"Feds To Test Air Screening System"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
WASHINGTON (Feb. 28) - Delta Air Lines will begin testing a new government plan for air security next month that will check background information and assign a threat level to everyone who buys a ticket for a commercial flight.

The system, ordered by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, will gather much more information on passengers than has been done previously. Delta will try it out at three undisclosed airports, and a comprehensive system could be in place by the end of the year.

Transportation officials say a contractor will be picked soon to build the nationwide computer system, which will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists.

Civil liberties groups and activists are objecting to the plan, seeing the potential for unconstitutional invasions of privacy and for database mix-ups that could lead to innocent people being branded security risks.

``This system threatens to create a permanent blacklisted underclass of Americans who cannot travel freely,'' said Katie Corrigan, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

There also is concern that the government is developing the system without revealing how information will be gathered and how long it will be kept.

Advocates say the system will weed out dangerous people while ensuring law-abiding citizens aren't given unnecessary scrutiny.

Transportation officials say CAPPS II - Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System - will use databases that already operate in line with privacy laws and won't profile based on race, religion or ethnicity.

``What it does is have very fast access to existing databases so we can quickly validate the person's identity,'' Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said.

An oversight panel, which will include a member of the public, is being formed. The Transportation Security Administration will set up procedures to resolve complaints by people who say they don't belong on the watch lists.

Transportation Department spokesman Chet Lunner said a Federal Register notice saying the background information will be stored for 50 years is inaccurate. He said such information will be held only for people deemed security risks.

Jay Stanley, an ACLU spokesman, was skeptical.

``When it says in print, 50 years, we'd like to see something else in print to counter that,'' he said.

Airlines already do rudimentary checks of passenger information, such as method of payment, address and date the ticket was reserved. The system was developed by Northwest Airlines in the early 1990s to spot possible hijackers.

Unusual behavior, such as purchasing a one-way ticket with cash, is supposed to prompt increased scrutiny at the airport.

Capt. Steve Luckey, an airline pilot who helped develop the system, said CAPPS II will help discern a passenger's possible intentions before he gets on a plane.

Unlike the current system, in which data stays with the airlines' reservation systems, the new setup will be managed by TSA. Only government officials with proper security clearance will be able to use it.

CAPPS II will collect data and rate each passenger's risk potential according to a three-color system: green, yellow, red. When travelers check in, their names will be punched into the system and their boarding passes encrypted with the ranking. TSA screeners will check the passes at checkpoints.

The vast majority of passengers will be rated green and won't be subjected to anything more than normal checks, while yellow will get extra screening and red won't fly.

Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, which advocates airline safety and security, is skeptical the system will work.

``The whole track record of profiling is a very poor to mixed one,'' Hudson said, noting incorrect profiles of the Unabomber and the Washington-area snipers.

Nine to 11 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were flagged by the original CAPPS, but weren't searched because the system gave a pass to passengers who didn't check their bags, Hudson said. People without checked bags are now included.

02/28/03 08:40 EST

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 28 February 2003 16:49 (twenty-three years ago)

It's that last paragraph that's the real depressant.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 February 2003 16:52 (twenty-three years ago)

so, out of all that, the note about 9/11 is more frightening to you than being included in a national database of "potential flight risks"?

jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 28 February 2003 16:53 (twenty-three years ago)

THE SYSTEM GAVE A PASS TO PASSENGERS WHO DIDN'T CHECK THEIR BAGS! Oh, well, that makes perfect sense. Then, hey, Powers That Be, how about just fixing that li'l bug in CAPPS I & saving time / money / etc etc etc by not earning the ire of the ACLU & concern citizens? Or are we looking to ratchet up the paranoia levels of John Q. Flyer a few more levels?

David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 28 February 2003 16:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Jess, I'm *already* deeply cynical about privacy loss and surveillance and idiocy and all that. That isn't news, this is something I figured would come around anyway, and I don't like it at all. I already had to go through a paranoid Australian customs search back in September, I just can't *wait* for the future ones around here in the States. That last bit, however, I hadn't heard before, and saddens me, if only because there might have been a chance that 9/11 didn't happen. Which I'm sure you'll agree would have been a good thing.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 February 2003 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

but Ned tons of business fliers don't check bags, so I'm not sure that would've changed anything.

hstencil, Friday, 28 February 2003 17:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Nine to 11 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were flagged by the original CAPPS, but weren't searched...

Even had they been searched, there would have been no change. They followed the rules; it was acceptable under security standards in place for them to carry box-cutters.

No One (SiggyBaby), Friday, 28 February 2003 17:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Thus I say 'might' and all. Maybe there wasn't any way, but any little bit to help...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 February 2003 17:28 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.