Of all the things I have seen/heard/experienced with TSA, this is a new low. We all know small children can be terrors, but being on the no fly list? If that isn't the definition of ignorance, I don't know what would be.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
It's called an error. You never make them, I assume.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
N844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2732 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): It's called an error. You never make them, I assume.
The problem is the number of errors that have occured during the formulation of the no-fly list. Even more troubling than the raw number of errors is the incidence of false positives, which eventually drowns out in a sea of noise the real people we should be concerned about. Basically my point is that an error-prone no fly list is probably worse than not having one at all.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
Some examples of your errors:
he's 4, not 2.
TSA never denied him boarding, it was the stupid AIRLINES who were giving him a hard time. The TSA does not think children are threats, and it is not in their policy to even question a child.
In fact, the TSA does not deny boarding to children ever due to watch list hits:
"TSA regional spokeswoman Carrie Harmon said the agency tells airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 or select them for extra security checks even if their names match ones on the list."
It's from the article.
You have an anti-TSA agenda it would seem.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
Quoting N844AA (Reply 2): Even more troubling than the raw number of errors is the incidence of false positives, which eventually drowns out in a sea of noise the real people we should be concerned about.
No it doesn't. if it did, then this kid would not have been hassled. the fact that he was hassled shows that the airlines are still taking it very seriously and putting people through questions. one major point of any screening is to question people in hopes they slip up.
of course, they should not have harassed a child, and as the article says, the TSA did not require them to do so and in fact tells them NOT TO DO SO.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29349 posts, RR: 62 Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2706 times:
All a baby has to do is drop a bomb in his/her knappy, and you have a chemical weapon on the airplane.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
N844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): No it doesn't. if it did, then this kid would not have been hassled. the fact that he was hassled shows that the airlines are still taking it very seriously and putting people through questions. one major point of any screening is to question people in hopes they slip up.
You make a good point, but the problem is with the very premise of the no-fly list; it's just not an effective approach to airline security.
Everything I've read about the no-fly list indicates that it operates (at least in the initial stages) on the basis of name alone, or at least heavily weighted on the basis of name. Look at the names of people in the article who have had trouble with the list: Edward Allen, John Lewis, David Nelson, Edward Kennedy. I would bet a large sum of money that the number of people with those names alone exceeds by at least an order of magnitude the number of people who might pose a risk to commercial aviation.
Look at it this way: let's say there's a highly infectious fatal disease that occurs at a rate of 0.1%. So you really, really want to catch people who have this disease. So you spend a lot of money and several years to devise a test that can detect this disease with 99% accuracy. With great fanfare, you roll out the test into a city of 1,000,000 people. In that group of people, 1,000 people have the disease. 990 will be correctly informed that they have it. (Never mind the 10 people who have it but are told they do not.) But most troublingly, 10,000 healthy people will be incorrectly informed that they do have this disease! Imagine all the resources that will go to treat those people, or quarantine them, or whatever, when they could be better deployed on a subpopulation less than a ten of the size.
That's my problem with the no-fly list -- it's so error-prone as to be virtually useless. If there are additional problems in the way the airlines apply it, that just bolsters my point. If we want to make an Israel-style commitment to aviation security, then let's have a national conversation about it and do it if that's what the consensus answer is. But otherwise, it's mere window-dressing wasting resources that could be better expended in addressing terrorism.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2632 times:
That's the compromises we make to avoid profiling. Israel has a far more sane and secure method of ensuring safety of their passengers, but it requires profiling and extra long checks at the airport. They're generally more than happy to put up with the imposition on their personal freedoms to ensure their safety. American's generally aren't. They want to be secure but not inconvenienced in any way. After all, it's the Other Guy who is the problem, not you!
I'm not saying either way is right, it's just that the compromise solution is not very good. The pre-screening system that some private companies are setting up is pretty nice though.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
Bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5974 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2602 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): Of all the things I have seen/heard/experienced with TSA, this is a new low
Did you read the same article that we did? What did TSA do wrong from your viewpoint? I'm confused by your reaction.
Jcavinato From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
Our daughter's fiance gets super-deep searching on every flight. His name is Jeffrey Martin. He is American as apple pie. Not a cranky bone in him. Only been out of the country once in his life (a tour with our daughter). He says the upside is that the airlines know he will get hassled at security, and he gets upgraded about half the time, with apologies from the counter/gate people.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2532 times:
Quoting N844AA (Reply 6): Edward Allen, John Lewis, David Nelson, Edward Kennedy.
I wouldn't trust Ted Kennedy either!
Quoting Jcavinato (Reply 9): He says the upside is that the airlines know he will get hassled at security, and he gets upgraded about half the time, with apologies from the counter/gate people.
sounds good to me!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2531 times:
Perhaps I should have clarified my point (duh...).
Why did CO throw such a stink about this child? Because the arms of the TSA and homeland security reach very far. Could CO have been held liable if they didn't keep him off the plane? Is it out of the question that a bureaucrat might have ordered the plane to land after hearing that a passenger with a name on the list was allowed on the plane? Perhaps, even with an emphatic response from CO that the person of interest was a child.
All are correct that this was not TSA's fault; however, the fallacy that a "no-fly" list makes us safe is proven yet again with this list. It was not CO's list, it was the TSA's list that caused the consternation. CO dramatically overreacted, but my feeling is that trying to please too many security concerns has led to farces such as this one.
I cannot conceive that any rationale person could possibly believe that every American (or every person on the planet, for that matter!) has a different name. Common sense and experience have told us that names can get confused all the time. If I showed up at the airport and found that someone else with my name had created problems at an airport previously, I would expect that someone is going to want to verify that I am not the same person.
But to hassle a child? Utter nonsense. The "No-Fly" list has to reflect reality, and airlines living in fear of this list might continue some extraordinarily bizarre policies in the mean time.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
LN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1896 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): Of all the things I have seen/heard/experienced with TSA, this is a new low
Quote: Quote 1: She said it took several minutes of pleading and a phone call by the ticket agent to get on the plane to New York.
Quote: Quote 2:Allen, a Jamaican immigrant, said workers at La Guardia Airport were even more hard-nosed before their Dec. 26 flight home. She said a ticket agent told her: "You're lucky that we're letting you through instead of putting you through the other process."
TSA or CO .. ???
Not to defend TSA, but if the CO agents had done what they were supposed to, the passengers wouldn't even have known about this...
Quote: "We do not require ID for children because there are no children on the list," (TSA spokesperson) Harmon said. "If it's a child, ticket agents have the authority to immediately de-select them."
LN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1896 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 11): Why did CO throw such a stink about this child?
If they knew the instructions, they wouldn't.
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 11): Could CO have been held liable if they didn't keep him off the plane?
No, the passenger is an under-12 child.
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 11): Is it out of the question that a bureaucrat might have ordered the plane to land after hearing that a passenger with a name on the list was allowed on the plane?
No, for the same reason. The instructions for use of the list is very clear.
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 11): All are correct that this was not TSA's fault;
Gr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 2985 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2466 times:
While such incidents are unfortunate, lets not forget that the people we are all trying to guard against are totally unfathomable fanatics.....if well educated adults could end their lives senselessly for a dubious cause on 09/11, what's to stop them from using a minor tomorrow as a suicide bomber? Especially if they believe that such an act will send them straight to heaven or wherever.....
This is a slightly unpleasant note I'm striking, but in the 'New World Order' one cannot overlook the smallest possibility....
I say that the TSA or any other security agency in the world, should definitely look closely at this aspect if they ever have any suspicions.....just the fact that it is a minor is no longer a reason to avoid scrutiny....
LN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1896 posts, RR: 15 Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 14): While such incidents are unfortunate, lets not forget that the people we are all trying to guard against are totally unfathomable fanatics...
That's why we need people who can think doing the job ...
Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 14): just the fact that it is a minor is no longer a reason to avoid scrutiny.
You are completly right, but that is not the issue here. The issue is about names, not suspiscion, and the TSA clearly states that any person under the age of 12 shall be cleared from the No-Fly status given by the computer. This is man against machine, and the machine must be corrected.
This is a good argument for the fans of CAPPS2. The system would have known that this was a child and not assigned this status.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): Of all the things I have seen/heard/experienced with TSA, this is a new low. We all know small children can be terrors, but being on the no fly list? If that isn't the definition of ignorance, I don't know what would be.
Even if it was an error, it was something that was never meant to happen. It's just totally ridiculous. This No-Fly list thing should be suspended and revised until they figure out how to get this system working right.
Manta From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2342 times:
Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 15): The issue is about names, not suspiscion, and the TSA clearly states that any person under the age of 12 shall be cleared from the No-Fly status given by the computer. This is man against machine, and the machine must be corrected.
So how does this work then, lets say the boy keeps flying once per year, and each time he checks in, he is de-selected and allowed to pass through. What happens when he turns say, 18 and checks in, will the system know that he's flown x number of times already and he's not a threat, or will he then be pulled aside?? Just trying to see how much intelligence the current system has.
LN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1896 posts, RR: 15 Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
When that time comes, they will have to clear him manually, by comparing personal data with the 'real' no-fly person. If they don't match, he'll be off the list. Unfortunatly the system isn't smart enough to clear him automatically. CAPPS2 would be able to do that, but there's too many issues with personal data collection ....
We have to choose between privacy and convenience, and so far privacy has the political edge.
Grantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 429 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Quoting Lemurs (Reply 7): That's the compromises we make to avoid profiling. Israel has a far more sane and secure method of ensuring safety of their passengers, but it requires profiling and extra long checks at the airport. They're generally more than happy to put up with the imposition on their personal freedoms to ensure their safety. American's generally aren't. They want to be secure but not inconvenienced in any way. After all, it's the Other Guy who is the problem, not you!
I fly in the US every single week, and have been doing so since before 9/11. In all that time, I have been subjected to extra screening once. It was handled quite politely and after a few minutes, I was on my way. No complaints at all - in fact, I was rather impressed with how professional the TSA agents were.
On the other hand, I flew El Al once. I was stopped and searched for an hour. All my bags and paperwork were searched and I was subjected to the same nonsense by 2 different agents before finally being escorted onto the flight by an agent. My mistake: I did not know that my ticket had been issued in Orus. I instead said Portland, Oregon. When I did not know where Orus was - and they fact that I was a young single male - suspicions were raised. It is only when I took a look at the ticket they were holding did I realize that it said OR US - Oregon, USA.
GVWOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 168 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
There at least should be a trusted person to maintain the system and correct this sort of error. Even the best computer programs function on a "garbage goes in, garbage comes out" basis, so it shouldn't be treated like something that can judge and think for itself (and be right) because it obviously can't.
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2264 times:
Quoting Grantcv (Reply 19): I fly in the US every single week, and have been doing so since before 9/11. In all that time, I have been subjected to extra screening once. It was handled quite politely and after a few minutes, I was on my way. No complaints at all - in fact, I was rather impressed with how professional the TSA agents were.
On the other hand, I flew El Al once. I was stopped and searched for an hour. All my bags and paperwork were searched and I was subjected to the same nonsense by 2 different agents before finally being escorted onto the flight by an agent. My mistake: I did not know that my ticket had been issued in Orus. I instead said Portland, Oregon. When I did not know where Orus was - and they fact that I was a young single male - suspicions were raised. It is only when I took a look at the ticket they were holding did I realize that it said OR US - Oregon, USA.
Yes, thank you for proving my point: American's don't like getting singled out for extra security attention. They get seriously annoyed and offended, and complain to anyone who will listen. Therefore, the industry, the government, and everyone else looks for compromise systems. They work for filtering out basic issues, but at the end of the day, there are obvious holes people can exploit.
In Israel, those holes don't exist, or if they do, they're much smaller and harder to exploit. Look at the hijack success rating between Israel and the rest of the Western world to see what those extra few percentage points of security mean. Again, I'm not saying we need to adopt their system, but calling the current system anything but a facade to keep people happy is a joke. It's not a good security system, it's a good annoyance system to show people "we're trying!"
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
FLAIRPORT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2141 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10): Quoting Jcavinato (Reply 9):
He says the upside is that the airlines know he will get hassled at security, and he gets upgraded about half the time, with apologies from the counter/gate people.
sounds good to me!
I might want to be put on the list (if only I flew airlines WITH first)
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 11): Because the arms of the TSA and homeland security reach very far. Could CO have been held liable if they didn't keep him off the plane?
Nope...under 12
my problem with the no-fly list is that some people are FFs and get hassled and when they try to get off the list, they get hassled by the higher ups at the TSA.
Jacobcal From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2135 times:
He is probably just going through his terrible two's!! Maybe he should be on the no fly list!
Jacobcal
25 Ckfred: If the airlines simply had some additional access to the no-fly list, such as a description with each name on the list. If the name of John Q. Smith i
26 GBan: Do you honestly think the no fly list would help in that case?
27 N754PR: Error after error after error...... Thank god they are only in control of what happens in the USA.
29 OOer: Ok...this is where unless you actually know what you are talking about you just need to be quiet. The kid is NOT on the no-fly list or any other list
30 CVG2LGA: As you later corrected yourself, I can't flame you so much for this, no everyone isn't guaranteed a different name at birth. so mis-identifications c
31 Ikramerica: i doubt that minor's name would be on the no-fly list though. that'll teach you silly american not to be so provincial. Yeah, and it's annoying. I wo
32 VEEREF: I'm an airline pilot and I'm on the list too. Go figure.
33 Piercey: odd... I got extra security three years ago @ 11, sister @ 7 only b/c we were flying one-way.........
34 Travatl: I personally believe ALL two-year olds should be on the no-fly list. Travis
35 RAMPRAT980: Wow now thats what I call being proactive
36 OOer: You are NOT on the list. You come up as a POSSIBLE match for the list. If you were on the list you would not be able to fly that plane!!!!!! Again...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 2985 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
(if only I flew airlines WITH first)
Printer friendly format 
