answering the question of how many individuals would have their name matched with "the list".
How many of the 2,000,000+ passengers per day match?
July 14, 2008 4:44 PM
The TSA seems to be operating on security through obscurity with a little security theater thrown in to fool the masses. Security through obscurity doesn't work. Period. The list can be probe. If Mr. Terrorist's cousin can fly with no hassle because he's not on the no-fly or selectee list, then Mr. Terrorist knows of one name not on the list, and that's all Mr. Terrorist needs. Because of family ties, Mr. Terrorist probably looks enough like his cousin to use his ID. Mr. Terrorist is trained as well as a BDO and believes in what he's doing, so Mr. BDO doesn't notice anything suspicious, and neither does Mr. TSO. Mr. Terrorist is now on the plane. But wait! Mr. TSO did his job, and screened Mr. Terrorist well. Mr. Terrorist has no dangerous items in the plane. Not even that 5oz bottle of shampoo he bought just for this trip. So it doesn't really matter that Mr. Terrorist flew from NY to LA, now does it?
July 14, 2008 4:50 PM
That's interesting information. It's good to know TSA doesn't have a grudge against 1 million passengers.
July 14, 2008 4:56 PM
Is your graphic showing that of the 2,000,000 passengers per day, 40,000 of them are on the selectee list, and some small fraction of them are on the no-fly list?
Is that because we don't yet have REAL ID? Or because of your imperfect detection rates? Or is it just a shiny graphic that doesn't mean what it says?
July 14, 2008 4:57 PM
What makes someone who declines to show ID, but is willing to cooperate with your invasive interrogations, too dangerous to fly?
What is the difference between someone who declines to show ID and someone who lost their ID, if both are willing to cooperate with your invasive interrogations?
If you cannot answer these questions, how can you claim with a straight face that you are not, contrary to your attempts to say otherwise, targeting anyone who declines to show ID?
Why are 10 people a day who decline to show ID such a threat that they cannot be permitted to fly?
How much money does the new regime of invasive interrogations cost the taxpayer, compared to the previous policy of giving those who cannot or decline to show ID a pat-down and bag-check?
Why have you repeatedly refused to answer these questions? What are you afraid of?
July 14, 2008 5:00 PM
I'm not sure that I can believe any of your statistics when the first one you cite is incorrect: "Two Million People Travel Every Day."
First, two million are not unique passengers. If a passenger has to connect once or twice on the way to reach his final destination, then that passenger is counted twice (or three) times to get to the 2 million number. So no, two million people don't travel every day.
Second, a half-truth exists in that statistic and the reason for its use in your chart. If a person is connecting, their name will be run only once through the database and more likely than not, will only be screened once on their multi-leg trip. So that 2 million number is too high for the purposes for which you are using it.
You can check with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics to verify the foregoing. And this is not the first time I have raised the fallacy of that 2 million number, but you have conveniently ignored it.
July 14, 2008 5:03 PM
Christopher, you've cited exactly zero sources in support of your claims. Are we to believe it is so simply based on your word?
Why are people whose names are included on blacklists your organization uses considered so dangerous that we should restrict their freedom to travel from one state to another by barring them from using commercial airlines or hassling them more than other travelers, but not dangerous enough to charge them with a crime?
Would you really have us go along with a policy that restricts people's liberty based on government blacklists?
July 14, 2008 5:11 PM
While the list seems like a great way of stopping terrorists from boarding planes, in a game of cat and mouse it seems like it would be quite ineffective. After all, the media tells the public they have massive amounts of funding. Knowing they have the money, it seems that they could pay to create new identities, causing the list to be ineffective. I know there is a new ID system proposed, but until then do we have multilayer protection against fake identifications?
July 14, 2008 5:14 PM
First of all, thanks to Brandon for posting links to the reports -- especially the Justice IG report. When I get a few minutes, I will look at the GAO report Christopher so proudly quotes. I will expose just how out of context those words are.
Christopher -- I'll bet your post is in reaction to the worldwide heat you're now getting from the former Assistant Attorney General who is on the list -- complete with his recently-renewed TS clearance.
Since you hoped we'd forget, I'll remind the public about the 60 minutes report in which they explored this very issue. There was even a series of interviews with the woman who was the head of the Terrorist Screening Center. I remember some interesting facts that she herself confirmed:
1. There are dead people on the list;
2. The 9/11 hijackers are STILL on the list;
3. Real known terrorists' names are too sensitive to put on the list at all.
Oh yeah -- The guy who had this former DOJ guy's job before him was none other than Comrade Chertoff.
You and your agency are beyond the worst definition of incompetent.
July 14, 2008 5:24 PM
Unanswered questions, unfulfilled requests & promises, etc., from other TSA blog posts include:
1. Where is the information from a TSA SSI expert about x-ray images of Apple's latest laptop computer Bob wrote that he would provide?
2. Where are the un-doctored full frontal images created by the electronic strip search machines?
3. Where is the Privacy Impact Assessment for the new form that TSA provides to people who claim to be unable to present credentials at TSA airport checkpoints?
4. In the context of ensuring air travel safety, what is the difference between two people, both of whom are willing to cooperate with TSA's invasive interrogations, one of whom politely declines to show ID, the other of whom claims he lost or misplaced his ID?
5. Why are the reported 10 people per day who decline to show ID considered so likely to be a threat to air travel security that TSA restricted their right to travel by refusing to allow them past TSA's airport checkpoints?
6. How does the cost of this new policy of invasive interrogations at government checkpoints in airports compare to that of to the previous policy of thoroughly screening anyone who did not show ID regardless of his reasoning?
7. TSA cites 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 and 1540.105(a)(2) as the law giving them authority to demand identification as a condition of granting access to a sterile area of an airport. 49 C.F.R § 1540.5 appears to limit such passenger screenings to searches for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries as the only requirement for granting access to the sterile area. How does TSA reconcile this conflict?
July 14, 2008 5:26 PM
Why on earth should any citizen trust an agency that tells us 3.41 ounces of any liquid can bring down a 747, that refuses to explain the change in its ID policies, that interrogates citizens about their political affiliations and tax returns for no reason whatsoever, and that still doesn't screen all of the cargo that goes on planes?
July 14, 2008 5:30 PM
Former DOJ Prosecutor Jim Robinson IS on the list.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_watchlist
Brilliant! Apparently the "no-fly" or "extra hassle" lists are just as effective at deterring terrorists as is your inance "shoe dance" policy (which, by the way, makes us the laughing stock of the rest of the civilized world which stopped the shoe nonsense YEARS AGO)
July 14, 2008 5:42 PM
In principle, I would be in favor of watch lists. This would be a real, low cost, security measure that does not bother most people, except for a few small details:
1. The list is ways too big. 400,000 individuals on the consolidated terrorist watch list is way too much, and makes it impossible not to have name confusions. Remember, the list sources are so crazy they included even Nobel prize winner 90-year-old Nelson Mandela.
2. The watch lists are checked by airlines, who then give people their boarding pass (marked SSSS if you match the list) and let the person roam freely around until they voluntarily go through security, which does not check the list.
3. I am one of the watch list victims. My name cannot possibly be confused with anyone else (long complicated eastern European name). I know I am not remotely related to any terrorist activity. Therefore, I know the list is flawed.
July 14, 2008 5:43 PM
Andrew wrote:
"the list seems like a great way of stopping terrorists from boarding planes"
Do you really think so?
Who are these people whose names are on the DHS blacklists? Apparently, they're not dangerous enough to charge with a crime, or we would do so rather than simply hassling them at airports before letting them travel or turning them away. If they are outside the United States, then of what use is this list in restricting access to domestic flights? If they are inside the United States, why are we restricting their liberties without any due process of law? If they are so dangerous that we must restrict their movement, should we not arrest them and then let a judge or jury determine whether they should be imprisoned or placed under house arrest?
It is not the duty of the TSA or any other part of the Executive Branch to judge guilt and impose punishment. Those are reserved for the Judicial Branch. However, that is precisely what the TSA is doing. Those people whose names are on government blacklists are punished without ever having a trial, without any chance to face their accuser, and with no chance defend themselves.
Paraphrasing the words of The Identity Project on their "What's Wrong with Showing ID" page:
No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
Patriotic Americans should resist this un-American practice.
July 14, 2008 5:43 PM
Susan Ito of ACLU wrote:
"Today in Washington, D.C., the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program (TLP) marked the addition of the 1,000,000th name to the FBI-run Terrorist Screening Center’s terrorist watch list. One…million…names. OMG.
"Highly suspicious characters such as Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) are on the watch list. So are the notorious Gary Smith and Robert Johnson. What? You’ve never heard of Gary Smith or Robert Johnson? They’re so dangerous that countless of iterations of them are stopped at airports all the time, all because they’ve got really common names.
"TLP Director Barry Steinhardt tells us why 1 million names on a watch list is as good as nothing on Daily Kos, and proposes some common-sense solutions. Chief among them: giving non-terrorists who are on the list a way of getting off the list. Right now, it takes an act of Congress to get your name off the list. Given how quickly and expeditiously Congress works, you can expect a wrong name to come off the list roughly around the same time that hell freezes over. (Congress did manage to get Nelson Mandela removed from the list.)
"So if Senator "E. Kennedy", an actual member of Congress, can’t get his name off the list, well, good luck to ya!"
July 14, 2008 5:53 PM
Kacie Wielgus of ACLU wrote:
"More than one million names are now on the terrorist watch list. This is truly mind-boggling. Only the United States government bureaucracy could create a terrorist watch list that affects nuns, war heroes, members of Congress, and persons holding top secret security clearances.
"Congress spit on this five-alarm blaze by removing Nelson Mandela from the list. What is it going to take for Congress to extinguish this horrific blaze which provides no redress for millions of travelers to be removed from the list who do not have the global presence to ‘merit’ an act of Congress?
"Today, the ACLU called on the administration and Congress to pass legislation requiring the terrorist watch list to ensure those on the list pose a real threat to national security and to create a process for persons on the list to be removed. These are common sense solutions. Unfortunately, it seems that common sense is not a strong suit of this administration or Congress.
"If you have had an experience with the watch list, tell us about it with this form."
July 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Sorry, Christopher, but your claim re: Senator Kennedy is pure BS. If he weren't busy having chemo & radiation for his brain tumor, I'm sure he'd be happy to share w/the readers of this blog, AS HE HAS ALREADY DONE IN SENATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, his personal experience w/your agency & 'the list', along w/his frustration at how long, even w/the resources available to him IN THE SENATE, it took him to get the matter resolved.
July 14, 2008 6:51 PM
TSA owes an apology to every single American who has been denied a boarding pass, detained and questioned by law enforcement, humiliated at a checkin counter, missed a flight, or been delayed so much as 10 minutes by the un-American no-fly list.
It is inconsistent with American values to have a secret blacklist of names of people who are denied rights with no due process and no effective means of redress. Your "redress" process is a joke that usually has no impact at all, and you denied even the existence of a no-fly list until the media aggregated reports from various David Nelsons.
I don't care if the TSC, the TSA, or Santa Claus made the blacklist. It is un-American and disgusting, and TSA enforces it with their ID checks and forces it upon the airlines. Every single TSA leader and architect of the no-fly list should be put on trial for treason and imprisoned for life. Every single implementer of the no-fly list should be barred from public service for life, stripped of their pension, and named in the press.
Why couldn't you cut out the PR crap for a few seconds and at least apologize to the tens of thousands of innocent no-fly-list victims in your post? You owe them at least that much.
July 14, 2008 7:29 PM
"MYTH: Ted Kennedy, Catherine Stevens, and "Robert Johnson" are all on the no-fly or selectee watch lists.
BUSTER: These individuals are NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists. They, and other Americans, are being misidentified as individuals on the selectee list."
Is that supposed to make them feel better?
"We don't think you're actually a terrorist, we're just misidentifying you as one."
Well, that's reassuring. We know we're misidentifying thousands of people as terrorists... we just can't do anything about it.
This blog showed promise early on... now it's just a source of TSA press releases and pats on the back. The comments are the only thing worth reading. Too bad.
Please, please, please try a little more candor and a whole lot less PR bull***t when composing blog entries. You'll find it goes a long way.
Also, can you please address the butter knife absurdity? Why can't I bring something on board if there are already dozens of those same items handed out to passengers on the flight?
July 14, 2008 8:57 PM
As mentioned in several other posts, no, I haven't heard of Robert Johnson. :D
Seriously, though, how many people out there with names such as mine, travel every day? There might be 400k names on the list (if TSA's numbers are to be believed) and 40-50k on the haraSSSSment list, but how many of those names are multiple hits? If 5 Robert Johnsons check in to fly that day, there's only one name on the list but 5 Robert Johnsons are harassed.
Thus I despise TSA's misrepresentation of this number.
Even if TSA's numbers are to be believed, it's saying that, not including multiple hits, that up to 20% to 25% of travelers can be harassed every day. Is that much of America really a threat? Guess TSA thinks so ...
Robert
July 14, 2008 9:17 PM
MYTH: Ted Kennedy, Catherine Stevens, and "Robert Johnson" are all on the no-fly or selectee watch lists.
BUSTER: These individuals are NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists.
...........................
Pretty bold statement Christopher.
Prove it with some verifiable evidence.
Come on Christopher, put up or shut up!
July 14, 2008 9:32 PM
I think part of what really makes people upset about these lists is the
extreme secrecy. When you are on one of these, it feels like you have
been accused of some crime, or at least misbehavior, but you have no
idea what you did and no way to truly clear your name.
In late 2006, I found myself on one of these lists or a partial match
for some name on one of these lists -- I'll never know exactly what
happened, of course. The first time I was unable to check in normally
and had to wait in a 45-minute line so that a "special" ticketing agent
could glance at my license and ask my birthdate, I had no idea what was
going on. The second time, I was given slightly more information and
told to use my middle name on my tickets to avoid matching (no idea if
that actually helps or not). It was some 8 months and several flights
later that I finally heard about DHS TRIP -- and not from any one of
the airline agents that I asked for help, but from Bruce Schneier's blog.
I filled out the DHS TRIP form, and later received a letter saying,
essentially, "If anything needed to be changed, it was changed," and
giving instructions on how to appeal this (lack of) decision. For all
I knew, they decided I was a problem, and I wouldn't be allowed to fly
next time -- with no advance notice, of course.
I went back and forth on what to do, and finally decided I should try
to appeal. I called up to ask about it, and the agent asked me to read
the first paragraph of the letter I was sent. It turned out this was
the letter they send to people who were cleared. I haven't had problems
since, but I have no idea if that is a coincidence or not, since I now
make sure that I always sign up for frequent flier programs so they have
my full name and birthdate (which seemed to help before I signed up for
DHS TRIP, though that could be a coincidence too, of course).
This whole time was rather stressful. I travel a lot for work, and if
I was suddenly unable to fly, I was probably going to have to relocate
or quit my job. Of course, now I'm pretty sure that was never a real
possiblity, but I didn't know that at the time. No one would tell
me anything -- even though apparently I wasn't the person they were
looking for.
I understand there is some need for secrecy, but I don't understand the
need to keep people in the dark about their status and how to correct it.
July 14, 2008 9:50 PM
They owe an apology to all of us not just the ones who have been hastled. Remember not only are these policies absurd and useless, they are completely 100% funded by your tax dollars.
I have never seen a group of people as shockingly inept as the upper management of this idiotic organization. People on here say things about security theater and security through obscurity well its really neither...theres more science in a divining rod than in your security procedures.
The reason they don't justify anything is because they put maybe 20 minutes of thought into 90% of the things they do. More thought goes into the 'justification' than the actual policy, but its not a real justification its just fear mongering.
Logically though, everyone who works for the TSA should be on the selectee list, they would know exactly how to get through the layers of false security. See how well that flies...it might at least show your committed to what you say
July 14, 2008 10:06 PM
HA! Look what Threat Level is reporting on today:
Former DoJ Official Caught on Terror Watchlist
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/former-doj-pros.html
From the article:
"If a former assistant U.S. attorney general has trouble getting his name off the government's terrorist watchlist, there's little hope the rest of us can succeed in doing so.
...
"I suppose if I were convinced that America is a safer place because I get hassled at the airport, I might put up with it," [Jim Robinson, former head of the Justice Department's criminal division] said. "But I doubt it."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/former-doj-pros.html
July 14, 2008 10:15 PM
Don't you guys get it? This is another PR wordgame.
"BUSTER: These individuals are NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists. They, and other Americans, are being misidentified as individuals on the selectee list."
What a load of manure you are spreading Christopher. I bet you were a handful growing up.
True Sen. Kennedy and the others you mentioned are NOT on the list, the problem is they are not OFF the list either.
If a so called no-fly or selectee, is on the list and MY NAME matches, then I am ON the list.
This would be similar to putting out a BOLO for a black male with no other descriptors. Would that give a police officer the right to harass every black male in their path? Of course not, but that is what the TSA is doing with the list.
Don't you think you would get a better reception is you get out of spin mode and go into truth mode for a change?
Try explaining that airline tickets are purchased without any descriptors except for a name. The last time I bought tickets they did not ask my weight, age, height or even sex.
Try telling the people that if their name is Teddy Kennedy they will get a ssss because some Teddy Kennedy somewhere has done something to make you suspicious. Apologize to the innocent Teddy Kennedys for the extra intrusion into their lives. (Wal~Mart gift cards would be nice)
The TSA is becoming an uninvited drunken party guest, it keeps babbling that it is right while it pukes on the house plants. I don’t care how right you are I am getting tired of seeing you puke.
BTW still waiting on that pesky question about the legalities of the forced ID verification. The question is not going away, tell your lawyers to dust off their law books and figure it out. Your bosses are waiting.
July 15, 2008 1:24 AM
What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
Already/still happening. I was put on the no-fly list as punishment for political activities protected under the first amendment. Even after the August 2007 "purge" I still can't fly common carrier.
This isn't about stopping terrorists, this is about controlling the population. Always has been, always will. And by the time the government is forced to create the airplane version of AMTRAK, it will be too late.
July 15, 2008 3:28 AM
I think Jen summed it up perfectly: "I think part of what really makes people upset about these lists is the
extreme secrecy. When you are on one of these, it feels like you have
been accused of some crime, or at least misbehavior, but you have no
idea what you did and no way to truly clear your name."
We are being considered guilty until proven innocent, and there is nothing we can do about it!
July 15, 2008 4:39 AM
"It is inconsistent with American values to have a secret blacklist of names of people who are denied rights with no due process and no effective means of redress."
Welcome to neoAmerica comrade.
May I see your papers, please.
July 15, 2008 5:38 AM
If people are "too dangerous" to allow them to board an airplane, why are they still walking around? Why aren't they sitting in jail?
July 15, 2008 8:16 AM
The no-fly list is a perfect example of lazy thinking - instead of doing the actual work of developing contacts, chasing leads, and making good arrests, the national security state is making up huge lists, hoping to catch one terrorist by pestering a million people. At the tail end of this chain of nonsense is the TSA, who have so little leeway in their actions that they dare not decide for themselves that a small child whose name is on the list is not a threat to airline travel.
Believe it or not, there are some things that are worse than being blown up - and one of those is to live your life in such sheep-like fear that you can accept this kind of stupidity as normal.
I don't blame the 'officers' of the TSA - they have no choice other than to follow orders from their 'superiors' (and I do use that term loosely. On the other hand, TSA supervisors seem to be hiring a lot of people who like their uniforms, badges, and the tiny authority it gives them just a little too much.
July 15, 2008 10:21 AM
Excerpted from FT, a poster relating his recent transit of a checkpoint in Atlanta:
"...'Look, I have no problem with you doing your job, provided you follow the SOP. The SOP says that the bag stays in my sight, so I want it to stay in my sight.'... The supervisor said, "'SOP' stands for 'Standard Operating Procedure.' If you've seen the actual SOP we have a problem. Our SOP is a national intelligence secret. Have you ever seen it?" I didn't laugh. . . really . . . "
The above abominable statement by a TSA supervisor in Atlanta is representative of the TSA as a whole.
July 15, 2008 10:44 AM
It occurs to me that you could prove everything you're saying, assuming it's true, if you'd make the list public. If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have any problems making the list public. What are you afraid of?
July 15, 2008 10:53 AM
Fact: Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela was on the watch list until a few weeks ago. It took and act of Congress and a presidential signature to get him removed.
Fact: There is no transparency about who is on the list or how they get added. With no oversight, the list could be abused by those in power to harass political opponents.
Fact: Being misidentified as on the selectee list is just as troublesome as actually being on it. No more (if you're a terrorist) and no less (if you're a regular passenger).
Dubious claim: "Terror watch lists keep legitimate terror threats off of airplanes every day, all over the world."
Prove it.
July 15, 2008 11:11 AM
you are idiots, and here's why: Posts like this demonstrate the lack of analytical skill in TSA management.
July 15, 2008 11:20 AM
Your public relations departmet is quite busy cranking this stuff out.
Are they hiring?
July 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Here's another myth needing busting:
TSA protects the flying public from terrorists.
July 15, 2008 12:02 PM
Veritas is not found here.
You tell us that people are not on the list: just their _names_ are on the list.
You bring up 1,000,000 names then switch it to less than 400,000 people.
Please cite where, as you state, the ACLU's math estimates that there will be 1 million people on government watch lists this July.
I can only find where the ACLU says it estimates that there are that many names on the list.
You really don't care about credibility, do you?
We have this post.
We have the false statement that all states are cooperating with Real ID.
We have other posts that have had untrue statements.
Please stop treating us like that.
Please stop insulting us and demeaning yourselves.
Please stop making statements to us that are obviously untrue.
kthxbi
July 15, 2008 12:57 PM
Already/still happening. I was put on the no-fly list as punishment for political activities protected under the first amendment. Even after the August 2007 "purge" I still can't fly common carrier.
Umm...sure. Right. Somehow, I can't buy this from an anon poster. Do the black helicopters keep tabs on your movements, too?
July 15, 2008 1:03 PM
"MYTH: Ted Kennedy, Catherine Stevens, and "Robert Johnson" are all on the no-fly or selectee watch lists.
BUSTER: These individuals are NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists. They, and other Americans, are being misidentified as individuals on the selectee list."
And The Oddsey wasn't written by Homer, but by another ancient Greek with the same name...
It is not that Senator Theodore Kennedy is on the list, but that another Ted Kennedy's name is on the list, and anyone with a similar name is harassed.
This means for every single "Robert Johnson" on the list, thousands of other "Robert Johnson" folks are being harassed.
There are even some simple and obvious partial fixes to stopping some of those folks in error: If the "Robert Johnson" on the list is 40-50 years old, don't stop the three year old kid, etc.
In other words, for any such list to work, some modicom of intelligence must be used in it's application.
BUT, that still leaves us with the wholly un-American activity of blacklisting citizens on a super-secret list and denying them perfectly normal activities, just because some un-named government bureaucrat decided to single them out with no due process and no easy way to "clear" themselves from the list or get redress for being harassed by the government for the horrific crime of having a name similar to one that some faceless person in the government doesn't like.
Those bureaucrats honestly sound like the domestic enemies of the Constitution that I took a solemn oath to protect against so many years ago.
Even just thinking about this angers me...
July 15, 2008 5:52 PM
I would just like to let you know that I have successfully traveled using my sister's ID to avoid haraSSSSment because I somehow seem to have gotten onto your unending list. I am no terrorist, just really fed up with the hassle. In fact, you have forced me to break the law, probably for the first time in my life. Thank you TSA. You are stupid, and that is why.
July 15, 2008 6:53 PM
Keith said "people who like their uniforms, badges, and the tiny authority it gives them just a little too much."
You're right, Keith. Readers should do a search for the terms sublimation (psychological, not chemical) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder. The results of that search will perfectly describe a screener's personality.
On another topic, anonymous, quoting a TSA supervisor in Atlanta, wrote: "Our SOP is a national intelligence secret."
You, the TSA, need to find this person and give him a great deal of retraining. What an idiot!
July 15, 2008 7:40 PM
How can you keep a straight face while you are writing this? Do you believe what you write, or are you just doing as you are told?
The whole Homeland Security is bringing this country down with "a terrorist behind every bush" (no pun intended) mentality.
Also, please when stating something to be a fact, include your source. It would go a long way. Thanks
July 15, 2008 7:58 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "It occurs to me that you could prove everything you're saying, assuming it's true, if you'd make the list public. If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have any problems making the list public. What are you afraid of?"
To paraphrase a TSO in another recent thread: refusing to identify yourself (or provide solid justification for policies, etc) means that you have something to hide and is suspect behavior.
July 15, 2008 8:04 PM
Quote from anonymous: "Umm...sure. Right. Somehow, I can't buy this from an anon poster. Do the black helicopters keep tabs on your movements, too?"
If posting anonymously is a hindrance to credibility, then why did you post anonymously?
July 15, 2008 8:07 PM
With the possible exception of Australia, the English speaking world has gone balmy. (Australia is trying to regain its sanity.) Try going to Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan and see how professional the people in their airports are. No secret lists, no bullying, no petty cruelty. No confiscation of electronic equipment.
And now TSA's management is paranoid about employees that snitch.
tsk, tsk.
July 15, 2008 8:18 PM
I just saw the CNN report "Flying Fiasco"; this issue has the attention of the mainstream media, not just us left field radical bloggers. Pay attention to that.
There are two issues I have here:
1) There is still no means to stop a terrorist with a fake ID (or even a 'real' ID obtained using fraudulent documentation) from bypassing your "no fly" list.
2) Many of the terrorists you're looking for aren't likely to appear on any "list" maintained by anyone, providing this false sense of security. New terrorists are trained all the time, and suicide bombers, for example, aren't terrorists yet until they plot an attack. So unless you have this predicting the future stuff down to a science like in the movie Minority Report, how do you know who you're looking for? Besides, the government has a hard enough time tracking down it's own employees and veterans!
July 15, 2008 8:59 PM
Does this remind anyone else of Senator McCarthy? 'I Hhold in my hand a list of 400,000 terrorists but its to secret for you to see". Everytime I hear the words TSA and intelligence in the same post I kinda laugh.
My fiance (Margaret Anderson) was on the slectee list for a long time. We figured out though that printing the boarding pass at home usually resulted in no SSSS while getting it at the airport did. FANTASTIC GUYS!
I'm sure I'll get all these 'oh I don't believe you posts' well I can easily scan and provide two boarding passes for the same flight one with and one without SSSS (haven't been photoshopped either), but I won't until I see some semblance of proof from the TSA bloggers on anythign they post
July 15, 2008 9:53 PM
Hmmm, let me try this new game. I say that two plus two equals fish, why because I said so. With no sources to back up these claims they are about as believable as mine. I'll take the ACLU over the TSA any day of the week. They've been around a lot longer.
At least Christopher tried not to inject any humor like the ID thread.
July 15, 2008 10:44 PM
You know, who cares if "your name is on the list" or if "your name is on similar to ones on the list"? Either way you're screwed, and the redress TSA promises doesn't work as anecdote after anecdote points out.
If you punish the TSA and DHS employees who are not cleaning up these obvious mistakes you get results (hint: personal responsibility, like jail time and financial liability are the only way to force accountability in a bureaucracy like DHS).
Otherwise you just get whining about "no, the list isn't that big! but we can't show you the list so just take our word for it! we're so trustable, we'd never get it wrong! forget about all the times we did"
yeah, right, TSA. Stop pretending and come clean. If you can claim state secrets everytime somebody could expose your mistakes, nobody will ever trust you.
In street talk, posing never builds cred.
July 16, 2008 1:00 AM
But I bet that blueberry chutney is the on the list:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/travellog/2008/07/rant_drop_the_chutney.html
July 16, 2008 1:02 AM
Love the lies. "it's only 400000 people AND aliases" -- what normal people call NAMES. Spin is no substitute for reality. If you TSA people had any self respect you'd resign rather than work for such a monster of an organization.
Don't worry TSA guys, you'll be pariahs, like the folks who lobbied for big tobacco, or collaborated with the germans in WWII. And don't worry, we won't forget.
July 16, 2008 1:15 AM
Nelson Mandela was the leader of the ANC which is a communist rebel group. Yes I know that many Americans think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread but we were in a cold war against communism with real wars in Vietnam and other wars we meddled in not all that long ago folks. If you knew your history understanding Nelson Mandela being on such a list isn't that difficult. Yes he's no threat to us now. But times have changed since the cold war.
Also, since he came to the US quite a few times I'm pretty sure he wasn't on the No-Fly list that the TSA has. Unless of course he never flew commercially so it wouldn't matter.
July 16, 2008 8:45 AM
Somebody Else Just Got Added To The List
Christopher -- better yet -- Assistant Secretary Hawley,
Care to comment on this item from CNN last night (text from a posting on Flyertalk.com):
"The CNN reporter (Drew Griffin) who broke the FAM story stated tonight during the broadcast that he receives a secondary screening every single time he flies.
From what he said on tv tonight the extra screenings began right after he broke the story.
He said it started about a month after he did stories critical of the TSA.
In case either or both of you "misremembered," here is the story:
http://tiny.cc/copd3
I guess you are putting people on "the list" these days for "Crimes Against The State"
July 16, 2008 9:50 AM
Anonymous said:
"...would just like to let you know that I have successfully traveled using my sister's ID..."
I, too, could travel using my sister's ID or even a cousin's ID for that matter.
My children could travel using IDs from their cousins.
ID does NOT equal verification of who one really is.
July 16, 2008 10:07 AM
OK, isn't it about time to call in the troops to start posting in support of the no-fly list since the majority of the comments made so far are not accepting of Christopher's attempt to make us true believers?
July 16, 2008 10:11 AM
I really wish we could IP trace responses...just for that reason Sandra.
The fact that people are beign added for retaliatory reasons doe snot surprise me in the least. Not that they will admit anything but everybody knows what the real truth is.
July 16, 2008 12:35 PM
You have a number of people using their signatures as links to commercial products; yetis, acne meds, laptop bags, Ipod accessories, etc.
Is this allowed?
July 16, 2008 12:52 PM
I just went through security at LGA; let me tell you, I'm gonna have to ask for the SSSS more often! I was ushered to the front of the line like royalty; actually felt guilty cutting in front of all those people. SSSS has it's perks! Hey, do you think you could make the me t blog post about the registered traveller program? I actually have some useful input regarding that program.
July 16, 2008 1:10 PM
I have a question on secure flight.
Does this mean that one is validated before the purchasing process for a ticket is complete?
If thats true, then one needs permission from their own government to fly?
What information is validated? I can see from the link what information is requested if one tries to get off the list. Will they have to do this every time they fly?
July 16, 2008 1:46 PM
Quote from anonymous: "Umm...sure. Right. Somehow, I can't buy this from an anon poster. Do the black helicopters keep tabs on your movements, too?"
If posting anonymously is a hindrance to credibility, then why did you post anonymously?
The first anonymous poster claims to be on the no fly list. Since this is pretty much the extent of TSA's power to do anything to him, why not post his name? What does he have to lose? He (or she) already supposedly can't fly. Heck, if they really were put on the no fly for exercising their 1st amendment right, he or she should have a fairly open and shut case. The ACLU would probably take the case. Absent any identifying information, why should we take his claim at face value?
July 16, 2008 2:32 PM
"I'm sure I'll get all these 'oh I don't believe you posts' well I can easily scan and provide two boarding passes for the same flight one with and one without SSSS (haven't been photoshopped either), but I won't until I see some semblance of proof from the TSA bloggers on anythign they post"
Not everyone who gets SSSS is on the selectee list. You can be assigned randomly, or based on certain characteristics. For example, if you always fly one way, you'll probably get additional screening. It doesn't mean you are on either list.
July 16, 2008 2:37 PM
The no-fly list is a perfect example of lazy thinking - instead of doing the actual work of developing contacts, chasing leads, and making good arrests, the national security state is making up huge lists, hoping to catch one terrorist by pestering a million people.
Lazy thinking like assuming that "developing contacts, chasing leads, and making good arrests" isn't already being done by CIA, FBI, DIA, and the rest of the security community? Lazy thinking like assuming that these techniques weren't the same ones used to make the very lists you despise?
July 16, 2008 2:47 PM
Anonymous said on .July 16, 2008 8:45 AM..
Also, since he [Nelson Mandela]came to the US quite a few times I'm pretty sure he wasn't on the No-Fly list that the TSA has. Unless of course he never flew commercially so it wouldn't matter.
********************************
Actually, Secretary of State Rice has said, publicly, several times, since this came to light, that each time he did she had to give special permission for him to do so BECAUSE he was the No Fly List. I believe at one point she even termed it 'embarassing' that she had to do this each time.
July 16, 2008 2:49 PM