Submitted Comments
206 From Robert M, Atlanta, Georgia, 21 October 2004, 01:17:38 PM PST
To subject the innocent to a measure so intrusive as this violates the privacy act.
205 From Phil M, 21 October 2004, 01:17:08 PM PST
What the terrorists want more than anything else is to screw up our way of life. Incompetent overreaction (Patriot Act, Secure Flight) is to their advantage, not ours. Please don't give in to terrorism by turning our free country into a 1984-style police state. You will never get all the terrorists on your list, and every time you inconvenience an American citizen or restrict our rights you are doing the terrorists bidding. And terrorist cells will always be able to adapt faster than any bureaucracy. So please quit wasting our money on stuff that just plain won't work but in a headline sounds like somebody is doing something important.
204 From Jenny B, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 21 October 2004, 01:17:03 PM PST
Since the US government insists on enforcing law, as well as creating and interpreting it, then it should be held to the same procedures and standards as any other local law enforcement agency. Police officers can't go near anyone unless the person actually commits a crime. They can't raid databases or invade physical establishments (like businesses and homes) simply because someone dresses like a criminal or looks like they might be thinking about committing a crime. The Feds shouldn't be allowed to do this, either, nor should they be allowed to hire people who cannot be held accountable for their actions on the Feds' behalf. Holding them less accountable than a local police officer doesn't make it easier for them to find terrorists -- it makes it easier for them to make being an American even more of a curse.
203 From Joe B, 21 October 2004, 01:15:44 PM PST
I�ll be flying this holiday season for the first time since the news reports of Senator Ted Kennedy being turned away because his name was found on the no-fly list. It was clearly an error. I�m fairly sure I won�t have the Senator�s experience. I�m fairly sure my experience will be different because one, I�m probably not on the no-fly list and two, if I am, I will undoubtedly remain on the list as I lack the Senator�s influence. The real concern however is that I am forced to use the word �fairly� and �probably� when I discuss the no-fly list. When I arrive at the airport this Thanksgiving there will be a moment when I will wonder if I will be allowed � by the executive branch of my government � to fly home and visit my parents. Perhaps another mistake has been made or God forbid, some official has come across my name on a web site such as this and said to himself, �anybody who wonders if they are on the no-fly list is very suspicious and probably up to no good. We should add his name to the list!�
When I stand at the ticket counter it will be on my mind because it now is actually a possibility that I will be denied a seat on the plane. Period. This is not the concern of a citizen living in a healthy, free and democratic society.
Let�s stop, turn around and go back, now, while we still can. I like to ask proponents of schemes like �Secure Flight,� do you not understand that your version of liberty is in direct conflict with our constitution? If then answer is no, then perhaps you are well meaning but misinformed. If the answer is yes, or �a little,� then perhaps you are not so well meaning.
To those of you at the TSA, I would expect you to execute your duties as a civil servant with much caution and high regard for the Constitution - if, for nothing else - out of simple self-interest.
After all, these are your rights and freedoms too.
202 From David L, Carlsbad, CA, 21 October 2004, 01:14:31 PM PST
1. Since when did the Executive Branch have the right to stop Americans from traveling?
2. More than 120,000 names are on terrorist watch lists that the TSA will use to screen fliers. Nowhere does the TSA mention testing the right of passengers to seek redress of an error. It is also mute on how a flier who is wrongly placed on the watch list could have his or her name removed.
3. No one who flew in June of 2004 gave their permission for that information to be turned-over to the government. This appears to be an illegal data dump as no Privacy Act notice was given.
4. The TSA has a horrible record on privacy. During the past two years, the TSA secretly obtained millions of travel records from several airlines and airline-reservation systems and passed these records on to private contractors.
5. TSA already has millions of travel records and ran testing on these records. Why do they need more records? What were the results of the earlier testing?
6. No one within the TSA has been punished for the earlier, secret privacy invasions.
7. The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), still hasn't completed their investigation into all of TSA's previous privacy violations.
8. The terrorist watch lists are a mess. TSA will use lists that have been proven to be inaccurate in order to test a system that has no proven effectiveness: garbage in, garbage out.
9. The millions of tax dollars that will be spent on 'Secure Flight' would be better spent on things we know will work, such as cargo screening, better training for TSA employees, and point-to-point baggage matching.
10. This is America, not Communist China. Internal border controls are un-American.
200 From Robert M, Pasadena, TX, 21 October 2004, 01:13:35 PM PST
Comments aren't enough. Boycott air travel and tell the airlines WHY you are not giving them your money. If you want privacy from airlines, you have to explain it in terms they can readily understand.
198 From Ian J, Tallahassee, Florida, 21 October 2004, 01:12:55 PM PST
Dear TSA,
It upsets me to know that I am a number in a statistical analysis. I have no faith in a computer program that will determine whether or not I am a terrorist, when my baggage does not even arive on time. In fact, why dont we as a nation spend more money on making "uncrashable" cars, since millions more people die in carwrecks then terrorist related tragedies. (At least here in the good 'ol US of A). I shouldnt have to worry about my own government abusing me, because that seems FAR more likely then dying in a terrorist attack.
Love,
-Ian
197 From Jeff G, Ann Arbor, MI, 21 October 2004, 01:10:27 PM PST
I would greatly appreciate if the TSA would refrain from obtaining any more passenger records for the purposes of testing the 'Secure Flight' System.
If TSA cannot be a responsible government agency that provides open and honest disclosure of previous efforts to secure air travel, how can I trust the agency to disclose future effort or to protect my private information from those who may choose to do something less than honest with it?
Stop what you are doing TSA, open up the discussion and the results of previous efforts and then perhaps TSA can be trusted to move forward in its efforts to secure air travel.
196 From Corey E, Idaho Falls, ID, 21 October 2004, 01:05:21 PM PST
The privacy invasions enacted by the Department of Homeland Security make it clear they are grasping at straws. They want to make it clear to Americans that they are doing "something" despite not having a clue what will actually ensure our safety. Depriving us of our precious rights and liberties is not the answer. Not only is it not clear that we are any safer due to these measures, we are giving away something more precious. We simply cannot let these heinous terrorist actions cause us to destroy the reasons that America stands strong. This country is only worth fighting for if still we have our liberties to protect.
195 From Johnny H, Franklin, NC, 21 October 2004, 01:05:11 PM PST
I object to a system of data transfer which does not safeguard MY privacy. I object to a system of data evaluation which prevents a high profile person such as Senator Kennedy from flying. What recourse would a common person, such as myself, have, in the face of errors which are certain to arise in such a poorly conceived attempt at resolving an etherial "problem?"
In sacrificing freedom for security, we lose both.