Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Airlines Have to Ask Permission to Fly 72 Hours Early

Journal written by twitter (104583) and posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Oct 12, 2007 02:24 PM
from the papers-papers-please dept.
twitter wrote to mention that the TSA (Transport Security Administration) has released a new set of proposed rules that is raising quite a stir among groups ranging from the ACLU to the American Society of Travel Agents. Under the new rules airlines would be required to submit a passenger manifest (including full name, sex, date of birth, and redress number) for all flights departing, arriving, or flying over the United States at least 72 hours prior to departure. Boarding passes will only be issued to those passengers that have been cleared. "Hasbrouck submitted that requiring clearance in order to travel violates the US First Amendment right of assembly, the central claim in John Gilmore's case against the US government over the requirement to show photo ID for domestic travel. [...] ACLU's Barry Steinhardt quoted press reports of 500,000 to 750,000 people on the watch list (of which the no-fly list is a subset). 'If there are that many terrorists in the US, we'd all be dead.' TSA representative Kip Hawley noted that the list has been carefully investigated and halved over the last year. 'Half of grossly bloated is still bloated,' Steinhardt replied."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] IT: DHS Plans Changes in Air Passenger Screening 154 comments
narramissic writes "The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday announced plans to revamp its Secure Flight program, with the agency no longer assigning risk scores to passengers or using predictive behavior technology. In addition, the Transportation Security Administration, part of DHS, will have direct control of checking domestic passenger lists against terrorist watch lists, instead of the airlines, said DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. Just the same Marc Rotenberg, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), notes, air passengers still can't see the reasons why they're targeted for extensive searches or kept off flights, nor can they correct bad information on the terrorist watch lists. 'The problems with the watch list are still valid and are not going away,' said Rotenberg."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • say goodbuy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by russ1337 (938915) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:28PM (#20958691)
    Say goodbye to last minute business travel = say goodbye to important meetings = say goodbye to business dealings = say goodbye to the economy...
    • Re:say goodbuy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by igjeff (15314) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:32PM (#20958771)
      How about saying goodbye to flying to a funeral.

      They're really gonna expect people to get cleared 72 hours in advance to go to their mother's funeral (to pick an example)?

      Well, I guess they (TPTB at the TSA) continue to demonstrate how utterly clueless they are.
      • Re:say goodbuy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by walt-sjc (145127) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:49PM (#20959085)
        Or seeing your father one last time BEFORE he dies.

        Yep - totally clueless. And before someone suggests it, I should not have to provide the government a REASON why I want to travel on a moment's notice. We should not have to make exceptions for something so wrong.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2007, @04:02PM (#20960173)
          Sir,

          You should have visited your parents frequently in order to avoid such last minute travel plans. Visiting your loved ones frequently builds stronger families.

          Thank you,

          TSA Rep
        • Re:say goodbuy (Score:5, Informative)

          by GlL (618007) <gil&net-venture,com> on Friday October 12 2007, @05:16PM (#20960923)
          From the Kent v. Dulles case in 1957, around the McCarthy era, at the Supreme Court, Justice William O. Douglas' wrote for the court:
          "The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
          If we cannot see the "watch lists", then there is no way for us to challenge our presence on such a list. That in my opinion is taking away someone's right to travel without due process.
    • Re:say goodbuy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by griffjon (14945) <(GriffJon) (at) (Hotmail.com)> on Friday October 12 2007, @02:47PM (#20959033) Homepage Journal
      First, you can still book on short notice; this 72 hour lead time is just to get the bulk of the clearance out of the way (claim the TSA):

      ...unless the individual makes a reservation within 72 hours of the scheduled flight departure time, changes a flight within
      72 hours of the scheduled flight departure time, or requests to enter a sterile area upon arrival at the airport.

      In such cases, TSA would require covered aircraft operators to send the required information to TSA immediately. TSA, in coordination with the TSC where necessary, would compare the passenger and non-traveler information obtained from each covered
      aircraft operator to information contained in the watch list.


      but they did manage to sneak in additional papers-please wording:

      Not issue to an individual a boarding pass or authorization to enter a sterile area or permit an individual to board an aircraft or enter a sterile area if the individual does not provide a verifying identity document when requested under circumstances described above, unless otherwise authorized by TSA.


      It's still bad, and hasslesome, and invasive of privacy, but not outright bullet-in-foot material.
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:52PM (#20959119)
      If you read the actual PDF, the requirement is 30 minutes before the flight for the TSA to clear. They just want the airline to send what they have 72 hours before, and require a full name (and only a full name) to make a reservation.


      Hardly the ball-buster everyone is making it out to be.

      • by dgatwood (11270) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:05PM (#20959315) Journal

        Okay, either A. the TSA really needs three days for clearance because they do hand checking, or B. they do an automated check and don't need that time. Let's examine each case.

        If it really takes 72 hours to check someone out thoroughly, then they can't realistically let people be added to flights after that. Otherwise, the terrorists will just book at the last minute and will be checked more quickly and will have a much greater chance of getting missed in the rush.

        If it doesn't really take 72 hours to check somebody out, then the TSA is just bullying the airlines into doing extra work, thus raising the cost of travel for everybody with no actual benefit.

        I fail to see the upside here.

        • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:30PM (#20959719)

          I fail to see the upside here.


          The upside is it helps break the expectation of freedom and get people used to the idea that every action must be pre-cleared by the government, which reduces the probability of strenuous objection to future intrusive policies.

          Admittedly, though, that's only an "upside" from a certain perspective.
  • Your payperz, plezz (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TrentTheThief (118302) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:28PM (#20958701)
    Back when I was young, the Soviet Union required internal passports... Seems to me that things are rapidly progressing that way here.... Maybe it's time to emigrate to Russia now that they're freer than Americans in America.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2007, @02:30PM (#20958751)
      It's gonna get posted 50 times, so I might as well get it out of the way. (Posted AC for no karma whoring.)

      Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
      Captain Ramius: I suppose.
      Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
      Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
        • by Alsee (515537) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:54PM (#20959155) Homepage
          You can still drive state-to-state with no papers. You just can't fly.

          Answer A: They're working on fixing that too.

          Answer B: Aloha.

          -
        • by cashman73 (855518) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:28PM (#20959683) Journal
          I dunno about that,... has anybody driven between Arizona & California recently. On a recent trip from Phoenix to San Diego, we were stopped on I-8, both ways. Going into California, a CA state officer stopped all traffic and asked what our origin and destination were. Going the other way, a federal border patrol agent stopped all traffic entering Arizona, inquiring the same, but asking more questions, like, "Is everyone in your car a US citizen?" He didn't ask to see a driver's license or other identification, but I suspect this is coming. And this is on a trip from Phoenix, Arizona, to San Diego, California! The Mexican border was close, sure, but it was never crossed!
      • by niiler (716140) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:28PM (#20959679) Journal
        Actually, my dad was born in Estonia and lived under both Soviet and Nazi occupations. And one of the things he has always told me was that freedom is a slippery slope. Dictators and tyrants have always used some version of the phrase: "for the greater good" to get what they want. Although you are right in that we are still nowhere close to Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, acceding to this without even questioning the consequences to law-abiding Americans is ridiculous and leads us down the slippery slope.
  • oh boy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NiceGeek (126629) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:29PM (#20958709)
    Knowing exactly when and where someone is traveling to with 72 hours notice...naw this will never be abused.
  • by Dusty00 (1106595) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:29PM (#20958711)
    Clerk at Airport: "I'm sorry Mrs. Clinton, there seems to be a mix up, you're not clear to fly, don't worry we can get it fixed and have you on the same flight in three days. What? Oh the presidential debate is tonight? Hmm, well I might be able to get you on tomorrow..."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2007, @02:30PM (#20958749)
    All American citizens who wish to retain their freedom of movement should immediately begin informing their local authorities whenever they travel, no matter the distance or means of transport. Imagine how quickly the police, FBI, CIA, TSA, et cetera will get tired reports filed by self-reporting citizens explaining in detail that they need to go to work, stop by the grocery store, or visit their cousin in Roxbury....
  • So, if one of us techie types has a client whose information infostructure is downed hard for some reason, my company can no longer just put me on a same day flight to fix it? Or my dad (who is nearly 80) has a heart attack and I need to get there immediately or he dies first...Aside from the Airlines and Travel agents pitching a fit, business interests won't tolerate it, personal interests won't tolerate it - in fact no-one I can think of will tolerate it.


    Apparently the TSA has forgotten that this is America and we go where we like when we like and how we like (unless we're in prison, of course) without Uncle Sam knowing where we are. Like the commercial says, " we are free to move about the country."

  • Missed flights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WPIDalamar (122110) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:32PM (#20958789) Homepage
    How many people have missed their flight and caught a later one the same day?

    Imagine being stuck 3 days before you can go home.
  • by jtroutman (121577) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:38PM (#20958879)
    This'll never fly.
  • by G4from128k (686170) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:38PM (#20958893)
    The TSA seems to be doing all it can to kill the U.S. economy by making travel even more of a nightmare. I know plenty of business travelers that don't know their schedule 72 hours in advance -- they go where ever they are needed when ever they are needed. The more red tape a country throws down at the border, the less business that people will do here.

    I'm sure bin Laden is laughing in his cave right now. He's used a classic martial arts move -- using the strength of the opponent against the opponent. Bin Laden wants to the isolate the U.S. from the world and the TSA is doing a great job of that.
  • by amcdiarmid (856796) <amcdiarm&gmail,com> on Friday October 12 2007, @02:39PM (#20958903) Journal
    The Government in general, and specifically this administration, seems to want to be Orwellian in what it knows about everyone.

    I remember in the 90's when the Secret Service first started closing off traffic near the White House. The easy North/South move on the West side got bogged down from the traffic problems: Penn Ave N of the White House is shut down; E Street S. of the White House is shut down. There is now an area of eight blocks where you can't go West without going North, or South. Under Clinton, the street got opened - for about a week until some bombing far away.

    It's not that I object to security. It's just I object to security that pushes attacks onto innocents & away from those who "incited" the attacks in the first place.

    I also remember being able to get onto planes without any time consuming security screening. Now we have to wait for everything to be checked forever. The screening does not make us any more secure*, it just takes longer.

    Go big propaganda fear-mongering! we didn't need the free time to get to anywhere anyhow. If we did, we'd all be rich enough to have our own planes.

    *: The airline screening does not really make us more secure, as there are still ways to get shit on a plane: Metal Detectors test for guns sold in the US, not guns sold outside the US with lower metal content. Or Ceramic guns. Or Knives without metal (say those nice expensive Kyoceria ceramic knives).

    If you like: 2/3rds of a passenger planes cargo is other than passengers and their baggage: It's Air Freight packages. Those packages could easily hold a bomb. Or a passenger could check a bomb with a wireless control that can be carried in the cabin.

    the only thing that has been done in the name of security that makes planes more secure was making real security doors on the Pilot's compartment.

  • These guys do not deserve to have a budget. If a terrorist tries to take over your plane, you get up and kick his ass. No need for all this fear mongering and travel inconvenience. It's just make work for security contractors that does absolutely nothing. The best guarantee of your safety are your fists, and not someone elses forms.
  • by Knight of Shadows (1163917) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:40PM (#20958919)
    They can have my privacy when they pry it out of my cold, dead, fingers. It's simple, folks. Don't fly. I know, I know, we all want to line up at the gates to the abattoir like good little government programmed automatons, but this will do nothing but show them we deserve jackboots kicking in our doors. Do the right thing. Just don't buy their crap. Don't fly. When the airlines start losing money out the ass, then maybe they'll see we're not to be made victims due to idiot fundamentalist extremists, or government abuse of power, or to said government's inability to protect anyone. Hit them where it hurts, folks: in the pocketbook. I'm willing to bet that if over 200 million Americans decided not to fly for a few months, you'd see them scramble to change things.
  • by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) * on Friday October 12 2007, @02:40PM (#20958927)
    I've always dreamed of having enough money and spare time to pack a small suitcase, go to the airport, look at the departure boards, figure out what's leaving in the next couple of hours, and buy a first-class ticket to a destination I've never visited before.

    What? I have to know three days in advance everywhere I want to go?

    Shit.

    I guess I'll just have to dream about having enough money to have my own Gulfstream, since once you get to that level of wealth, the rules that apply to the little people are no longer a problem.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:40PM (#20958935)
    From the PDF for the PROPOSED rule changes (not even final yet, still in public comment phase!):

    "Additionally, for reservations made within 72 hours of scheduled flight departure time, covered aircraft operators would be required to transmit Secure Flight Passenger Data as soon as possible."

    The TSA is just asking airlines to send what they have 72 hours prior to the flight, so they can correct false alarms earlier and do a better job of identifying problems.

    RTFPDF.

    Sounds good to me.
  • by RaigetheFury (1000827) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:41PM (#20958937)
    I hate laws like these. They promote the current trend of being afraid. That's the whole goal of terrorists. It costs so much more to operate an airline now. Millions upon millions of people fly ever year. You have more of a chance of dying in a car crash than dying in a plane. But you never hear that statistic when you see a "Horrible plane crash!" news line.

    I refuse to be afraid of this. I refuse to support any measure that would protect me 1% more if it took away my rights. This does that. I refuse to live my life afraid of dying when it takes me 2 hours to get through airline security when it should take 20minutes max.

    I don't travel by plane at all anymore because of this. I go to Canada once per year and now I HAVE to get a passport because of paranoid people.

    Stop being afraid, start defending your rights or we're going to end up needing permission to travel between states.
  • by Slashdot Parent (995749) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:41PM (#20958947)
    So let me get this straight. There are 500,000 to 750,000 suspected terrorists in this country, yet we haven't had a major attack since 9/11/2001?

    There are 300M people in the US. Are you seriously telling me that at least 1 in 600 is on a terrorist watch list?

    Something tells me that getting onto a terrorist watch list involves something other than being a terrorist. Otherwise, this just doesn't make any sense.
    • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:54PM (#20959143)
      Lots of people with no business on the watch list ended up on it without clear guidelines for getting yourself removed. Lots of vocal opponents of the Bush administration like Senator Ted Kennedy, a real terrorist name if ever I heard one ;( and Randi Rhodes, the screaming liberal radio host. Of course, if you complain then not only are you a terrorist sympathizer, you must hate freedom too. Reading conservative blogs, you see how funny they seem to think this is.
  • by RichMan (8097) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:43PM (#20958983)
    What sort of computers are the TSA using if it takes 3 days to match a name to a database.

    What century are we living in?

    1 hour before boarding is reasonable. Allows data entry and organization for response.
    Anything more is just a sloppy system.
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:58PM (#20959211) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, yeah, mark me troll. Whatever.


    The fact remains that the very thing we keep hearing those 'trrists' hate, freedom, is essentially dead in this country. For all the talk of how we're supposedly spreading freedom to an occupied country, it's just that, talk, since this administration is hell bent on destroying those very same freedoms in this country.

    Between this newest revelation to track when people go on flights, requiring a national ID card, listening to our phone conversations without a warrant to preventing people from paying their bills [shns.com] until the source of their money is ok'd, we no longer live in a truly free society.

    Oh sure, I can write this without fear of being arrested, but can I go on a flight without being classified as a threat? What does the file the FBI (and at least one other three-letter agency) have on me (and they do) say?

    Bin Laden and his cohorts are probably laughing* in their cave at how they've succeeded in their first goal of undermining our society. How many times a week do we hear about law enforcement going into apoplectic seizures when someone thinks they saw some shifty character hanging around somewhere or an innocent package left behind shuts down some place?

    It's a sad state of affairs when the people of this country don't care that their right to be free has been taken away from them. After all, there's those un-reality shows to watch. That the people who only a decade or so ago were crowing about how America is the greatest country on the planet, with all kinds of freedoms not enjoyed by many other countries, are now so willing to go along with this administration's excuses about why the rights enshrined in the Constitution must be taken away to protect them.

    The quote about give them an inch and they'll take a mile certainly applies to this administration. Even worse, whoever comes into power next won't have the balls to undo the vast majority of wrongs being perpetrated against society but will instead be more concerned about getting re-elected than serving the people.

    The rights of the Constitution had a good run of what, over two hundred years? Not bad all things considered. Now though, we are moving into a new era which will require citizens to involuntarily give up rights which have existed since the founding of the country in an effort to defeat terrorism. It will be a long, never-ending battle but by giving up our rights and acquiescing to the newest form a facist police-like-state, we can be assured that we will be safe and secure in our wiretapped, surveillanced, dwellings.

    * I'm assuming that like most leaders, the rules they want to impose on others does not apply to them

  • by netsavior (627338) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:58PM (#20960097) Homepage
    The US is still in the 19th century as far as rail travel goes compared to the rest of the world. Maybe this will help us realize that there are other options.
    • by ChronosWS (706209) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:43PM (#20958977)
      Don't *even* suggest this. If you have gotten to this point in your thinking, move to China because that's where stuff like this is supposed to happen, not here.
    • by crankyspice (63953) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:49PM (#20959071)
      Or even just unexpected commercial trips; I recently flew to Las Vegas in a rented Cessna that didn't pass pre-flight when I went to take off (bad magnetos). I left the bird with the local FBO mechanic and got a ride to McCarran (I was at Henderson), booking a Southwest flight back to L.A. from my Treo during the drive over, as I had to be back in L.A. later that day for an important meeting.

      Shit like this will cripple America...

    • When my father-in-law passed away, we had to take a flight the day after we heard the news. My wife is from Indonesia, and it was about a 30-hour plane trip to get there. Adding 72 hours to this would simply be unacceptable as it would likely have caused us to miss the funeral (in Indonesia, it is custom to have an open casket memorial lasting for up to 3-4 days and then bury the body-- this starts almost immediately after the body has been embalmed).

      Seems like time to write to Congress.
    • by Samalie (1016193) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:02PM (#20959285)
      ...but the document linked in TFA states clearly that airlines have to provide said data to the TSA 72 hours before departure for all confirmed passengers they have...this doesn't mean that you can't book a ticket under 72 hours, or get on that plane. They realized that 90% or so of passengers are booked over 72 hours to departure, and that way they can clean up the last-minute fliers faster.

      That being said, its still bullshit, without a doubt. But its NOT going to stop last-minute fliers from being able to fly.

      And again, its not that this isn't complete horseshit, but they're already passing your infromation to the TSA - they're just doing it within 15 minutes of departure now (or 15 minutes after departure for international flights).
    • by WebCowboy (196209) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:30PM (#20959703)
      At my job we aren't so young and most have families and we still have to make last-minute flights from time to time. On more than one occasion this year I've had to book flights within 72 hours of departure.

      I can tell you that in many business cases there is absolutely NO WAY that this proposal is workable. People MUST be able to make travel plans up to and including the day of departure. 3 days is just not workable and the business community simply would not tolerate implementation of this proposal.

      There are also far to many last-minute trips made on compassionate grounds. What about flights arranged to see dying loved ones, or to transport donor organs, or to get special treatment at a distant hospital? Hell, you can get a passport faster than 72 hours under normal cases for such reasons. If your identity can be verified well enough to get a passport that quickly then clearing you for a flight should be much easier than that.

      Three days? That'll never fly. MAYBE three HOURS, but not three days.

      It goes beyond that though--the same proposal not only wants lists for all flights arriving or departing US locations, it wants flight lists for ALMOST EVERY FLIGHT THAT PASSED OVER US AIRSPACE as well...which means they'd like the government to demand passenger lists from Canadian and Mexican airlines for many of their flights that never touch American soil. Not enough to violate their own civil liberties--in the name of safety everyone's liberties must be unduly curtailed.
      • We may have to get to that point to satisfy the paranoids who would have me kicked off an airline if I forget to shave.
      • by dgatwood (11270) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:48PM (#20959057) Journal

        With apologies in advance to Jonathan Swift [art-bin.com], I think this is a great idea. But I'd go one step further. One could just as easily have driven a Ryder truck filled with explosives and put it under the World Trade Center. In fact, terrorists tried that once, and it almost worked. I feel strongly that we should be required to have a 72 hour screening period before renting a vehicle. Of course, if your car breaks down and you need a rental, you should have joined the "trusted driver" program ahead of time. We should also require such a screening before you can buy a car. After all, terrorists spent thousands of dollars on explosives for that truck, so what's another few thousand to buy or lease a car? I think you can see how important it is that only trusted patriotic Americans be allowed to purchase an automobile.

        Further, automobiles only provide the casing for the bomb. We should have similar levels of trust for people purchasing bomb-making supplies. For example, we should require a minimum of a 7 day waiting period and appropriate security screening prior to purchasing fertilizer, as you can easily use that to make a bomb. Don't forget gasoline, either. We need at least a 72 hour screening period before you can fill up at the pump. People who need to fill up quickly should trade their privacy rights as part of our "trusted gas purchaser" program.

        But that's not the biggest problem we face. The fundamental truth is that terrorists are people. None of these problems would exist if people prone to terrorist actions were not allowed to be born. For this reason, I would like to recommend a mandatory DNA screening prior to giving birth to children. Any children with terroristic tendencies should not be allowed to be carried to term. As an added bonus, these aborted fetuses can be used for scientific research, and in some cases, can be repurposed as a healthy food source for our nation's underprivileged.

        I hope by this point you realize that this entire post is satire. My purpose in writing it is to show just how silly the argument of prescreening for aircraft flights in the name of national security really is. While I can't see the U.S. government actually going so far as suggesting that we eat babies to protect against terrorism, we are rapidly approaching that level of absurdity in our national security policy. I think it is time that we all take a step back, breathe, then laugh out loud at these policies at every possible opportunity. Only through laughter can we adequately portray the current administration and its policies as the laughingstock that they are.

        • by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:02PM (#20959277)
          Sir, I realise that your post was in jest; however, I would like suggest an easy alternative.

          We should just mark all patriotic Am3rican$ with a simple mark. Something simple like...oh, I dunno', maybe a six, three score, and six.

          Without this mark, no one would be allowed to travel. Besides curtailing the nefarious schemes of terrorists it would also help with the large immigration problem. In time, as the populace surrendered to the most excellent goals of this process, it could easily be extended to other activities such as the buying and selling of goods.

            • by j_w_d (114171) on Friday October 12 2007, @04:21PM (#20960393)
              What I am curious about is this: how many legitimate security threats have been stopped by the regulations in place now? We know they go after nursing mothers, girls with techno-trash style sense, sick people with serious, life threatening conditions, etc. I've also seen them stop people with jars of maple syrup, pickles and other substances, and once even an idiot muling drugs from Canada to Chicago. But, again, how many REAL terrorist style bad guys have we heard about them taking down? By my count, admittedly incomplete though it is, the number is very close to if not actually equal to zero. Then there are those really silly things like the "no-fly" lists. They check your name!! How many real bad guys are going to use their real names? I can just see it, "Name, please? Hmm? Oh, I'm Carlos the Jackal. Sorry, sir, could you step over here? You are on our no-fly list." Seriously, now.
        • by Phylarr (981216) on Friday October 12 2007, @03:34PM (#20959769)
          And here are some numbers that I find also help to put the whole terrorism thing in perspective:

          Deaths in the U.S. in 2001 due to
          heart disease - 700,000
          cancer - 553,800
          stroke - 164,000
          accidents - 102,000 (Car accidents - 42,000)
          influenza - 36,000
          terrorism - 3,000

          Where is the war on cancer, or the war on drunk driving? You're more likely to die driving to the airport than on the plane.
          • by PMBjornerud (947233) on Friday October 12 2007, @05:18PM (#20960945)
            Where did you get your hand on such propaganda?!? Come with us, please.

            Why the hell are you trying to make excuses for the terrorists? You're no true patriot. We can only hope that in a few years, spreading misinformation like this will be outlawed. ...

            When I was a kid, 20 years ago, my world view was that the only country in the world where people would be stopped because of their papers and turned back with no reason, - was the Sovjet Union and its vassal states.

            Submit my name 3 days before travel and maybe be refused on short notice? Sovjet. Hearing stories about small issues in immigration escalating and you ending up being sent back? Sovjet.

            You're still a good country. Please don't become a bad one...
        • by vtcodger (957785) on Friday October 12 2007, @04:35PM (#20960531)
          ***I feel strongly that we should be required to have a 72 hour screening period before renting a vehicle.***

          And we should back that up with a 72 hour waiting period before stealing a vehicle that could be used to transport a bomb.

          We can beat this terrorism thing if we just pull together.

          (Maybe if we keep this up, the terrorists will find our antics so entertaining that they will decide to keep us around for a while).

          • by dgatwood (11270) on Friday October 12 2007, @05:02PM (#20960781) Journal

            The 1993 attack did significant damage and exposed the many - many - problems in combating a high-rise fire, but it did not threaten the structural integrity of the building.

            Only because they didn't place it very well.

            To quote from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3069653/ [msn.com]: On February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center merely shook but did not collapse. But it was a close call. Later, the WTC's architect would tell jurors that if the van had been left closer to the poured concrete foundations, they would have succeeded. The tower would have fallen.

    • by walt-sjc (145127) on Friday October 12 2007, @02:47PM (#20959041)
      The government has a habit of proposing something and then implementing it. They very rarely make proposals without intending to implement it.

      The point is that now is the time for feedback. You can't give feedback on something you don't know about.

      Say, you don't work for the government do you? Sure don't want those pesky private citizens allowed to influence potential new regulations or laws that affect them, right? I mean the NERVE of some people - thinking that the government works for the citizens...