Sorry, the Feds Don’t Like You — So We Can’t Fly You…
The folks over at Daily Kos seem to have a problem with the items mentioned in a recent issue of the Federal Register.
I don’t blame them. To be honest with you, some of this stuff looks a little scary… Here’s a nice tidbit from the “Summary of Requirements”:
• Requirements of Covered Aircraft operators. This proposed rule would require aircraft operators that conduct certain scheduled and public charterflights to:
…
• When necessary, submit information from the verifying identity document to TSA to resolve potential watch list matches. In some cases, TSA may also request that the covered aircraft operator communicate a physical description of the individual.
• Not issue to an individual a boarding pass or authorization to enter a sterile area or permit an individual to board an aircraft or enter a sterile area if the individual does not provide a verifying identity document when requested under circumstances described above, unless otherwise authorized by TSA.
• Prohibit issuance of boarding passes or authorizations to enter a sterile area to individuals whom TSA has placed on inhibited status. Prohibit these individuals from boarding an aircraft.
• Comply with instructions from TSA to designate identified individuals for enhanced screening before boarding a flight or accessing a sterile area.
• Place separate codes on boarding passes in accordance with TSA instructions.
Curse the myopic people who think this will make them safe. Curse them all!
on September 18th, 2007 at 5:37 am
How is any of this stuff new? It’s all in place already.
on September 18th, 2007 at 9:37 am
More to the point, isn’t the issue the screening list more than the safety regulation? I mean, making a screening list of 200 no-fly passengers like, say, UBL, would be just fine. I think the real issue is how we can avoid making a list of 20,000 people that can’t distinguish the terrorist-threats from those with similar names.
on September 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I think that if an airline wants to transport “UBL”, they should be able to. I also think that if they don’t want to, they shouldn’t have to. You can replace “UBL” (bin Laden) with Swedes, Turks, Finns, or Scotsmen and I’d still be fine with it.
If a certain person, or group of people, are unsafe to transport — let the airlines make the call. Some airlines will discriminate “too much” for some peoples’ tastes, and others “too little”. Everyone is different. Right now they are prohibited from discriminating against individuals or groups unless the individuals or groups are branded by the government as O.K. to discriminate against. Lame. There shouldn’t be any “rules” on this at all.
The main point is that direct government oversight in travel is a dangerous step. These proposed laws would make government involvement a requirement, and consequently, lack of government involvement punishable…
on September 18th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Will, you’re right about much of it being in place already. But, as stated in the “Background” section on page 3:
“The purpose of the Secure Flight program is to assume the watch list matching function from aircraft operators and to more effectively and consistently prevent certain known or suspected terrorists from boarding aircraft where they may jeopardize the lives of passengers or others.”
I also suggest you read the first two paragraphs under “Summary” on page 2.