Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WASHINGTON The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that it would file a class-action lawsuit challenging the list of travelers the government has barred from flying because they are considered threats. The civil rights group is representing seven plaintiffs.
Airlines are instructed to stop anyone on the "no fly" list compiled by the Transportation Security Administration (search). The ACLU (search) contends, though, that some people are wrongfully put on the list.
"This can't be good for security because again the people who are targeted are innocent people," said Reginald Shuford, ACLU senior staff attorney. "For people who are legitimately involved in terrorist activity then by all means use the list to do what you need to do to protect all Americans and to guarantee safety, but these people are innocent people; they have nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever," he said.
The names on the no-fly list (search) are gathered from the FBI, CIA and other intelligence sources. Airlines compare the no-fly list with passenger manifests. If a name matches, the passenger is not allowed to fly until additional security checks are done measures that usually involve an interview by the FBI.
The no-fly list is one of two lists kept by the TSA. The other is the "selectee" list. Those on the no-fly list are not allowed to board a commercial aircraft. Those on the selectee list are subjected to a more extensive screening before boarding.
The plaintiffs in this case allege that being on the list causes them repeated delays when boarding a flight, as well as the stigma of being singled out as a security threat in front of passengers and flight crews.
Little else is known about the lists, including how many people are on them and by what criteria a person is placed on the lists or removed.
"When the government starts singling you out for negative treatment, it is hard to know where that is going to stop," said ACLU attorney David Fahti. "Nevertheless, I continue flying, and I intend to do everthing to safeguard my rights and the rights of my fellow airline passengers," he said.
The TSA acknowledged the name-matching technology used by some airlines can confuse names on the no-fly list with passengers who have similar names.
In such a case, a passenger would be referred to a law enforcement official, who would be able to clear up mistakes by checking the person's identification and perhaps putting in a call to the FBI, said Mark Hatfield, TSA spokesman.
Some people on the no-fly list have found it impossible to get off the list, said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (search).
"There doesn't seem to be any reliable way to resolve the problem that these people continuously confront," Sobel said. This is also a claim of the ACLU, which said it is virtually impossible to get off the list even when the FBI has done security checks to clear your identity.
Hatfield acknowledged that such problems exist, but said the agency has worked to help people wrongly identified.
A spokesman for the TSA admitted to Fox News that the no-fly list is not perfectthere are inconsistencies, and it's true that some people have a tough time getting off the list. That's why the TSA says it's pushing for a more comprehensive screening system, which uses addresses, social security numbers and dates of birth. It is called CAPPS II or the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (search), but this system is also controversial.
Critics say that if a no-fly list with relatively few names causes confusion and produces misidentifications, the government cannot be trusted with a far broader program.
Separately, the TSA said Monday that it is seeking proposals from companies to run a pilot "registered traveler" program in which low-risk frequent fliers could avoid extra security inspections at airports by submitting to background checks.
Companies are being asked to show how they'd manage the program, as well as their capabilities in biometric identification and computer technology.
Originally posted by dmp
:-/
I'm not saying the list is perfect - but it's better than 'nothing'.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116315,00.html
Originally posted by dmp
I don't believe liberty is more important than 'security'. :-/
Originally posted by dmp
I don't believe liberty is more important than 'security'. :-/
Originally posted by jon_forward
If the List stops ONE terrorist from commiting an act against us, or anyone else. The list is well worth it. we dont live in a perfect world, why does everything have to be perfect? [/QUOTE
I agree. Not everything about the war on terror will be perfect,but at least they are doing everything we can to stop another airplane from hitting a building. We have to keep in mind that the Bush Adm. is the first one that has had to deal with terorism on these levels. In 20 years,we will be great at it. Right now,it seems we are kind of learning how to deal with such large threats. No one thought it would happen on such a level if at all,therefore no one dealt with it before the way it should have been handled with the attention it should have been given.
If the List stops ONE terrorist from commiting an act against us, or anyone else. The list is well worth it. we dont live in a perfect world, why does everything have to be perfect?
Agreed. It is always ok because we need to be "safe".Originally posted by acludem
This list is big brother government at its worst. It always shocks me to hear conservatives who constantly bitch that the government is too big say they are all too willing to hand over their freedom for some false sense of security. I think Benjamin Franklin said it best "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
acludem
Originally posted by jon_forward
In Ben Franklins time, they would have days if not weeks of advanced warning of inpending trouble. we however dont have that Luxery[sp]
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
So don't you think, as freedom loving americans, that instead of surrendering the very rights, freedoms, and liberties that were fought for, we should find ways to adapt to the times of today and better our intelligence gathering instead of allowing a government body to control more of our personal lives?
Originally posted by NewGuy
Ok. That's it. Either you change the word "liberal" in your avatar, or I'm going to tell everyone that you have been pretending all along.
Originally posted by clumzgirl
BINGO!
I said it before, I'll say it again. We are now faced with an "enemy within." (An unfortunate side-effect of our civil liberties.)
We are fools not to take steps to manage that enemy. I, for one, support a no-fly list, and I bet any one of you would too if asked on September 12th. We are becoming fickle.
