Chertoff wants more data on air travelers

R

rick_reno

Moderator
We should give Herr Chertoff what he wants. The logic used to explain protecting personal privacy is odd, to say the least.

WASHINGTON - The government needs broader access to airline passenger information to identify potential hijackers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in an article published Tuesday.

“How do we thwart a terrorist who has not yet been identified?” Chertoff wrote in an op-ed article in Tuesday’s editions of The Washington Post.

“One way is by using more of the detailed information collected by airlines and travel agencies when an individual books a flight,” Chertoff wrote. “These passenger name records contain information, such as travel itineraries and payment details, that can be analyzed in conjunction with current intelligence to identify high-risk travelers before they board planes.”

The government has collected such data on travelers flying from other countries to the U.S. since the early 1990s, Chertoff wrote. But European privacy concerns have limited the ability of investigators to share such information between agencies or with their counterparts abroad, he wrote.

“Protecting personal privacy is a part of responding to the post-Sept. 11 world, but it should not reflexively block us from developing new screening tools,” Chertoff wrote. “Indeed, more data sharing leads to more precisely targeted screening, which actually improves privacy by reducing questioning and searches of innocent travelers.”
 
Dear Mr Chertoff:

Giving private data to an organisation that has proven time and time again to be incompetent in handling this private data does not enhance privacy.

"Ignorance is strength. War is peace. Freedom is slavery."

Why do you skitebirds make it so easy to draw comparisons to 1984?
 
Who do you spot terrorists?:confused:

Well, gee, I don't know why don't you Google up the 19 that you let on planes September 11th and see what they are like, Chief Wiggum.:rolleyes:
 
This will probably stir up a hornet's nest. /shrug

Flying is not a right. If you choose to fly, you consent to the regulations of the airline industry.

Just like you consent to take an alcohol test simply by having a driver's lisence and driving a car.

I can certainly see both sides. Now, let me ask this. If the airlines themselves were doing this enforcing, and not the .gov, would there be as much of a problem with it?
 
jcoiii, you're missing the point. Travel *by car* is not a specific right either, nor is travel by rail, bus, boat, or garbage skip. Therefore, you should have no problem with telling the local cops exactly who you are, where you're going, who's going with you, and when you'll be back every time you drive to the market. Get to filin' them trip plans, otherwise you're considered a terrorist by default.

.gov has no legal right or authority to restrict travel. I believe you've fallen (again) into the trap of believing that we only have the rights that .gov explicitly grants us.
 
They're going to keep screwing around until there is no air industry to regulate. I'm to the point that I'd rather drive 12 hours than to endure the 5 hours of BS, that USED to be a 3 hour flight.

I'm rather tired of subsidizing this circus with my tax dollars, too.
 
I believe you've fallen (again) into the trap of believing that we only have the rights that .gov explicitly grants us.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just bringing up the other side of the coin. Also note that driving is not a right.

And where the "again" comes from is far beyond me.

Driving, flying, owning TVs, computers, healthcare, food, are not rights. They are not things you are granted just because you are alive.

Privacy, I'd say that's a right. However, if you know ahead of time that engaging in a privilaged activity might require you to allow your privacy to be invaded, and you choose to go ahead with it, well that's your call.

Now, the other side of that is best illustrated like you stated, in driving. Driving, while not a right, is a necessity. So the .gov takes advantage of your need to drive by placing restrictions on that activity. Similar to the idea that "i know you need to eat, but this is my property, so if you want to kill an animal on my land, you'd better 'x'...."

I generally fall into the personal rights side of any debate like this, however I find the intellectual exercise stimulating. Unfortunately, many on this board take intellectual exercise and infer and apply personal convictions to the people who disagree with them in any small matter.
 
"Sieg heil!"

yup.they cant protect us from ourselves unless of course they know all of our private information,our family tree,our religion and even what food we eat.Incompetance is always rewarded.These people should be multimillionares.
 
They're going to keep screwing around until there is no air industry to regulate. I'm to the point that I'd rather drive 12 hours than to endure the 5 hours of BS, that USED to be a 3 hour flight.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear! I'm never flying again for the rest of my life. It's just simply gotten to the point that flying is not reasonable. Sitting in a cramped malibu for 23 & 1/2 hours is waaaay more preferable than going from Tucson, to Atlanta, to Houston, to get to Baton Rouge...And please, may I pass the time with another six & a half dollar pint of beer? Don't mind if I do.

There should be an advertising campaign listing everything wrong with flying, at the end, it should say
"Fly Amtrak"

Jcoi, you're just wrong. Not going to get into explicit detail, just know that you're wrong. K?
 
If it gets too much worse, perhaps airlines will spring up with planes carrying the minimum number of passengers, minus one, that invokes the FAA's search regulations, and hand out complimentary frangible ammo stamped with the airline's logo.
 
I like the "No privacy will give you more privacy". Do they take a class in doublespeak? The sooner these clowns are gone the better, I've had it with all of them - and I helped put them in office. Hang on while I get my air sickness bag out.
 
OK, I see what you're saying. You're saying we have the right to travel, but not to fly, drive, take the train or bus, etc.

Just like the antis telling us that we have the right to self-defense, but not to possess the tools of self-defense.
 
Incorrect.

Let me explain this position a little better.

Life, liberty, property, pursuit of happines, self defense, privacy: these are rights.

Owning a car is not a right. If it were, everyone would be entitled to a car, meaning, they would be given one at birth, simply for existing. You earn the ability and means to buy a car. It is not a "right." If you have the privilage to fly, and believe that you should be under no restrictions while flying, then you must also believe that you should be able to own and drive a car with no restrictions in order for your views to be consistent. Taken to the furthest extreme, that is anarchy.

The quote often used is "those who give up liberty to gain security deserve neither" I've seen 20 versions of this quote.

The actual quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

We give up some liberties simply by choosing to exist as a state/nation/community.

Now, moving on to another point.

Chertoff appears to be asking for information on foreign nationals
The government has collected such data on travelers flying from other countries to the U.S. since the early 1990s, Chertoff wrote. But European privacy concerns have limited the ability of investigators to share such information between agencies or with their counterparts abroad, he wrote.
Click to expand...
(Yes I am aware that this is a step toward asking for US citizens as well, which I oppose, btw)

And last, this quote disgusts me
“How do we thwart a terrorist who has not yet been identified?”
Click to expand...
What an absolutely ignorant statement. Someone is not a terrorist until they engage in terrorist activities. If you don't know that Joe is a terrorist, what good will it do to see his airline information? Crap, you could look at my information (since I'm not a terrorist) and you'd not be able to tell if I was a terrorist in hididng or not. This, specifically, aside from being an invasion of privacy, is a completely ineffectual means of "finding" terrorists. (especially since you'd have to "profile")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top