8 ms·

Our brief highlighted the utter irrationality of the government's No Fly List procedures. The plaintiffs in Latif all flew for years without any problems. But m

Our brief highlighted the utter irrationality of the government's No Fly List procedures. The plaintiffs in Latif all flew for years without any problems. But more than two years ago, they were suddenly branded as suspected terrorists based on secret evidence, publicly denied boarding on flights, and told by U.S. and airline officials that they were banned from flying¾perhaps forever. One of the reasons that I'm not too attached to the specific details of the Snowden story (aside from supporting him, of course) is that it's just a piece of a much larger picture. Snowden's "NSA direct server access" is but a tiny speck in an ocean of civil liberties problems. In this case, the government is effectively using a quasi-military/police force to control who can travel the country. (Yes, I know you can drive, but for business travelers, air travel is many times the lifeblood of their work) People are banned from traveling, in many cases from performing their livelihoods. They do not know how they got on the list. They cannot get off the list. In charge of all of this is an agency, best I can tell, that has a mission of making all transportation safe from random terror attacks. It's insane. Aside from not protecting anybody, can you begin to imagine the ways such a system could be abused? It staggers the mind. There are probably around 100 people in the entire country that shouldn't fly. But the way this no-fly list is constructed, it will continue to increase year-by-year, without any incentive to pare the numbers back. Is anybody doing the math on the kind of economic impact such a system will have over a few decades? I've said it before. We need to completely disband the TSA. Structural adjustments are not going to fix its scope creep, conflict of interest with the military industrial complex, and lack of competence. It's just gotta go.

gcb0 13y ago
They are also ignoring the side effects. What happens in any place where incompetence/corruption run rampant? People find ways around. The more people they add to the no-fly list for no reason, the more people will be willing to travel with fake documents. Or create business around the block (those people can probably fly airwave). Soon, there will be so much work arounds that the one or two terrorist per century that would have been deterred by that measure will just have plenty of options to bypass it as well.
pasbesoin 13y ago
1) Smear some chemical trace on a competitor's clothing or luggage, and/or submit an "anonymous tip". 2) Profit! Seriously, though -- think about it. Secret system -- who knows how it's being gamed.
jtome 13y ago
I've always thought of no-fly lists as completely out of place in a democracy. Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Exactly. And if you have enough evidence to charge them with a crime, then you should do so and take the person to court. And if they are found guilty by a jury of their peers, punishment should be assessed. If not, the person is innocent and should not be inconvenienced or harassed further. No citizen should be victim of unknown charges and/or evidence that impacts their free movement through society.
  - sk00byd00 13y ago
    > No citizen should be victim of unknown charges and/or evidence that impacts their free movement through society. Why should I need to be a citizen to not have my human rights violated? If it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights[1] then chances are your country signed it, agreed that would be the minimum standard, that these rights were inalienable and most importantly, that they applied to everyone. You have to admit it seems a bit silly (at least from my side of the pond) that when it comes to human rights the US seems to ignore the UNDoHR and when it comes to it's international drug policy it enforces the UN Single Drug Convention all over the world with aggression to the point that no country in the world besides Peru can even make cannabis legal in their own nation state without violating international law (which WILL be enforced). [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      I completely agree with you. Unfortunately--unless I'm wildly mistaken--the very sad thing about American culture/politics is a lack of concern for the UNDoHR and everyone else on the planet. That being said, I specifically did not say 'US citizen' for a reason. I was being inclusive about a general human right as a citizen anywhere to freely move through a society anywhere. It was a conscious choice on my part, and was meant to be more along the lines of the UNDoHR. So, I meant human citizen, as there are very few stateless persons (yes, there are some, but I'm not really bothering to get into that issue).
mtgx 13y ago
And what about their "we can search everything you have within a 100-mile radius of the border" policy? That's a huge civil liberties abuse too and one that must be dealt with.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That is not now and never has been the policy. The "100 mile Constitution free zone" is one of the most outrageously misleading fabrications on the internet. See: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-in-america http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constituti.... You can't leave out the crucial bit that it's all about border searches, for people who have recently crossed the border. All the policy means is that border searches don't literally have to occur at the border (they might be on a major cross-border thoroughfare somewhat inland). The 4th amendment has never meant that the government or customs needs a warrant to search people at the border.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I'd like to know, why doesn't the 4th amendment mean that? It seems pretty clear, and there's no such exclusion listed.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The 4th amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't read: "all searches require a warrant except those specifically listed." The text plainly allows searches that are not "unreasonable." As a matter of historical practice, borders searches, for customs purposes and otherwise, are considered reasonable. Warrant-less border searches were authorized by the First Congress in 1789.
      - mikeash 13y ago
alexqgb 13y ago
"They do not know how they got on the list. They cannot get off the list." The default description of the Surveillance State is "Orwellian". But in a recent post for the Atlantic, Rebecca Rosen argues that "Kafkaesque" is much closer to the mark. The arbitrary, inscrutable, and inescapable nature of the No Fly List encapsulates this character perfectly. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/why-should-we-even-care-if-the-government-is-collecting-our-data/276732/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/why-sh...
- specialist 13y ago
  Orwell, Kafka, Huxley, others, all had great insights. Sadly, John Brunner doesn't get much love. His novels greatly influenced my worldviews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up
tomrod 13y ago
Can a person still fly charter if they are on the no-fly list?
fijal 13y ago
"There are probably around 100 people in the entire country that shouldn't fly" <- this is the problem if there are people who are guilty of something, they should be prosecuted and jailed. There are procedures for that. There is no "actually you did not do anything, but you're high risk for flying" approach in any law-respecting country. Either you're guilty or you're not.

gcb0 13y ago

They are also ignoring the side effects. What happens in any place where incompetence/corruption run rampant? People find ways around. The more people they add to the no-fly list for no reason, the more people will be willing to travel with fake documents. Or create business around the block (those people can probably fly airwave). Soon, there will be so much work arounds that the one or two terrorist per century that would have been deterred by that measure will just have plenty of options to bypass it as well.

pasbesoin 13y ago

1) Smear some chemical trace on a competitor's clothing or luggage, and/or submit an "anonymous tip". 2) Profit! Seriously, though -- think about it. Secret system -- who knows how it's being gamed.

jtome 13y ago

I've always thought of no-fly lists as completely out of place in a democracy. Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything.

bobwaycott 13y ago
Exactly. And if you have enough evidence to charge them with a crime, then you should do so and take the person to court. And if they are found guilty by a jury of their peers, punishment should be assessed. If not, the person is innocent and should not be inconvenienced or harassed further. No citizen should be victim of unknown charges and/or evidence that impacts their free movement through society.
- sk00byd00 13y ago
  > No citizen should be victim of unknown charges and/or evidence that impacts their free movement through society. Why should I need to be a citizen to not have my human rights violated? If it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights[1] then chances are your country signed it, agreed that would be the minimum standard, that these rights were inalienable and most importantly, that they applied to everyone. You have to admit it seems a bit silly (at least from my side of the pond) that when it comes to human rights the US seems to ignore the UNDoHR and when it comes to it's international drug policy it enforces the UN Single Drug Convention all over the world with aggression to the point that no country in the world besides Peru can even make cannabis legal in their own nation state without violating international law (which WILL be enforced). [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    I completely agree with you. Unfortunately--unless I'm wildly mistaken--the very sad thing about American culture/politics is a lack of concern for the UNDoHR and everyone else on the planet. That being said, I specifically did not say 'US citizen' for a reason. I was being inclusive about a general human right as a citizen anywhere to freely move through a society anywhere. It was a conscious choice on my part, and was meant to be more along the lines of the UNDoHR. So, I meant human citizen, as there are very few stateless persons (yes, there are some, but I'm not really bothering to get into that issue).

mtgx 13y ago

And what about their "we can search everything you have within a 100-mile radius of the border" policy? That's a huge civil liberties abuse too and one that must be dealt with.

rayiner 13y ago
That is not now and never has been the policy. The "100 mile Constitution free zone" is one of the most outrageously misleading fabrications on the internet. See: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-in-america http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constituti.... You can't leave out the crucial bit that it's all about border searches, for people who have recently crossed the border. All the policy means is that border searches don't literally have to occur at the border (they might be on a major cross-border thoroughfare somewhat inland). The 4th amendment has never meant that the government or customs needs a warrant to search people at the border.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I'd like to know, why doesn't the 4th amendment mean that? It seems pretty clear, and there's no such exclusion listed.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The 4th amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't read: "all searches require a warrant except those specifically listed." The text plainly allows searches that are not "unreasonable." As a matter of historical practice, borders searches, for customs purposes and otherwise, are considered reasonable. Warrant-less border searches were authorized by the First Congress in 1789.
    - mikeash 13y ago

alexqgb 13y ago

"They do not know how they got on the list. They cannot get off the list." The default description of the Surveillance State is "Orwellian". But in a recent post for the Atlantic, Rebecca Rosen argues that "Kafkaesque" is much closer to the mark. The arbitrary, inscrutable, and inescapable nature of the No Fly List encapsulates this character perfectly. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/why-should-we-even-care-if-the-government-is-collecting-our-data/276732/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/why-sh...

specialist 13y ago
Orwell, Kafka, Huxley, others, all had great insights. Sadly, John Brunner doesn't get much love. His novels greatly influenced my worldviews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up

tomrod 13y ago

Can a person still fly charter if they are on the no-fly list?

fijal 13y ago

"There are probably around 100 people in the entire country that shouldn't fly" <- this is the problem if there are people who are guilty of something, they should be prosecuted and jailed. There are procedures for that. There is no "actually you did not do anything, but you're high risk for flying" approach in any law-respecting country. Either you're guilty or you're not.