Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
Jan. 13th, 2004 08:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilman(thanks ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
isabeau, for the above line!)
So I'm barely awake this morning, the news is on, and I hear this guy doing a Q&A about the new airport screening set-up they're about to bring online, which is apparently called "Yellow light Red Light." Or something else suitably brilliant. And it's this:
If you're all in the clear, green light, you get to go through airport security. Yellow light means there's something in your past that, when your name is checked against A List, you get pulled aside for further questioning.
If your name clicks on the red light, apparently, you're detained.
All well and fine, in theory. Because I've always been for airport security, even before I was emotionally and psychologically scarred by the events of 9/11. I've flown El Al. Nice people, know their job. Very safe.
But...
The guy who was doing the Q of the A asked some very good questions. You know -- what is your right of appeal if you're tagged red or yellow? What sort of "triggers" in your past are they looking at (Parole violations? Murder convictions? Overdue library books? Your name is an anagram of someone on their most wanted list?)? How long does such a 'tag' hold if, say, you're yellow and fly fifteen times without an incident? When is the tag removed from your name so you don't have to go through all that? How long can they hold you before you get to see a lawyer?
And without fail, in answer to these questions the representative they sent onto a national news program to discuss this security plan said a variant of "I don't know."
Which does not fill me with warm fuzzies, because either a) they haven't really thought/told their spokesperson about the practical execution of this security plan (Bad! When will you people learn that not having a clue is BAD?) or b) they really don't want us to know what, if any, our rights are if the government decides to screw with us.
(and before anyone starts trying to Explain all this to me, be warned that I have both a brain and a temper and if you don't know by now that I dislike being patronized you'll learn when you draw back a bleeding stump. I understand the fear and pragmatism that is driving a lot of recent smudging of our Constitution. That doesn't mean I think it's either wise or appropriate. Or, damn it, acceptable. And yes, I do believe in freedom before security. That's the kind of American I am. And I think forefathers George and Tom and Ben and etc would be pleased.)
isabeau, for the above line!)So I'm barely awake this morning, the news is on, and I hear this guy doing a Q&A about the new airport screening set-up they're about to bring online, which is apparently called "Yellow light Red Light." Or something else suitably brilliant. And it's this:
If you're all in the clear, green light, you get to go through airport security. Yellow light means there's something in your past that, when your name is checked against A List, you get pulled aside for further questioning.
If your name clicks on the red light, apparently, you're detained.
All well and fine, in theory. Because I've always been for airport security, even before I was emotionally and psychologically scarred by the events of 9/11. I've flown El Al. Nice people, know their job. Very safe.
But...
The guy who was doing the Q of the A asked some very good questions. You know -- what is your right of appeal if you're tagged red or yellow? What sort of "triggers" in your past are they looking at (Parole violations? Murder convictions? Overdue library books? Your name is an anagram of someone on their most wanted list?)? How long does such a 'tag' hold if, say, you're yellow and fly fifteen times without an incident? When is the tag removed from your name so you don't have to go through all that? How long can they hold you before you get to see a lawyer?
And without fail, in answer to these questions the representative they sent onto a national news program to discuss this security plan said a variant of "I don't know."
Which does not fill me with warm fuzzies, because either a) they haven't really thought/told their spokesperson about the practical execution of this security plan (Bad! When will you people learn that not having a clue is BAD?) or b) they really don't want us to know what, if any, our rights are if the government decides to screw with us.
(and before anyone starts trying to Explain all this to me, be warned that I have both a brain and a temper and if you don't know by now that I dislike being patronized you'll learn when you draw back a bleeding stump. I understand the fear and pragmatism that is driving a lot of recent smudging of our Constitution. That doesn't mean I think it's either wise or appropriate. Or, damn it, acceptable. And yes, I do believe in freedom before security. That's the kind of American I am. And I think forefathers George and Tom and Ben and etc would be pleased.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-13 07:37 am (UTC)Seems to me that with a little sense we can have freedom and security. Britain has been under constant low-level terrorist attack for decades now and yet they get about their lives with very little stuff and nonsense.
My cynical bet is that no one has really thought the lighting issue through.
On the other hand, I can argue it from both sides. What if they green light you after you fly X number times under yellow? Well... what's to stop some sleeper terrorist from behaving until such time as they're greenlighted and then boom?
Our current security measures aren't working, really, they're just making it easier for people to rifle through luggage when we're not there to watch them. The proposed security measures don't seem particularly secure to me for the reasons mentioned above. Not sure what the answer would be. Probably a combination of the Japanese security system (they search it in front of you and then it's locked) and the German (where you pick your luggage from the tarmac as you walk to the plane). Locking the cockpit and beefing the air marshalls (and please go back to training them like they were used to be trained, and treating them well) to keep from hijackings.
But how does one protect oneself from a martyr?
no subject
Date: 2004-01-13 07:45 am (UTC)You can't. That's the simple, painful, truthful answer, and why everyone's so damn scared. You can't protect yourself from someone who is willing to die to get to you. Not without extreme measures that basically mean you're already dead.
I'm much more frightened, personally, by a government trying to "protect" me by taking away my rights and liberties than I am by the thought of a mad(wo)man willing to die in order to make a point. I could die from a loon driver on the roads any day of the week, too. More likely, actually, the way people are driving these days...
no subject
Date: 2004-01-13 05:20 pm (UTC)It sounds as though no one really thought this through, including accounting for identity theft, computer glitches, innocent duplications of identity, and so forth. Which is IMHO inexcusable in government security/defense contracting. The CONTRACTORS know better. Even if the politicians don't, the CONTRACTORS get PAID to know better.(sigh)
(Illustration of innocent duplications of identity: I knew someone whose SSN was just about the same as his cousin's--off by a few digits because they were born in the same state/county/whatever. His name was the same as his cousin's. His cousin got caught cheating twice on the SATs. The guy I knew took the SATs, got a perfect score, and ETS threw it out as cheating. Kept him from getting into college though he did the best he could to prove his identity was NOT his cousin's...ETS did not believe his tale. On the one hand, I could sympathize with ETS, having dealt with students trying to cheat the government for financial aid purposes and ETS was looking at the perfect score and saying "Whoa, wait a minute...statistically that's not that common and WHAT was the name again?" OTOH, if I'd seen a birth certificate and an affidavit from a parental unit and so forth, I'd have lightened up a tad.)
Said not-thinking is typical of many policies I've seen of late. And not-thinking when it comes to my rights and questioning my patriotism should I choose to =think= about what all this means to me...not good. Not American. Not at ALL, IMHO.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-13 08:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-13 10:16 am (UTC)* Buying your ticket with cash instead of credit is a yellow flag.
* Buying your ticket last-minute is a yellow flag.
* Flying one-way is a yellow flag.
* IIRC, not checking any luggage was possibly flaggable, too.
There's almost no way I'd avoid being yellow-flagged. I don't have a credit card, I do make travel plans last-minute, and I don't like checking luggage when it's possible to get by with a carry-on.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-13 11:03 am (UTC)And, y'know, I'm pretty sure the first thing terrorists do when they hit the States is get one of those "you're pre-approved" credit cards. Hell, people's pets get offered them!
The one-way thing has always been a warning, sign, though, way back even in the 70's.
A Call to Action
Date: 2004-01-13 08:12 pm (UTC)To: ACLU Action Network Members
Date: January 13, 2003
Despite strong opposition from airlines, privacy advocates and Members of Congress, the Bush Administration is pushing ahead with plans to implement a computerized airline passenger profiling program that would -- without making us any safer -- create secret blacklists of innocent people prevented from flying.
This new profiling system would use giant databases of personal information and secret intelligence information to perform a background check on any person who wishes to fly. Innocent people misidentified as terrorists could be barred from flying with no way of clearing their names.
This system will not only create a false sense of security since terrorists will easily circumvent its basic protections, it will also compile private information about you and your family. Airlines have refused to participate in the program, but the Bush Administration is planning to mandate their involvement.
Take Action! Urge your Members of Congress to oppose this dangerous program.
Click here to get more information and to send free faxes to your Members of Congress:
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=12108&c=39
2) Send us feedback you receive from Members of Congress
Finally, please remember to send us any letters you receive from your Members of Congress in response to ACLU action alerts. These can often help our lobbying efforts by providing important intelligence about the positions being taken by Members of
Congress. You can email letters to field@dcaclu.org or snail mail to:
ACLU Field Department
1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
*****************************************************
For more information on other issues and the latest news, please visit our website
at http://www.aclu.org
Help Strengthen the ACLU's Voice in Congress... Click below to become a card-carrying
Member or donate today!
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm?ORGID=AA02
If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to
subscribe to the ACLU Action Network Updates, click http://www.aclu.org/team/member.cfm
To find out what more you can do to protect your civil liberties, please visit http://www.aclu.org/action
Re: A Call to Action
Date: 2004-01-14 06:18 pm (UTC)