Loss of Privacy

Two men were on a flight to Chicago from Boston when federal authorities removed and questioned them, then allowed them back on the plane. One passenger, however, wasn’t happy with that outcome.

The men, aboard early morning United Flight 636, were questioned by authorities and returned to the plane, only to be removed again after at least one passenger complained, passengers said after they arrived at O’Hare International Airport.

Boston Marathon finisher Matt Pomeroy, 34, and his wife Elizabeth, 33, said all seemed calm until a federal agent and a Massachusetts police officer walked onto the plane and removed two male passengers.

“The two men were taken off the plane for about 15 minutes,” said Matt Pomeroy, of Johnson Creek, Wis. “They were then allowed back on but started to act suspicious.”

First, they were questioned and allowed to return to the plane. If they were a threat, they would not have been allowed back on the plane. Second, what does this man consider to be suspicious?

The men, who were rows apart, began talking in a foreign language and using head and hand gestures to communicate, he said.

How is this not normal? You are seated apart from your traveling companion all the time now as airlines have begun charging fees to seat people together. The men had just been pulled off the plane and questioned. Wouldn’t it be more likely that they were cleared by authorities and they were just discussing what happened to them? Using hand gestures is perfectly normal. Hand gestures tend to get larger and more emphatic when a person is agitated. A more likely scenario is that the two were saying something along the lines of, “This is fucking ridiculous,” because of what just happened.

“Everyone was already nervous that they were getting back on because we didn’t know what was going on.”

Because it’s none of your damned business. Whatever happened when the men were off the plane talking to authorities is between the men and the authorities. It’s not your right to know what was discussed. Again, if they were a threat at all, they wouldn’t have been let back onto the plane.

Elizabeth Pomeroy said the two men seemed “jittery and jumpy” and were “acting suspicious.”.

Anyone would be a tad bit jumpy after having an entire plane watch as you disembark with authorities and then come back. What exactly does this woman mean by suspicious? We don’t know and we don’t know if this suspiciousness is a legitimate concern.

“They were talking to each other across the rows — that doesn’t normally happen,” Matt Pomeroy said.
Maybe not on your flights, but it certainly happens on thousands of other flights.

“I told the flight crew, ‘I don’t feel comfortable with this.’ And they felt the same exact way,” Siok said.

So, because you feel uncomfortable with people talking on a plane in another language, you have the authority now to get people kicked off their flight. You don’t even try to understand the situation or know that federal authorities have spoken to the men and allowed them to come back. You trusted the police to do their job after the bombings in town, but not federal law enforcement at the airport. You cannot have it both ways.

At the gate, multiple FBI agents and police officers boarded the plane and escorted the two men off, Matt Pomeroy said. The passengers deplaned for another check.

Pomeroy said he and others felt safer after the additional security sweep of the plane.
Yes, he “felt” safer. He wasn’t actually any safer than before. He just let his unjustified fear and bigotry rule the day.

“I’m glad he hit the call button — absolutely,” Matt Pomeroy said. “There wasn’t much communication, but I think everyone understood what was going on.”

There wasn’t much communication, most likely, because Pomeroy was probably the only one who really felt threatened by people speaking on a plane. If anyone else truly felt this way as well, the flight attendant’s call buttons would have been lit up across the plane.

“Many of the marathon runners on the plane didn’t have places to be today,” Siok said. “You know, it’s better safe than sorry.”

If Siok actually felt this way, then why did he not accept that the federal authorities cleared these men of whatever they were questioned about? Again, if the federal authorities thought these men were even remotely a threat, they would never have allowed the two men to return to the plane.

Yes, Boston was just bombed, but, seriously, people speaking a foreign language doesn’t mean that you’re magically some kind of terrorist. Given the fact that 63% of Arab-Americans are Christian, these bigoted idiots are bashing people who believe just as they do solely because they look and talk funny. While the bombings are over, the racism, hatred, and bigotry from this event will go on for years to come, destroying trust amongst Americans in the process.

Photo.

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

“We need more law enforcement in our checkpoints, in our work areas to keep us safe because we can’t do it ourself,” said Al Baang, vice president of the TSA officers’ local union. The American Federation of Government Employees Local 1234 represents about 1,000 TSA workers in Hawaii.
 
Baang is happy there will be a second security guard in addition to the one armed officer who’s already located at each checkpoint.   

“They should be there, close enough where you call them and they’re right there with you. And they come, but they got to be called,” Baang said.
 
The extra private security guards at exit lanes at Hawaii airports will cost about $77,000 a month, money that won’t come from taxpayers but from airport landing and user fees, according to Caroline Sluyter, a spokeswoman for the state Transportation Department. 

So, it will now cost more to fly to Hawaii with little extra in security.

From April 2, 2013:

Featuring Edward Hasbrouck, Journalist, Consumer Advocate, Travel Expert, and Consultant, The Identity Project (PapersPlease.org), Author of the book and blog, The Practical Nomad; and Ginger McCall Director, Open Government Program, Electronic Privacy Information Center; moderated by Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute.

The United States government practices surprisingly comprehensive surveillance of air travel, amassing data about the comings and goings of all Americans who fly. Travel expert Edward Hasbrouck has been researching travel surveillance for many years. His findings reveal a stunning level of government surveillance, control of the traveler, and intrusion into commercial travel IT systems.

By April 2, the Transportation Security Administration will either have begun a public comment process on its policy of putting travelers through imaging machines that can see under their clothes, or it will be in clear violation of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling requiring it to do so. Ginger McCall of the Electronic Privacy Information Center has been handling the litigation that prompted the court’s ruling, and she will assess the proposed regulation or discuss her renewed efforts to bring the TSA within the law.

Submit your comments to the TSA.

View all comments made so far.

You can read more about the failings of the TSA at the Cato Insititute, EPIC, and Papers, Please.

It’s unclear if these checkpoints are located at the border or not. If they are located at the border, then you must show identification proving your citizenship. After this is established, you are free to go. If these checkpoints are set up randomly on the roads of America, you are under no obligation to answer any of these questions.

The DHS checkpoints in this video are staffed by border patrol agents, who have no authority to stop and detain anyone except at actual border crossings. Due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, they do not even have the authority to do this if you are within the 100 mile Constitution-free zone.

You can read more about what the Stop and Identify Statutes are in America. Also it would be prudent to know your rights before you travel and never talk to the police.

SAS Software, which is the UK branch of an American company has said that they have developed software that is capable of profiling all passengers and cargo to assess if they are suspicious and possibly a terrorist.

Risk profiling is a controversial topic. It means identifying a person or group of people who are more likely to act in a certain way than the rest of the population, based on an analysis of their background and past behaviour.

When it comes to airline security, some believe this makes perfect sense.

Others, though, say this smacks of prejudice and would inevitably lead to unacceptable racial or religious profiling – singling out someone because, say, they happen to be Muslim or born in Yemen.

SAS Software says that there is a difference between racial profiling and risk profiling. It claims that there is no data that is passed to the border agency when they are coming into the country. What is being passed on is their nationality based on their passport and their point of origin where their flight is concerned.

The programme works by feeding in data about passengers or cargo, including the Advanced Passenger Information (API) that airlines heading to Britain are obliged to send to the UK Border Agency (UKBA) at “wheels up” – the exact moment the aircraft lifts off from the airport of departure.

Profiling is profiling. You’re building up a profile on a person based on where they travel and spit out information that can be completely inaccurate. The Advanced Passenger Information System records all your travel information. So, if I am a businessman from Yemen and travel for work to Cuba. A week later I travel to Russia, then on to China, all for my business. A month later, I take a much needed vacation to the United Kingdom, this new program will flag me as suspicious due to the amount of travel and possible locations I’ve traveled to. So what does the Advanced Passenger Information require of me when I travel to the United Kingdom?

Full name (last name, first name, middle name if applicable)
Gender
Date of birth
Nationality
Country of residence
Travel document type (normally passport)
Travel document number (expiry date and country of issue for passport)

This doesn’t make anyone safer. In fact, it puts us more at risk and we should, instead, be using a truly randomized system that checks 8-10% of the traveling public. By utilizing a system such as this, any terrorist who wants to accomplish their task merely needs to find someone who is of low risk. The terrorist will learn quickly how to game the system and will be less likely to be caught. Instead of harassing nice old ladies from Britain, the UK will now be harassing nice old ladies from the Middle East. The terrorists have plenty of ways of harming a country. They don’t need airports to accomplish their missions, but those in authority over the citizenry and subjects are far too paranoid to ever realize this.