TSA's 'Quiet Skies' program raises legal and civil liberty questions

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

TSA's 'Quiet Skies' program raises legal and civil liberty questions

TSA's 'Quiet Skies' program raises legal and civil liberty questions
"We certainly need to have more information, but I think the concerns that they are profiling are pretty high," said one national security expert.

by Elizabeth Chuck / Jul.30.2018 / 11:08 AM ET
A surveillance program that monitors Americans on domestic flights, even if they are not suspected of a crime or have ties to terrorism, is being questioned by civil liberties advocates.

"The whole thing is just absurd on so many levels," said Hugh Handeyside, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project.

The program — dubbed "Quiet Skies" by the Transportation Security Administration — has been in existence since 2010 but was disclosed for the first time this past weekend by The Boston Globe.

TSA 'Quiet Skies' program puts everyday Americans under surveillance
Jul.30.201802:40
The Globe said "Quiet Skies" tracks U.S. citizens who have been flagged to the TSA based on their affiliations or travel histories. One businesswoman who had recently traveled to Turkey, for example, was tracked.

If a passenger is selected for such secret tracking, a federal air marshal monitors him or her during the flight. The air marshal notes in a "behavior checklist" whether the individual slept, shaved or changed clothes mid-flight, or boarded last, among other criteria. The air marshal also takes note of whether the passenger has a "cold penetrating stare" or is fidgeting, the Globe reported.

The data is then sent to the TSA, although it's not clear what happens to the information afterwards.

In a statement to NBC News, the TSA described "Quiet Skies" as a "practical method of keeping another act of terrorism from occurring at 30,000 feet." It compared it to other common practices in law enforcement, like stationing a police officer in an area vulnerable to crime.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

 

[Ringel05]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

It looks a lot like a media cooked nothing sandwich. It is not against the law to "surveil" anyone as long as it doesn't interfere with that person or that person's activities (this does not include areas where search warrants are required). Hell for all we know it's an intense training program but people like you, politicians and the media have to make something out of it. But if you don't mind possibly joining the ranks of the conspiracy nutjobs then be my guest.

 

[Sunni Man]

American Commies & Liberals United

 

[Godboy]

TSA's 'Quiet Skies' program raises legal and civil liberty questions

TSA's 'Quiet Skies' program raises legal and civil liberty questions
"We certainly need to have more information, but I think the concerns that they are profiling are pretty high," said one national security expert.

by Elizabeth Chuck / Jul.30.2018 / 11:08 AM ET
A surveillance program that monitors Americans on domestic flights, even if they are not suspected of a crime or have ties to terrorism, is being questioned by civil liberties advocates.

"The whole thing is just absurd on so many levels," said Hugh Handeyside, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project.

The program — dubbed "Quiet Skies" by the Transportation Security Administration — has been in existence since 2010 but was disclosed for the first time this past weekend by The Boston Globe.

TSA 'Quiet Skies' program puts everyday Americans under surveillance
Jul.30.201802:40
The Globe said "Quiet Skies" tracks U.S. citizens who have been flagged to the TSA based on their affiliations or travel histories. One businesswoman who had recently traveled to Turkey, for example, was tracked.

If a passenger is selected for such secret tracking, a federal air marshal monitors him or her during the flight. The air marshal notes in a "behavior checklist" whether the individual slept, shaved or changed clothes mid-flight, or boarded last, among other criteria. The air marshal also takes note of whether the passenger has a "cold penetrating stare" or is fidgeting, the Globe reported.

The data is then sent to the TSA, although it's not clear what happens to the information afterwards.

In a statement to NBC News, the TSA described "Quiet Skies" as a "practical method of keeping another act of terrorism from occurring at 30,000 feet." It compared it to other common practices in law enforcement, like stationing a police officer in an area vulnerable to crime.

Im glad we have these people looking out for us. I like this program.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So none of you would have any problem if you found out that U.S. Message is under surveillance and that some unknonwn individuals were gathering information on you and running your data against their databases looking for matches or anything they deem suspicious?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So none of you would have any problem if you found out that U.S. Message is under surveillance and that some unknonwn individuals were gathering information on you and running your data against their databases looking for matches or anything they deem suspicious?

You obviously must be a member of a sleeper terrorist cell or you would not be complaining about simple good preventative measures.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You obviously must be a member of a sleeper terrorist cell or you would not be complaining about simple good preventative measures.

No, actually I'm actually something most people would consider worse

 

[SweetSue92]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

K since you have "fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices", tell me what the ACLU is doing about these disgusting FISA warrants in the case of the FBI and Carter Page. Because honestly, a weaponized FBI is about the most scary violation of civil liberties I can think of. Then we can get to the TSA, don't you think?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

K since you have "fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices", tell me what the ACLU is doing about these disgusting FISA warrants in the case of the FBI and Carter Page. Because honestly, a weaponized FBI is about the most scary violation of civil liberties I can think of. Then we can get to the TSA, don't you think?

The ACLU is concerned about abuses of the FISA courts as explained in this brochure:
Why the FAA Is Unconstitutional (Handout)

The difference however between the Page situation and the TSA's new surveillance program is that approximately 1.75 million Americans fly every day. The FBI or any agency who wants a FISA warrant has to at least present a warrant to a FISA judge and get him/her to sign off on it, even if the underlying legal basis is flimsy, legally unsound or a pretext. The TSA's surveillance program requires no warrant, has no oversight and no matter how badly they screw up or screw up someones life with their suspecious, they now have immunity at least that's what I've read. I have not actually reviewed the new law yet, so an entirely different set of laws will probably have to be applied.

Sorry I don't have time right now to go into this in more detail but I'd be happy to continue the conversation at another time if you'd like.

 

[Darkwind]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

K since you have "fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices", tell me what the ACLU is doing about these disgusting FISA warrants in the case of the FBI and Carter Page. Because honestly, a weaponized FBI is about the most scary violation of civil liberties I can think of. Then we can get to the TSA, don't you think?

The ACLU is concerned about abuses of the FISA courts as explained in this brochure:
Why the FAA Is Unconstitutional (Handout)

The difference however between the Page situation and the TSA's new surveillance program is that approximately 1.75 million Americans fly every day. The FBI or any agency who wants a FISA warrant has to at least present a warrant to a FISA judge and get him/her to sign off on it, even if the underlying legal basis is flimsy, legally unsound or a pretext. The TSA's surveillance program requires no warrant, has no oversight and no matter how badly they screw up or screw up someones life with their suspecious, they now have immunity at least that's what I've read. I have not actually reviewed the new law yet, so an entirely different set of laws will probably have to be applied.

Sorry I don't have time right now to go into this in more detail but I'd be happy to continue the conversation at another time if you'd like.

There is one other large difference you failed to mention.

Flying is not public owned transportation.

All airlines are private entities and if they agree with the TSA program of 'surveilling' someone based on behavior, then there really isn't a thing anyone can do.

No one has a right to fly and when you are on private property, the owners can make up the rules.

 

[SweetSue92]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

K since you have "fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices", tell me what the ACLU is doing about these disgusting FISA warrants in the case of the FBI and Carter Page. Because honestly, a weaponized FBI is about the most scary violation of civil liberties I can think of. Then we can get to the TSA, don't you think?

The ACLU is concerned about abuses of the FISA courts as explained in this brochure:
Why the FAA Is Unconstitutional (Handout)

The difference however between the Page situation and the TSA's new surveillance program is that approximately 1.75 million Americans fly every day. The FBI or any agency who wants a FISA warrant has to at least present a warrant to a FISA judge and get him/her to sign off on it, even if the underlying legal basis is flimsy, legally unsound or a pretext. The TSA's surveillance program requires no warrant, has no oversight and no matter how badly they screw up or screw up someones life with their suspecious, they now have immunity at least that's what I've read. I have not actually reviewed the new law yet, so an entirely different set of laws will probably have to be applied.

Sorry I don't have time right now to go into this in more detail but I'd be happy to continue the conversation at another time if you'd like.

That's a fair answer and I really appreciate it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

if people want to look at me while I'm on their property....

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There is one other large difference you failed to mention.

Flying is not public owned transportation.

All airlines are private entities and if they agree with the TSA program of 'surveilling' someone based on behavior, then there really isn't a thing anyone can do.

No one has a right to fly and when you are on private property, the owners can make up the rules.

Something can always be done, but it doesn't always adequately remedy the situation. And the owners are not the ones making this rule, it's the government. Traveling is considered an exercise of one's Constitutional liberties and the airlines fall under the laws of public accomodation which means they cannot discriminate in the services they provide their passengers including singling them out for "terrorism inspections" due to any of the attributes of their protected class status.

A Florida man removed from an American Airlines flight because he was considered a security threat has won a $400,000 jury award in a case that accused the airline of racial profiling​

I don't doubt in the least that this was a calculated move to put them even further out of reach of the courts for the passengers and others whose rights they have violated.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

K since you have "fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices", tell me what the ACLU is doing about these disgusting FISA warrants in the case of the FBI and Carter Page. Because honestly, a weaponized FBI is about the most scary violation of civil liberties I can think of. Then we can get to the TSA, don't you think?

The ACLU is concerned about abuses of the FISA courts as explained in this brochure:
Why the FAA Is Unconstitutional (Handout)

The difference however between the Page situation and the TSA's new surveillance program is that approximately 1.75 million Americans fly every day. The FBI or any agency who wants a FISA warrant has to at least present a warrant to a FISA judge and get him/her to sign off on it, even if the underlying legal basis is flimsy, legally unsound or a pretext. The TSA's surveillance program requires no warrant, has no oversight and no matter how badly they screw up or screw up someones life with their suspecious, they now have immunity at least that's what I've read. I have not actually reviewed the new law yet, so an entirely different set of laws will probably have to be applied.

Sorry I don't have time right now to go into this in more detail but I'd be happy to continue the conversation at another time if you'd like.

What evidence do you have that this is happening to anyone at any time, your horrible grammar and spelling being ignored?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is one other large difference you failed to mention.

Flying is not public owned transportation.

All airlines are private entities and if they agree with the TSA program of 'surveilling' someone based on behavior, then there really isn't a thing anyone can do.

No one has a right to fly and when you are on private property, the owners can make up the rules.

Something can always be done, but it doesn't always adequately remedy the situation. And the owners are not the ones making this rule, it's the government. Traveling is considered an exercise of one's Constitutional liberties and the airlines fall under the laws of public accomodation which means they cannot discriminate in the services they provide their passengers including singling them out for "terrorism inspections" due to any of the attributes of their protected class status.

A Florida man removed from an American Airlines flight because he was considered a security threat has won a $400,000 jury award in a case that accused the airline of racial profiling​

I don't doubt in the least that this was a calculated move to put them even further out of reach of the courts for the passengers and others whose rights they have violated.

This has nothing to do with the topic as TSA had nothing to do with that situation, but you already knew that, didn't you?

 

[Darkwind]

There is one other large difference you failed to mention.

Flying is not public owned transportation.

All airlines are private entities and if they agree with the TSA program of 'surveilling' someone based on behavior, then there really isn't a thing anyone can do.

No one has a right to fly and when you are on private property, the owners can make up the rules.

Something can always be done, but it doesn't always adequately remedy the situation. And the owners are not the ones making this rule, it's the government. Traveling is considered an exercise of one's Constitutional liberties and the airlines fall under the laws of public accomodation which means they cannot discriminate in the services they provide their passengers including singling them out for "terrorism inspections" due to any of the attributes of their protected class status.

A Florida man removed from an American Airlines flight because he was considered a security threat has won a $400,000 jury award in a case that accused the airline of racial profiling​

I don't doubt in the least that this was a calculated move to put them even further out of reach of the courts for the passengers and others whose rights they have violated.

Traveling is an exercise of one's constitutional rights, but the mode of transportation is not. Public accommodation laws pertains to specific groups outlined in the law (if you want to talk about unconstitutional laws, I'd start with that) and applied only to discrimination, not security. Plus, these airlines are required -- by law -- to provide safe transportation to those they do allow to use their services.

Security is part of that safety requirement. I have absolutely no problem with behavior profiling provided that there is a compelling public safety issue at stake, and a reasonable law not backed by a political motivation behind it.

If you do not wish to be scrutinized when you fly, then drive, take a bus or train, or get your own pilot license and airplane; or you can walk for all I care.

 

[hazlnut]

TSA's 'Quiet Skies' program raises legal and civil liberty questions

TSA's 'Quiet Skies' program raises legal and civil liberty questions
"We certainly need to have more information, but I think the concerns that they are profiling are pretty high," said one national security expert.

by Elizabeth Chuck / Jul.30.2018 / 11:08 AM ET
A surveillance program that monitors Americans on domestic flights, even if they are not suspected of a crime or have ties to terrorism, is being questioned by civil liberties advocates.

"The whole thing is just absurd on so many levels," said Hugh Handeyside, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project.

The program — dubbed "Quiet Skies" by the Transportation Security Administration — has been in existence since 2010 but was disclosed for the first time this past weekend by The Boston Globe.

TSA 'Quiet Skies' program puts everyday Americans under surveillance
Jul.30.201802:40
The Globe said "Quiet Skies" tracks U.S. citizens who have been flagged to the TSA based on their affiliations or travel histories. One businesswoman who had recently traveled to Turkey, for example, was tracked.

If a passenger is selected for such secret tracking, a federal air marshal monitors him or her during the flight. The air marshal notes in a "behavior checklist" whether the individual slept, shaved or changed clothes mid-flight, or boarded last, among other criteria. The air marshal also takes note of whether the passenger has a "cold penetrating stare" or is fidgeting, the Globe reported.

The data is then sent to the TSA, although it's not clear what happens to the information afterwards.

In a statement to NBC News, the TSA described "Quiet Skies" as a "practical method of keeping another act of terrorism from occurring at 30,000 feet." It compared it to other common practices in law enforcement, like stationing a police officer in an area vulnerable to crime.

Not sure why this is a big deal. As described in the article, seems like perfectly reasonable to me.

Have there been documented abuses or over reaches - following people home from the airport?

 

[Ringel05]

So none of you would have any problem if you found out that U.S. Message is under surveillance and that some unknonwn individuals were gathering information on you and running your data against their databases looking for matches or anything they deem suspicious?

It is but only if key words or phrases pop up. I'd be willing to bet that those words and phrases have popped up so many times here with nothing to follow up on they basically ignore us now.
But OMG!!!! The big bad gobberment is spying!!!!!
Hell, Russia, China, France, England, etc ad nauseum monitor worldwide internet traffic and you're worried about our government........ Sounds to me like Alex Jones is the guy for you.......

 

[Ringel05]

The ACLU has fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices before. The fact that it was announced just weeks before this new surveillance program was revealed that our government changed the federals laws to give it's TSA personnel immunity is a bellwether of things to come in my opinion.

If anyone needs assistance with any issues of this nature feel free to send me a private message. And please do not use my invitation for any abusive purposes.

K since you have "fought the government over their unconstitutional surveillance practices", tell me what the ACLU is doing about these disgusting FISA warrants in the case of the FBI and Carter Page. Because honestly, a weaponized FBI is about the most scary violation of civil liberties I can think of. Then we can get to the TSA, don't you think?

The ACLU is concerned about abuses of the FISA courts as explained in this brochure:
Why the FAA Is Unconstitutional (Handout)

The difference however between the Page situation and the TSA's new surveillance program is that approximately 1.75 million Americans fly every day. The FBI or any agency who wants a FISA warrant has to at least present a warrant to a FISA judge and get him/her to sign off on it, even if the underlying legal basis is flimsy, legally unsound or a pretext. The TSA's surveillance program requires no warrant, has no oversight and no matter how badly they screw up or screw up someones life with their suspecious, they now have immunity at least that's what I've read. I have not actually reviewed the new law yet, so an entirely different set of laws will probably have to be applied.

Sorry I don't have time right now to go into this in more detail but I'd be happy to continue the conversation at another time if you'd like.

Show where this has screwed up anyone's life. It hasn't. ACLU can be as concerned as they want but until they can prove abuse then they just need to watch and wait. As to the ACLU's handout, it's one legal interpretation and I'll take it with the block of salt in needs to come with.