WATCH IT! -- (TSA abuses of no-fly 'selectee' lists) [Editorial Article]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...MGArticle%2FRT
D_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031772416270&path= %21editorials&s=1045855934
983

Just in case the link wraps and you are not able to click on the above, the
following Editorial:


Watch It

Richmond Times-Dispatch Dec 3, 2003


In the past couple of years the media have related countless stories about
unsuspicious Americans - decorated veterans, little old ladies, and even Al
Gore - being detained at airports for inspection or questioning. Dozens of
David Nelsons across the country have found themselves grounded or grossly
inconvenienced because the name "David Nelson" appears on a government
no-fly list. And now, it turns out, there is another list - designated the
"selectee" list - of individuals the government isn't too sure about. It
includes anti-war activists from the left, privacy advocates from the right,
civil libertarians of all political stripes, and others who have challenged
government policy.

The list comes to light because of a Freedom of Information Act request by
the ACLU about two anti-war activists from San Francisco who were detained
last year. Although no final tally is available, the list evidently contains
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of names. The Transportation Security
Administration said it had no means to ensure individuals were not listed
simply because of things they said or organizations they belonged to - nor
is there a procedure to have one's name removed from the list. Nor does the
TSA see any "pressing need" to track incidents in which innocent people have
been detained for questioning.

The situation has been muddled further by the patchwork system of
cross-checking names. Companies that provide software for the purpose liken
it to an Internet search engine that uses "fuzzy logic" and numerically
ranks potential matches. And the airlines themselves sometimes consider a
partial match reason enough to pull someone from a boarding line. Fragments
of names, transposed names, and homonyms are sometimes sufficient to raise a
red flag.

The TSA is working out those problems and hopes to have a better
cross-checking system. But that will not address the problem of the
ominously broad list of those who have been singled out for scrutiny. (Even
Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum says its members have been interrogated.)
Individuals who question the wisdom of government policy do not ipso facto
pose a threat. Indeed, persons with malevolent designs are unlikely to call
attention to themselves by loudly denouncing policy. They are much more
likely to keep their heads down and hope they go unnoticed.

Americans who would like to avoid another 9/11 should have patience with the
delays and other inconveniences extra security requires. But they should
also view with suspicion a government agency that views with suspicion
anyone who questions federal policy on national security or foreign affairs.
That includes just about everyone at some point. And while some of the
opinions held by the questioners might be na?ve, foolish, or even repugnant,
that doesn't make them a threat. America is not under siege from Americans.