sibsie

Looks like common sense may prevail for this.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/11....ap/index.html

effi

I would rather have my privacy invaded than be blown out of the sky. They should take a leaf out of El Als book. Whatever has to be done within reason to keep people safe, then go for it.

sibsie

El Al and the former head of their security screening disagrees with you and the way the system has been set up.

At JFK alone 50 of the security staff were found to have criminal records and 22k are currently working in the US without background checks. If there's going to be a sytem in place it can't be some half cocked one.

Franklin

If a few US passenger planes take a hit in the air because of planted bombs or bomb parts Congress will drop its objections. If things stay pinky Congress will refuse to fund the program. Congress has "spending power" and is a lot more powerful than the President since it can legislate, over come a Presidential veto and even bounce states in the union to do things that Congress want done ... down to C's spending power. What Congress wants, Congress gets absent the U.S. S.Ct. banging them on the head.

CalgaryAMC

Couldn't disagree more. America is great not because it's safe, but because it's free.

Franklin

errrrr. In times of war public interest takes a more front seat. That is how it has been in the USA since its creation. The courts are kind of flexible when the government needs to move quickly and efficiently at killing an enemy. In peace time the courts revert to their default status and personal freedom takes the front seat. So you can't be more wrong.

We give up some personal freedoms when we want to board a plane, we allow searches of our possessions. Public interest dictates that the authorities can impose such searches on a routine basis. You can avoid the authorities looking through your belongings, but only if you avoid taking a commercial flight.

There is no probable cause, but they even x-ray your shoes (but I heard there is a better piece of kit coming out soon that will not require air passengers to remove their shoes).

CalgaryAMC

It was a personal opinion in disagreement with another person's personal opinion. I am certainly not naive enough to consider my view a statement of fact! You are absolutely correct about the historical and contemporary reality.

I do accept that when we choose to board a plane we agree to comply with security measures. If we don't agree, we can always drive. But I think that this computerised pre-screening measure is beyond the pale because it ranks people based on factors that are often completely beyond their control - place of birth, for example.

I would not pick a fight with a lawyer about the legality of it, but I think it's morally wrong, especially until there are solid provisions in place to seek recourse for an unfavourable classification. The problem is that in practice even this recourse will be difficult and will take forever. The notion that someone must somehow prove that they are not a threat, when there is no evidence to suggest they are other than a combination of circumstantial factors computed into a point score, is, in my opinion, totally unjustifiable.

By all means have a database of wanted criminals, convicted criminals and known terrorists. But this pre-emptive rating system will lead to travesties, of that I am sure.