"No Fly List" - is a net to supress voice???

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
Matt wrote:
snip

Even with today's level of security, I don't think it would be that hard
to
sneak a crude weapon on to a plane. Somehow I doubt the FBI and other
agencies would not be severely criticized if a known or suspected
terrorist
took over plane because passenger names weren't being screened.

Matt

It's not the screening so much as the incompetent way in which it is
being done. In this day of IT the concept that they cannot manage to
identify regular hits which have been cleared is ludicrous. Bothering
an individual more that once or twice is unacceptable.


I agree completely. I like the general idea of having a no-fly list, but
they need to fix it so innocent people aren't unfairly harassed.

Matt

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Matt wrote:
The fact that this hasn't happened
tells me that either

1) the NFL is designed to placate the insurance industry re airline
liability, or

Well, that may be part of it, but I don't really care. Airlines are private
companies and should be able to refuse service to anyone they want, whatever
the reason.


2) the NFL is a smoke screen, designed to be well known to the flying
public (and potential bad guys) and keep bad guys away from airplanes
(rather than catch them at the ticket counter).

So what if it is?

reason, then that would explain why the list is never published -
because it *doesn't* contain the names of any real terrorists, but it
does contain just enough names to trip up a few people who we find out
about through the media. And to kick it up a notch, they make it so
that even Ted Kennedy gets tripped up by the list.

And who do you think shot JFK? What do you think brought down TWA Flight
800?


Ok, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're on
a flight sitting in seat 15A, and you wouldn't mind if a terrorist
sat down next to you in 15B?? Is that really what you are saying?

I'd rather have 15C.

I suspect anyone that would answer this question honestly (which I don't
think you have done), would say that they'd rather not have the terrorist on
the plane in the first place.


The question is whether having a NFL in it's current
(arbitrary, hiddeous, in-flexible) form is either effective or a good
trade-off in security vs inconveinence for those who are falsely
identified.

By that statement you are implying that you agree with the idea of a NFL, in
principal, if it could be implemented better. And that's exactly what I'm
saying.


First of all, what do you want them to recommend passengers do
in the case of a hijacking?

What would you want your fellow passengers to do? Sit quietly while 1
(or more) bad guys storm around the plane, hammering on the cockpit
door? Hasn't the premis changed from "obey the hijacker and you will
live" to "combat the hijacker(s) if you want to live" ?

I agree, but do you really expect the government or airlines to come up with
a formal policy that says "In the case of the hijacking, passengers should
combat the hijackers." Can you not see why that would never happen?


If one or more hijackers got out of their seats and attempted to take
over a plane, and you wanted to combat them with the help of fellow
passengers, but no other passengers were willing - because "the gov't
didn't tell them they should combat hijackers" - what would you think
then?

Do you really believe that an announcement or pamplet directing passengers
to attack hijackers would convince the other passengers to join you?



You're right. And I was also thinking that maybe passengers seated
next to emergency exits could possibly open exit doors themselves if
given a pre-flight explanation by the flight attendents. Na- that's a
silly idea.

Yes, it is a silly idea.


Your right. A sentence like "you may be called upon by the crew or
fellow passengers to subdue anyone threatenting the safety and
security of the plane" is clearly too confusing and fails to convey or
re-inforce the idea that hijackers are to be confronted.

I just think such a statement is pointless. If I'm a passenger and there's
a hijacking, and a flight attendant calls on me to help, I'm going to help.
I don't need an announcement.



Yea, the
very mention of that sentence on each and every flight wouldn't do
much to deter future hijackers who would be hearing that on every test
flight they take.

No, but the news of what happened on the flight over Pennsylvania on 9/11
will. Hijackers know that things changed after 9/11.

Matt

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Matt wrote:
The fact that this hasn't happened
tells me that either

1) the NFL is designed to placate the insurance industry re airline
liability, or

Well, that may be part of it, but I don't really care. Airlines are private
companies and should be able to refuse service to anyone they want, whatever
the reason.


2) the NFL is a smoke screen, designed to be well known to the flying
public (and potential bad guys) and keep bad guys away from airplanes
(rather than catch them at the ticket counter).

So what if it is?

reason, then that would explain why the list is never published -
because it *doesn't* contain the names of any real terrorists, but it
does contain just enough names to trip up a few people who we find out
about through the media. And to kick it up a notch, they make it so
that even Ted Kennedy gets tripped up by the list.

And who do you think shot JFK? What do you think brought down TWA Flight
800?


Ok, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're on
a flight sitting in seat 15A, and you wouldn't mind if a terrorist
sat down next to you in 15B?? Is that really what you are saying?

I'd rather have 15C.

I suspect anyone that would answer this question honestly (which I don't
think you have done), would say that they'd rather not have the terrorist on
the plane in the first place.


The question is whether having a NFL in it's current
(arbitrary, hiddeous, in-flexible) form is either effective or a good
trade-off in security vs inconveinence for those who are falsely
identified.

By that statement you are implying that you agree with the idea of a NFL, in
principal, if it could be implemented better. And that's exactly what I'm
saying.


First of all, what do you want them to recommend passengers do
in the case of a hijacking?

What would you want your fellow passengers to do? Sit quietly while 1
(or more) bad guys storm around the plane, hammering on the cockpit
door? Hasn't the premis changed from "obey the hijacker and you will
live" to "combat the hijacker(s) if you want to live" ?

I agree, but do you really expect the government or airlines to come up with
a formal policy that says "In the case of the hijacking, passengers should
combat the hijackers." Can you not see why that would never happen?


If one or more hijackers got out of their seats and attempted to take
over a plane, and you wanted to combat them with the help of fellow
passengers, but no other passengers were willing - because "the gov't
didn't tell them they should combat hijackers" - what would you think
then?

Do you really believe that an announcement or pamplet directing passengers
to attack hijackers would convince the other passengers to join you?



You're right. And I was also thinking that maybe passengers seated
next to emergency exits could possibly open exit doors themselves if
given a pre-flight explanation by the flight attendents. Na- that's a
silly idea.

Yes, it is a silly idea.


Your right. A sentence like "you may be called upon by the crew or
fellow passengers to subdue anyone threatenting the safety and
security of the plane" is clearly too confusing and fails to convey or
re-inforce the idea that hijackers are to be confronted.

I just think such a statement is pointless. If I'm a passenger and there's
a hijacking, and a flight attendant calls on me to help, I'm going to help.
I don't need an announcement.



Yea, the
very mention of that sentence on each and every flight wouldn't do
much to deter future hijackers who would be hearing that on every test
flight they take.

No, but the news of what happened on the flight over Pennsylvania on 9/11
will. Hijackers know that things changed after 9/11.

Matt

Matt wrote:

By that statement you are implying that you agree with the idea
of a NFL, in principal, if it could be implemented better. And
that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'd be for a no fly list if:

1) The _number_ of entries or names on the list is publically
divulged.
2) The nature or reason why each name is on the list is publically
divulged.
3) The number of names that belong to US citizens is publically
divulged
4) If any name on the NFL belongs to a US citizen, then by law the
gov't (or agency maintaining the NFL) must make a continuous and
competent effort to find or contact that person and (a) inform them
they are on the list and tell them why, and (b) give them legal
recourse to challenge their inclusion on the list.
5) A bullet-proof mechanism exists to eliminate repeat
false-positives, preferrably by entering specific additional
information AT THE GATE or AT THE TICKET COUNTER when confronted with
the false-positive person such that that person will never trigger the
NFL again.

- items (1), (2) and (3) do not require that the names themselves be
publically divulged

Tell me why a no-fly-list with any or all of the above characteristics
would degrade the performance or effectiveness of the current list.

Hasn't the premis changed from "obey the hijacker and you will
live" to "combat the hijacker(s) if you want to live" ?

I agree, but do you really expect the government or airlines to come
up with a formal policy that says "In the case of the hijacking,
passengers should combat the hijackers."
Can you not see why that would never happen?

It won't happen if the authorities and policy-makers are cowards.

In 5 years, another 9-11 situation could happen and the passengers
would just look around in a hysterical daze while the hijackers shout
at them to be quite and stay in their seats. They will say "if anyone
gets up, you will all die". The pax will believe it. And you will be
frustrated that no-one other than yourself has the balls or "wisdom"
to know that the correct action is to combat the hijackers. That's
because airline passengers will not have been conditioned to know that
the correct response is to confront the hijackers. They will not have
been conditioned because they have NOT heard any such reinforcing
message because that message hasn't been incorporated into the
standard pre-flight announcements.

Do you really believe that an announcement or pamplet directing
passengers to attack hijackers would convince the other passengers
to join you?

If they know that the "offical" or "sanctioned" action in the case of
a hijacking is to combat / subdue the hijacker at all costs, then yes,
I believe that passengers will act together and cooperate without
apprehension or confusion.

If they don't know what they should do (and in the future they will be
less sure than they are now), then that's a weakness that future
terrorists will be aware of. It doesn't have to be this way.

And I was also thinking that maybe passengers seated next to
emergency exits could possibly open exit doors themselves if
given a pre-flight explanation by the flight attendents.

Yes, it is a silly idea.

So why is it expected of emergency-row passengers?

"you may be called upon by the crew or fellow passengers to
subdue anyone threatenting the safety and security of the
plane"

I just think such a statement is pointless. If I'm a passenger
and there's a hijacking, and a flight attendant calls on me to
help, I'm going to help. I don't need an announcement.

And if the attendant has had their throat cut, will you still expect a
call for help from the attendant?

Cut the crap.

You are sitting in your seat. 1 or more men get up and announce that
they are taking over the plane. The flight attendants are either dead
or out of ear-shot. What will you do? How much will your decision
depend on what other passengers believe is the right or prudent thing
to do?

I'll tell you. They will NOT think that they should combat the angry
and threatening man or men storming around inside the plane. They
will think that if they behave that everything will turn out ok. The
lack of any pre-flight message (above) has conditioned them to a state
of in-action and self doubt.

For frequent flyers, yes I know that the pre-flight announcements
about emergency exits and seat-cushion floatation and oxygen masks are
largely ignored. But on a subconscios level - you know that there
ARE exit rows and exit doors, there ARE oxygen masks, etc. Similarly,
if the above sentence is included in the pre-flight message, it will
also fade into the boring drone as well, but what is inescapable is
that it does convey the intent and set the standard passenger response
to a hijacking.

Hijackers know that things changed after 9/11.

And they know human nature. They know that in time people will forget
what happened on that 9-11 flight over PA.

Matt wrote:

By that statement you are implying that you agree with the idea
of a NFL, in principal, if it could be implemented better. And
that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'd be for a no fly list if:

1) The _number_ of entries or names on the list is publically
divulged.
2) The nature or reason why each name is on the list is publically
divulged.
3) The number of names that belong to US citizens is publically
divulged
4) If any name on the NFL belongs to a US citizen, then by law the
gov't (or agency maintaining the NFL) must make a continuous and
competent effort to find or contact that person and (a) inform them
they are on the list and tell them why, and (b) give them legal
recourse to challenge their inclusion on the list.
5) A bullet-proof mechanism exists to eliminate repeat
false-positives, preferrably by entering specific additional
information AT THE GATE or AT THE TICKET COUNTER when confronted with
the false-positive person such that that person will never trigger the
NFL again.

- items (1), (2) and (3) do not require that the names themselves be
publically divulged

Tell me why a no-fly-list with any or all of the above characteristics
would degrade the performance or effectiveness of the current list.

Hasn't the premis changed from "obey the hijacker and you will
live" to "combat the hijacker(s) if you want to live" ?

I agree, but do you really expect the government or airlines to come
up with a formal policy that says "In the case of the hijacking,
passengers should combat the hijackers."
Can you not see why that would never happen?

It won't happen if the authorities and policy-makers are cowards.

In 5 years, another 9-11 situation could happen and the passengers
would just look around in a hysterical daze while the hijackers shout
at them to be quite and stay in their seats. They will say "if anyone
gets up, you will all die". The pax will believe it. And you will be
frustrated that no-one other than yourself has the balls or "wisdom"
to know that the correct action is to combat the hijackers. That's
because airline passengers will not have been conditioned to know that
the correct response is to confront the hijackers. They will not have
been conditioned because they have NOT heard any such reinforcing
message because that message hasn't been incorporated into the
standard pre-flight announcements.

Do you really believe that an announcement or pamplet directing
passengers to attack hijackers would convince the other passengers
to join you?

If they know that the "offical" or "sanctioned" action in the case of
a hijacking is to combat / subdue the hijacker at all costs, then yes,
I believe that passengers will act together and cooperate without
apprehension or confusion.

If they don't know what they should do (and in the future they will be
less sure than they are now), then that's a weakness that future
terrorists will be aware of. It doesn't have to be this way.

And I was also thinking that maybe passengers seated next to
emergency exits could possibly open exit doors themselves if
given a pre-flight explanation by the flight attendents.

Yes, it is a silly idea.

So why is it expected of emergency-row passengers?

"you may be called upon by the crew or fellow passengers to
subdue anyone threatenting the safety and security of the
plane"

I just think such a statement is pointless. If I'm a passenger
and there's a hijacking, and a flight attendant calls on me to
help, I'm going to help. I don't need an announcement.

And if the attendant has had their throat cut, will you still expect a
call for help from the attendant?

Cut the crap.

You are sitting in your seat. 1 or more men get up and announce that
they are taking over the plane. The flight attendants are either dead
or out of ear-shot. What will you do? How much will your decision
depend on what other passengers believe is the right or prudent thing
to do?

I'll tell you. They will NOT think that they should combat the angry
and threatening man or men storming around inside the plane. They
will think that if they behave that everything will turn out ok. The
lack of any pre-flight message (above) has conditioned them to a state
of in-action and self doubt.

For frequent flyers, yes I know that the pre-flight announcements
about emergency exits and seat-cushion floatation and oxygen masks are
largely ignored. But on a subconscios level - you know that there
ARE exit rows and exit doors, there ARE oxygen masks, etc. Similarly,
if the above sentence is included in the pre-flight message, it will
also fade into the boring drone as well, but what is inescapable is
that it does convey the intent and set the standard passenger response
to a hijacking.

Hijackers know that things changed after 9/11.

And they know human nature. They know that in time people will forget
what happened on that 9-11 flight over PA.

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Matt wrote:

By that statement you are implying that you agree with the idea
of a NFL, in principal, if it could be implemented better. And
that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'd be for a no fly list if:

1) The _number_ of entries or names on the list is publically
divulged.
2) The nature or reason why each name is on the list is publically
divulged.
3) The number of names that belong to US citizens is publically
divulged
4) If any name on the NFL belongs to a US citizen, then by law the
gov't (or agency maintaining the NFL) must make a continuous and
competent effort to find or contact that person and (a) inform them
they are on the list and tell them why, and (b) give them legal
recourse to challenge their inclusion on the list.
5) A bullet-proof mechanism exists to eliminate repeat
false-positives, preferrably by entering specific additional
information AT THE GATE or AT THE TICKET COUNTER when confronted with
the false-positive person such that that person will never trigger the
NFL again.

- items (1), (2) and (3) do not require that the names themselves be
publically divulged

Tell me why a no-fly-list with any or all of the above characteristics
would degrade the performance or effectiveness of the current list.

My only complaint is that there is no easy way to get off the list. I don't
have a problem with your suggestions, except number 4. Simply because what
if the person happens to be in the middle of an ongoing investigation. You
wouldn't exactly want to have to notify them that they are on the list and
why.



Hasn't the premis changed from "obey the hijacker and you will
live" to "combat the hijacker(s) if you want to live" ?

I agree, but do you really expect the government or airlines to come
up with a formal policy that says "In the case of the hijacking,
passengers should combat the hijackers."
Can you not see why that would never happen?

It won't happen if the authorities and policy-makers are cowards.

In 5 years, another 9-11 situation could happen and the passengers
would just look around in a hysterical daze while the hijackers shout
at them to be quite and stay in their seats. They will say "if anyone
gets up, you will all die". The pax will believe it. And you will be
frustrated that no-one other than yourself has the balls or "wisdom"
to know that the correct action is to combat the hijackers. That's
because airline passengers will not have been conditioned to know that
the correct response is to confront the hijackers. They will not have
been conditioned because they have NOT heard any such reinforcing
message because that message hasn't been incorporated into the
standard pre-flight announcements.

We will just have to disagree on that point. My feeling is that
announcement or not, passengers are going to react in that kind of a
situation individually. Some will be a more agressive and want to fight the
hijacker and some will want to sit on the sidelines. An announcement is not
going to change that. Plus, there could easily be situations where the
passengers would make it worse if they were to fight the hijackers, and I
think that is why we will never see such an announcement.



And if the attendant has had their throat cut, will you still expect a
call for help from the attendant?

Cut the crap.

You are sitting in your seat. 1 or more men get up and announce that
they are taking over the plane. The flight attendants are either dead
or out of ear-shot. What will you do? How much will your decision
depend on what other passengers believe is the right or prudent thing
to do?

I don't know what I would do. It would depend on the specific
situation....how many hijackers there were, whether the pilots were still in
control of the plane, how the other passengers were reacting, where I was
seated, whether my family was on board, etc, etc, etc. There are a 1,000
variables to consider in such a situation. I DO know that my decision of
what to do would have absolutely nothing to do with some stupid official
announcement that was read off prior to take off.

Matt

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Matt wrote:

The US airline industry exists in (large) part due to tax dollars that
went into building airports and in funding various gov't agencies
(TSA, FAA, NTSB, etc). All citizens have a right to buy tickets and
fly on commercial airlines without discrimination. If their name
(rightly or wrongly) on a nebulous list takes away that ability, then
they should bring the full weight of the courts to settle the matter.


Information on Federal Lawsuit filed 4/6/04
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=15430&c=272

No Fly / Watch List Complaint Form
http://acluweb.best.vwh.net/911/nofly.html

Bud

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Matt wrote:

I'd be for a no fly list if:

4) If any name on the NFL belongs to a US citizen, then by law
the gov't (or agency maintaining the NFL) must make a continuous
and competent effort to find or contact that person and
(a) inform them they are on the list and tell them why, and
(b) give them legal recourse to challenge their inclusion on
the list.

I don't have a problem with your suggestions, except number 4.
Simply because what if the person happens to be in the middle
of an ongoing investigation. You wouldn't exactly want to have
to notify them that they are on the list and why.

For anyone in that situation, the next time they show up for a flight
they'd learn they were on the list. So it wouldn't be a secret to
them (for long).

True, but they still wouldn't know why they were on the list. One practical
solution might be that once a person finds out they are on the list, they
file an appeal. The government would then either have to remove the list or
get a court order specific to that person that allows them to keep the
person on the list. The court can decide if the reason for the listing is
divulged or not.


And if they were "in the middle of an ongoing investigation", then as
a US citizen they still have rights (like being presumed innocent).
Any US citizen who is not in custody should not have his or her name
on a gov't maintained list that reduces or limits their rights.

What about a list of people that aren't allowed to drive because they've had
their license suspended? There are all kinds of lists (government and not)
that limit our ability to do things while not in custody. Besides, for all
we know there are some people on the list that are allowed to fly and they
are just being tracked. In which case they would not even know they were on
the list to begin with.


I'll add one more point to my list of criteria. That the exact
relationship between the gov't and the airlines with respect to the
list be spelled out, in plain view (currently it is not).

I agree. I think all the secrecy with regards to the list and the inability
to get a name off this list will ultimately bring it down.

Matt

"chilly" writes:

OK, fess up, why are you on the no-fly list?

He's either a former Coast Guard officer or .. he's Ted Kennedy.

Matt wrote:
What about a list of people that aren't allowed to drive because they've had
their license suspended?

Due process.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu