U.S. to Require Passenger Lists for Flights

[Wilber]

I'm sure they already do.....this latest hype is just the cover story!

Then there is no reason to give it voluntarily.

[Guest American Woman]

I notice that the American contributors to this forum are conspicuously silent on this thread. Perhaps they are contemplating the prospect of having to do exactly that because of the actions of their own dumb assed government.

Actually, it wouldn't bother me any if other countries wanted that information on me.

And it's not just Canada that the U.S. wants to get this information from:

The proposal has angered European, Mexican and Canadian airlines, which operate most of the 500 estimated daily overflights.

-- and it's "up to 72 hours prior," not 'must be 72 hours prior.'

...requesting the information as early as 72 hours in advance was to create an "original list" that would be updated as last-minute travellers booked the flight.

The reason for this turn of events?

The TSA's proposal ... was prompted by a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Mexico on April 8 that was prohibited from flying over American airspace because two passengers were found to be on the U.S. government's no-fly list.

The KLM flight ... was five hours into its journey when Mexican authorities alerted U.S. officials about two Saudi passengers on board. TSA officials decided not to allow the plane to continue on its usual route over the United States.

...

The two Saudi passengers on the KLM flight were men who trained at the same Arizona flight school as Sept. 11 hijacker Hani Hanjour, according a law enforcement source.

Link

So there is a basis for it. I'm just wondering how many people realize that.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[maldon_road]

Actually, it wouldn't bother me any if other countries wanted that information on me.

And it's not just Canada that the U.S. wants to get this information from:

The proposal has angered European, Mexican and Canadian airlines, which operate most of the 500 estimated daily overflights.

-- and it's "up to 72 hours prior," not 'must be 72 hours prior.'

...requesting the information as early as 72 hours in advance was to create an "original list" that would be updated as last-minute travellers booked the flight.

The reason for this turn of events?

The TSA's proposal ... was prompted by a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Mexico on April 8 that was prohibited from flying over American airspace because two passengers were found to be on the U.S. government's no-fly list.

The KLM flight ... was five hours into its journey when Mexican authorities alerted U.S. officials about two Saudi passengers on board. TSA officials decided not to allow the plane to continue on its usual route over the United States.

...

The two Saudi passengers on the KLM flight were men who trained at the same Arizona flight school as Sept. 11 hijacker Hani Hanjour, according a law enforcement source.

Link

So there is a basis for it. I'm just wondering how many people realize that.

The other thing is that the US is not going to back down. Canada has to learn that in the post-9/11 world for the US security trumps commercial considerations. And guys, stop wishing for the Dems next year. President Clinton will be just as tough - in fact she thinks Canada is a branch plant of Al Qaeda.

[Wilber]

For those of you who think this is about your security, I can tell you that the response on the Canadian airline pilots forums I belong to has been 100% negative. Vehemently so. They know this for what it is and are very aware of its implications.

We'll see how well it goes over politically when Canadians who are not traveling to the US are denied boarding on flights or stranded in foreign countries because of it.

AW, if you are not concerned about your personal information being passed on to any number of corrupt governments in countries you might over fly on your next vacation, you are a fool.

[Wilber]

The TSA's proposal ... was prompted by a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Mexico on April 8 that was prohibited from flying over American airspace because two passengers were found to be on the U.S. government's no-fly list.

The KLM flight ... was five hours into its journey when Mexican authorities alerted U.S. officials about two Saudi passengers on board. TSA officials decided not to allow the plane to continue on its usual route over the United States.

All this tells me is that KLM should have checked the no fly list before the flight left and there should be penalties for not doing so.

[Guest American Woman]

All this tells me is that KLM should have checked the no fly list before the flight left and there should be penalties for not doing so.

What it tells me is that KLM didn't check the no fly list, and that's the concern that the U.S. has-- which is why the U.S. wants to check the lists itself. Penalties for not doing so would mean little if we had a plane fly into a building or blow up over the U.S. as in Lockerby, Scotland.

You don't think that's a concern?-- A couple of Saudis who took flight lessons at the same place a 9-11 terrorist did flying into U.S. airspace? you do realize most of those involved in 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia. I actually think this makes more sense than a lot of the other anti-terrorist policies the Bush Administration has put into effect.

I have no problem with other nations getting my itintery. Why would I care if they know my name, departure city, arrival city, and time? What are they going to do with that information? Anyone who knows how to hack into a computer can already get that information from the airlines' computers anyway.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

What are they going to do with that information?

That is a key question. They can build a profile on you, share it with others and use it commercially, politically or socially. In certain cases, it could render you ineffective in doing your job. For example, you own a large software company and fly to France to discuss the possible takeover of a company there as part of your European beachhead. A airline with the information of where you are going and where you staying can share it with anyone. Suddenly, the company that you are about to buy sees its stocks rise because that information is out there based on information compiled from your flight. Your friendly takeover has now become a bidding war.

[maldon_road]

What it tells me is that KLM didn't check the no fly list, and that's the concern that the U.S. has-- which is why the U.S. wants to check the lists itself. Penalties for not doing so would mean little if we had a plane fly into a building or blow up over the U.S. as in Lockerby, Scotland.

I agree. If the US is concerned about planes flying over its airspace - as it seems to be - it cannot leave enforcement of the no-fly list to the airlines. In the case involved KLM fell down on the job. If the airline has to provide the passenger list to the US government, this won't happen.

As for someone who travels by air between the US and Canada I have no concern. The US already knows all about me.

[Wilber]

What it tells me is that KLM didn't check the no fly list, and that's the concern that the U.S. has-- which is why the U.S. wants to check the lists itself. Penalties for not doing so would mean little if we had a plane fly into a building or blow up over the U.S. as in Lockerby, Scotland.

Don't blame the rest of the world for the Lockerby security breakdown, it was a US airline which screwed up. There were no terrorists on board Pan Am 103.

AW, climb out of your bunker for 30 seconds and think about it.

The point is KLM did check the no fly list, just not when they should have. When they discovered their mistake they did the right thing and notified US authorities even though they knew they might have to eat the cost of a diversion. They could have kept their mouths shut and no one would have been the wiser. Instead of saying, thanks for notifying us, your government uses it as an excuse to mine data on hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals thereby giving every other nation in the world justification for doing the same thing, with no limitations on how it can be used.

Of course this will only work with countries and airlines who play by the rules. For those who don't, if there is someone on their aircraft that they don't want you to know about they will just lie and because you will have no access to their passengers it is not likely you will know about it.

I could see the Ruski's jumping on this bandwagon with a vengeance. They have few if any flights transiting US airspace whereas US carriers have dozens of flights daily using theirs. Think about it, they will have the itinerary of every US business man and politician who takes a direct commercial flight to China, for free. This is manna from heaven for Putin. Priceless. Or will your government lie about who is on your aircraft?

From a personal security standpoint, Americans have far more to lose from this piece of nonsense than anyone else. From a national standpoint it is just one more nail in the coffin of US prestige. You don't trust your friends, why on earth would you expect them to trust you?

Come to think of it, this might work out OK for some Canadian international carriers, they might pick up some US passengers who don't want the rest of the world to know their itineraries.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Wilber

[Fortunata]

Actually, in their "ordinary lives" these same people have disclosed far more personal information than travel itinerary, information that is traded and sold every day. Every purchase by credit card, every loan application, every cell phone call, every car rental, ...even magazine subscriptions.

There is no privacy because of our own consumption...get over it.

Maybe not. But the fact is I don't trust your government. Their track record is not exactly one that would give one confidence. I think you should build your fences and not let anybody in. That'll keep you safe.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Fortunata

[Wilber]

My mistake they got the info from Mexico who got the pax list from the Dutch.

[Guest American Woman]

My mistake they got the info from Mexico who got the pax list from the Dutch.

I was just about to point that out to you. Puts things in a different light, doesn't it? Like I said, it's not a matter of the United States just suddenly deciding it "doesn't trust its friends," this is a real incident. And as I already pointed out, the Saudi passengers went to the same flight school in Arizona as a 9-11 hijacker.

It's not as if the government is asking for any secret information. The airlines already have access to the passengers' passports, so it's not like you have to give up a state secret to tell them what the U.S. is requesting.

But I'm wondering what you meant by this:

AW, climb out of your bunker for 30 seconds ....

???

Edited to add:

P.S. Where did I put the blame for Lockerby on anyone, much less "the rest of the world??"

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

AM

It's what happens when you read something in a rush then leave for a couple of hours to come back and respond without rereading it. You can scratch that paragraph but everything else I said stands.

You must bear in mind that if this aircraft was flown into a building it would have been Dutch aircraft with Dutch nationals on board. It was not only in the US interest that these people were identified. If they had intended to fly the aircraft into a building, what makes you certain it would be an American building? London is a prime target for these guys. You have to believe there was some serious butt kicking going on in Holland over this incident. It's a wakeup call for everyone and vigilance will increase everywhere because of it. You can't do everything yourselves. Are you going to build another fence around yourselves every time there is a security lapse somewhere?

Dobbin's post makes a good point. If every nation you fly over has that information, there will be no control over who has access to it or what is done with it.

I said, it's not a matter of the United States just suddenly deciding it "doesn't trust its friends,"

Actually it is because the US has decided it doesn't trust its friends. It's either that or if feels it has a good excuse to accumulate information on foreign nationals

[bush_cheney2004]

...Actually it is because the US has decided it doesn't trust its friends. It's either that or if feels it has a good excuse to accumulate information on foreign nationals

Nation states do not have "friends"...they have interests. Nobody is forcing anyone to get a passport or make overflights of US air space.

[Guest American Woman]

AM

It's what happens when you read something in a rush then leave for a couple of hours to come back and respond without rereading it. You can scratch that paragraph but everything else I said stands.

In that case, my questions still stand; what did the get out of your bunker comment mean, and where did I blame the world for Lockerby?

You must bear in mind that if this aircraft was flown into a building it would have been Dutch aircraft with Dutch nationals on board. It was not only in the US interest that these people were identified. If they had intended to fly the aircraft into a building, what makes you certain it would be an American building? London is a prime target for these guys. You have to believe there was some serious butt kicking going on in Holland over this incident. It's a wakeup call for everyone and vigilance will increase everywhere because of it. You can't do everything yourselves. Are you going to build another fence around yourselves every time there is a security lapse somewhere?

Who said I was certain it would be an American building? The U.S. doesn't make policy over what could occur in London, so I was referring to the possible danger to the U.S. and why the U.S. government reacted the way it did.

Dobbin's post makes a good point. If every nation you fly over has that information, there will be no control over who has access to it or what is done with it.

What could one possibly do with your full name, DOB, and gender??

[

Actually it is because the US has decided it doesn't trust its friends. It's either that or if feels it has a good excuse to accumulate information on foreign nationals

Yes. The United States is just dying to collect the full names, DOB's, and genders of the world. And no. It's not because the U.S. decided it doesn't trust its friends; it's because KLM DID do what it did.

I have to sort of chuckle at the "U.S. doesn't trust its friends" attitude, though, because time and time again I read how the U.S. government isn't trusted/shouldn't be trusted, etc. But when it's us seen as not trusting someone else, it's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

Wow. Speaking of reading things in a hurry, I just noticed the date on the ariticle I cited is Thursday, April 21, 2005. Evidently the KLM incident is old news. This apparently is something the U.S. government has been thinking about for some time.

Still. I fail to see what the government of any country could do with one's full name, DOB, and gender. Since this was an example given, I've flown over Russia, and would have no problem with them having that info.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand something about the mentality that says 'I don't want the US government to know any information about me.'

Do you not think that they have a better chance at preventing terror attacks if they have more information ? Do you actually value your 'privacy' so much that a few thousand bytes in a database somewhere that nobody cares amount means more to you than the possibility of saving thousands of lives ?

By the way, Bush_Cheney_2004 is correct. The suspicion is that Canadian banks are required to provide financial information for Canadian citizens via their US subsidiaries if the government requires it. So a lot of the discussion in this thread may be moot.

[maldon_road]

I don't understand something about the mentality that says 'I don't want the US government to know any information about me.'

Do you not think that they have a better chance at preventing terror attacks if they have more information ? Do you actually value your 'privacy' so much that a few thousand bytes in a database somewhere that nobody cares amount means more to you than the possibility of saving thousands of lives ?

By the way, Bush_Cheney_2004 is correct. The suspicion is that Canadian banks are required to provide financial information for Canadian citizens via their US subsidiaries if the government requires it. So a lot of the discussion in this thread may be moot.

I worked in the US for many years. To get a work permit I provided the US with oodles of personal stuff - which no doubt they still have. I have flown into the US since 9/11 so they have a record of me that way as well. If I was flying Canada-Mexico as I did recently I can't think of anything the airline could give the US about me that they don't have already.

BTW, I was married in the US so they know I don't have VD.

[jdobbin]

What could one possibly do with your full name, DOB, and gender??

That's all anyone needs to steal your identity and begin the process of applying for credit.

[Michael Hardner]

That's all anyone needs to steal your identity and begin the process of applying for credit.

jdobbin,

What do you mean by 'steal your identity' ? I don't think you're liable for any debts incurred by someone who applies for credit with your name. Nor would any credit card, or bank give you access to your funds with only that information.

Furthermore, if you're worried about other countries having that particular information - they already have it. It's on your passport. And a lot of companies that you deal with day to day probably have it too.

My impression is that most people just don't like the idea of people being able to see their private transactions, even though it happens millions of times a day in other arenas of business, and it helps us more than it hurts us.

[Guest American Woman]

That's all anyone needs to steal your identity and begin the process of applying for credit.

You need more than full name, DOB, and gender to apply for credit. You need a social security number. And an address. And place of employment. Usually something like a mother's maiden name, too.

Anyone who ever has asked you for identiifcation when cashing a check has your full name, DOB, and gender. Anyone who cards people buying booze and cigarettes has that same information. Any school or university you attended has that information. Countless people have that information.

There is no threat in giving your full name, DOB, and gender to the airlines or the U.S. government.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[Higgly]

I think it is a mistake to try to put a use on information gathered about individuals and to use that to build an argument. Information has many, many uses. Information that is gathered into a system that has many access points can be used for many, many purposes by a very large number of people and agencies. It can have a brief shelf life for one agency and a permanent shelf life for another. It is always a mistake to assume that a nation over which you have no democratic control will place any value on your personal rights. The US has already made it very clear that it considers people who are not US citizens to not have any rights under US law.

You cannot trust any foreign government to have your best interests at heart. We have a hard enough time making sure our own government does.

Yes, the US claims that the information will have a short shelf life. But there is no guarantee of that in legislation that I am aware of, and there are no statements about what other agencies might have access to it during that period.

[Wilber]

I to lived and worked in the US for awhile. As far as I know they still have my fingerprints they took for an ID I needed. That has nothing to do with this.

I object to this for three reasons the first and least important is that the US will have my travel information although as I am not on any no fly list that I know of, I don't believe they have any right to it. But say you are headed across the border to do some shopping with your newly inflated loonies. The man swipes your passport and says, I see you went to Cuba last winter. We don't want your sort here. Turn around. Do I think this will happen? No. Could it happen? You're damn right. There are no legal restrictions on what can be done with this information and who says it will stop at the present proposal. Governments never decide they want less information.

The second and more important, I don't want a whole bunch of other governments having this info once this thing snowballs.

Which brings me to the third reason. If you look at my posting history you will find that I am as pro American as any Canadian on this forum. I genuinely like the US and am proud to have Americans as personal friends. I really don't believe this will do much of anything to improve the security of the US and is another step in the alienation of countries which the US needs for its security whether it likes it or not.

If you insist on giving your friends ultimatums, eventually they stop being your friends.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

jdobbin,

What do you mean by 'steal your identity' ? I don't think you're liable for any debts incurred by someone who applies for credit with your name. Nor would any credit card, or bank give you access to your funds with only that information.

Furthermore, if you're worried about other countries having that particular information - they already have it. It's on your passport. And a lot of companies that you deal with day to day probably have it too.

My impression is that most people just don't like the idea of people being able to see their private transactions, even though it happens millions of times a day in other arenas of business, and it helps us more than it hurts us.

In this paper I am linking below, it lists what identity thieves are looking for when stealing your ID. They build on the data of name, birthdate and gender.

With that little bit of information, a thief can begin the process of redirecting your mail without you knowing. From there, they can collect other credit info, your driver's license info, etc.

http://www.cippic.ca/en/news/documents/IDT.../Techniques.pdf

With as little as name, DOB and gender, someone can begin the process of "breeding" where they apply for a SIN number and other ID.

As far as being liable, no you are not. But it can still cost you thousands of dollars clearing your name by getting affidavits attesting to the fact that you are who you are.

Edited October 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

You need more than full name, DOB, and gender to apply for credit. You need a social security number. And an address. And place of employment. Usually something like a mother's maiden name, too.

Anyone who ever has asked you for identiifcation when cashing a check has your full name, DOB, and gender. Anyone who cards people buying booze and cigarettes has that same information. Any school or university you attended has that information. Countless people have that information.

There is no threat in giving your full name, DOB, and gender to the airlines or the U.S. government.

All those things you mentioned are how thieves collect your data. Little by little, piece by piece they can collect info on you. The check cashing scheme with full name and DOB and gender is one way for thieves to begin the process of redirecting your mail, an important step in getting other data about you.

http://www.cippic.ca/en/news/documents/IDT.../Techniques.pdf