U.S. to Require Passenger Lists for Flights

[jdobbin]

As I said, the itineries required are apparently not the itineries of the passengers, but of the airlines. But I'm curious, how do you know at check-in that they aren't checking/typing in your DOB? And even if they aren't, they can see it. Whether they type it in or not, it's there if they desire to steal your identity. They have access to it.

I know for Air Canada because my co-worker's husband works at that airline. He says that all they do is match the name on the reservation with the photo on the passport. There is nothing on the computer to even type in DOB.

The Transport Canada site also says that the only thing needed for travel is photo ID for which the airlines matches the name and face to the passport. There is no provision for placing DOB in the airline's list of information.

As far as itineraries go, it is fairly vague. It seems that if you are travelling one way and coming back another way: Airline travel and return by car; you'll be flagged and may have some difficulty travelling.

Edited October 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[Guest American Woman]

I know for Air Canada because my co-worker's husband works at that airline. He says that all they do is match the name on the reservation with the photo on the passport. There is nothing on the computer to even type in DOB.

The Transport Canada site also says that the only thing needed for travel is photo ID for which the airlines matches the name and face to the passport. There is no provision for placing DOB in the airline's list of information.

Even if the airlines is only matching the face to the passport, your country is asking for a DOB upon your return from an international flight on the customs form. Of course that's not the airlines, but like I said, the airlines has access to your DOB as they check your ID/passport. If they are interested in stealing your identity, they have access to it. Countless people do. If this would require an extra step to type in your DOB, it's a very small step.

Also, since you said you have visited the U.S., the DOB is also required on the customs form entering the U.S., so again, the U.S. has already had access to that information.

I truly don't see asking for name, DOB, and gender as a big deal. I don't, however, understand why it would be ok for Canadian and Mexican domestic flights to fly over the U.S. without providing that information, but not ok for international flights; especially in light of the fact that the 9-11 flights were domestic flights.

[jdobbin]

Even if the airlines is only matching the face to the passport, your country is asking for a DOB upon your return from an international flight on the customs form. Of course that's not the airlines, but like I said, the airlines has access to your DOB as they check your ID/passport. If they are interested in stealing your identity, they have access to it. Countless people do. If this would require an extra step to type in your DOB, it's a very small step.

Also, since you said you have visited the U.S., the DOB is also required on the customs form entering the U.S., so again, the U.S. has already had access to that information.

I truly don't see asking for name, DOB, and gender as a big deal. I don't, however, understand why it would be ok for Canadian and Mexican domestic flights to fly over the U.S. without providing that information, but not ok for international flights; especially in light of the fact that the 9-11 flights were domestic flights.

I don't have problems filling in the crucial data for official use such as passports. I do have a problem with the data being collected by third party airlines.

Every flight from Vancouver to Toronto flies over the U.S.

The policy is inconsistent and it seems that it is likely these flights will eventually be included.

In fact, it is not beyond the realm that data may have to be sent to the U.S. for flights that don't have to pass through U.S. airspace. A flight from Toronto to Montreal could be considered a danger to the U.S. even if it doesn't pass into U.S. space.

Edited October 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[Guest American Woman]

I don't have problems filling in the crucial data for official use such as passports. I do have a problem with the data being collected by third party airlines.

Every flight from Vancouver to Toronto flies over the U.S.

The policy is inconsistent and it seems that it is likely these flights will eventually be included.

In fact, it is not beyond the realm that data may have to be sent to the U.S. for flights that don't have to pass through U.S. airspace. A flight from Toronto to Montreal could be considered a danger to the U.S. even if it doesn't pass into U.S. space.

I understand what you're saying, and it goes without saying that you have every right to feel the way you do. Perhaps there should be an alternative to the airlines collecting this information.

I agree that the policy is inconsistant since it doesn't include Canadian and Mexican domestic flights that fly over U.S. airspace. Perhaps the plan is to include these flights in the future, after the first hurdle is crossed. Perhaps its just a way to make it easier to get the other flights to comply right now.

It is beyond the realm to say that data may have to be sent to the U.S. for flights that don't pass through U.S. airspace, though, as the U.S. wouldn't have a leg to stand on with regards to what goes on in other nations' airspace. The U.S. has no control over that.

[Wilber]

AW

2974 people died on 9/11, I don't believe any have died on US soil since. In contrast, 29,573 Americans died in 2001 by firearms owned by Americans, only 323 of those from legal interventions. The numbers for every year since are likely not much different. Yet every time gun controls are mentioned they get shouted down on the grounds it is a Constitutional right intended to protect Americans from the very government you are rushing to give all this information in order to prevent a repeat of a one time incident that happened six years ago.

Yet we are to take this stuff seriously.

I guess what bothers me as much as anything about this is the belief that a Canadian aircraft with Canadian citizens on board being rammed into a building or blown out of the sky by an F15 because it has been hijacked in US airspace, is a bigger deal to Americans than it would be to us.

Insulting when you think about it.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

AW

2974 people died on 9/11, I don't believe any have died on US soil since. In contrast, 29,573 Americans died in 2001 by firearms owned by Americans, only 323 of those from legal interventions.

And 16,869 were suicides.

The numbers for every year since are likely not much different.

That's quite an assumption to make.

Yet every time gun controls are mentioned they get shouted down on the grounds it is a Constitutional right intended to protect Americans from the very government you are rushing to give all this information in order to prevent a repeat of a one time incident that happened six years ago.

There were more than six years between the first terrorist boming at the WTC and the 9-11 attacks, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Yet we are to take this stuff seriously.

Take it seriously, or don't. It matters not to me.

I guess what bothers me as much as anything about this is your belief that a Canadian aircraft with Canadian citizens on board being rammed into a building or blown out of the sky by an F15 because it has been hijacked in US airspace, is a bigger deal to you than it would be to us.

Wow. I have that belief?? That's a real news flash to me! I had no idea I felt that way.

Insulting when you think about it.

Off-the-wall is more like it since you pulled 'my' belief out of thin air!! You owe me an apology for that totally out of line accusation. :angry:

[jdobbin]

I understand what you're saying, and it goes without saying that you have every right to feel the way you do. Perhaps there should be an alternative to the airlines collecting this information.

I agree that the policy is inconsistant since it doesn't include Canadian and Mexican domestic flights that fly over U.S. airspace. Perhaps the plan is to include these flights in the future, after the first hurdle is crossed. Perhaps its just a way to make it easier to get the other flights to comply right now.

It is beyond the realm to say that data may have to be sent to the U.S. for flights that don't pass through U.S. airspace, though, as the U.S. wouldn't have a leg to stand on with regards to what goes on in other nations' airspace. The U.S. has no control over that.

We have talked about this already but not on this thread. I think I would prefer to have a tourist or travel visa from the U.S. that I carry in my passport and then if the U.S. requires information prior to my flight, they have my number and I don't share it with any third party.

This way the U.S. controls its airspace and I have a hassle free way of travelling.

[Wilber]

That's quite an assumption to make.

No it's not. It's quite logical.

There were more than six years between the first terrorist boming at the WTC and the 9-11 attacks, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The first WTC bombing had nothing to do with airlines.

Take it seriously, or don't. It matters not to me.

We also take airline security seriously but you don't seem to believe it.

Wow. I have that belief?? That's a real news flash to me! I had no idea I felt that way.

Then why are we having this discussion? There has been very close co-operation between our countries when it comes to airline security. Apparently it's not good enough for you. What else are we to assume? Be honest.

You need a government which understands that working with people doesn't mean walking in and throwing a bunch of demands on the table.

[bush_cheney2004]

2974 people died on 9/11, I don't believe any have died on US soil since. In contrast, 29,573 Americans died in 2001 by firearms owned by Americans, only 323 of those from legal interventions. The numbers for every year since are likely not much different. Yet every time gun controls are mentioned they get shouted down on the grounds it is a Constitutional right intended to protect Americans from the very government you are rushing to give all this information in order to prevent a repeat of a one time incident that happened six years ago.

With such logic, motor vehicles must really get your attention!

I guess what bothers me as much as anything about this is your belief that a Canadian aircraft with Canadian citizens on board being rammed into a building or blown out of the sky by an F15 because it has been hijacked in US airspace, is a bigger deal to you than it would be to us.

Insulting when you think about it.

Why is it insulting? Was the Millennium Bomber insulting too?

[Wilber]

With such logic, motor vehicles must really get your attention!

29,000 per year vs 2900 period. Maybe it's something about priorities.

Why is it insulting? Was the Millennium Bomber insulting too?

The Millennium Bomber was pre 9/11. To bad you let the 9/11 types in yourselves. You also trained them. Seems your security wasn't fantastic back then either.

[guyser]

Why is it insulting? Was the Millennium Bomber insulting too?

Relevance?

[bush_cheney2004]

29,000 per year vs 2900 period. Maybe it's something about priorities.

Motor vehicles = 40,000+ per year....with damn few suicides as in the "29,000" firearms related deaths.

The Millennium Bomber was pre 9/11. To bad you let the 9/11 types in yourselves. You also trained them. Seems your security wasn't fantastic back then either.

Correct.....there's a new sheriff in town. How many Americans attempted to drive a trunkload of explosives into Canada with the intention of car bombing Pearson airport?

[bush_cheney2004]

Relevance?

Perp with explosives attempted to car-bomb LAX from Canada...without using any steenkin' airspace. Was Canada insulted?

[Wilber]

Motor vehicles = 40,000+ per year....with damn few suicides as in the "29,000" firearms related deaths.

I wasn't aware Americans drove cars because they don't trust their government.

Perp with explosives attempted to car-bomb LAX from Canada...without using any steenkin' airspace. Was Canada insulted?

Exactly, nothing to do with airspace. But the 9/11 perps learned to fly in your country, not ours. That did have something to do with airspace. Now that the cards are on the table and it's clear you don't trust us, give us a reason why we should trust you.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wasn't aware Americans drove cars because they don't trust their government.

Back then it was horses....see Commerce Clause [Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution]

Exactly, nothing to do with airspace. But the 9/11 perps learned to fly in your country, not ours. That did have something to do with airspace. Now that the cards are on the table and it's clear you don't trust us, give us a reason why we should trust you.

That's the point....you shouldn't....and vice-versa. "Trust...but verify" - Ronald Reagan

[Wilber]

That's the point....you shouldn't....and vice-versa. "Trust...but verify" - Ronald Reagan

Fair enough. Regarding Ronny, either you trust or you don't.

[Guest American Woman]

No it's not. It's quite logical.

There's nothing logical about it. Are you saying I could pick homicide statistics from any year I choose in Canada and say they are not likely to have changed? Furthermore, I noticed you simply ignored the fact that well over half the statistics you gave were suicides. So I repeat. Puts a different light on it, eh?

The first WTC bombing had nothing to do with airlines.

It had to do with terrorism. I'm pointing out that 6 years between attacks isn't any proof that it can't happen again.

We also take airline security seriously but you don't seem to believe it.

Really? Who exactly doesn't believe that you do?

Then why are we having this discussion? There has been very close co-operation between our countries when it comes to airline security. Apparently it's not good enough for you. What else are we to assume? Be honest.

You need a government which understands that working with people doesn't mean walking in and throwing a bunch of demands on the table.

You can assume that we don't trust your airlines solely, that we want to double check the lists that the airlines check passengers against. I keep pointing out to no avail that your government isn't checking passengers against this list. Your government just had a hand in making up the list.

What you CAN'T "assume" is that I believe "a Canadian aircraft with Canadian citizens on board being rammed into a building or blown out of the sky by an F15 because it has been hijacked in US airspace, is a bigger deal to you than it would be to us," much less state it as MY BELIEF.

Like I said, you wrongly assigned a belief to me and stated it as mine and you owe me an apology. Anyone reading partically through this thread and reads that post but not mine will believe that is my belief. For that you owe me not only an apology, but an edit to your post.

Edited October 16, 2007 by American Woman

[guyser]

Perp with explosives attempted to car-bomb LAX from Canada...without using any steenkin' airspace. Was Canada insulted?

In other words, no relevance. Thanks.

[Wilber]

There's nothing logical about it. Are you saying I could pick homicide statistics from any year I choose in Canada and say they are not likely to have changed? Furthermore, I noticed you simply ignored the fact that well over half the statistics you gave were suicides. So I repeat. Puts a different light on it, eh?

Your right, there were only 23,000 in 2004. A death by a firearm is a death by a firearm, what does it matter whether it was self inflicted? My point was that people are willing to give the government any information it asks for because of a terrorist incident 6 years ago but when it comes to registering or restricting firearms which kill ten times as many Americans annually they balk on the grounds that they need them to protect themselves from any excesses that may be committed by that same government. Maybe you have to be a non American to see irony in that.

It had to do with terrorism. I'm pointing out that 6 years between attacks isn't any proof that it can't happen again.

Of course it can happen again, that's why our two countries have been co-operating to prevent it.

You can assume that we don't trust your airlines solely, that we want to double check the lists that the airlines check passengers against. I keep pointing out to no avail that your government isn't checking passengers against this list. Your government just had a hand in making up the list.

Our no fly lists are compiled in co-operation with each other. As a consequence one has to wonder what other lists this information may be checked against or if other lists will be compiled with it. The US government is only concerned about the privacy of Americans because it has to by law. There are no limitations when it comes to what is done with information on citizens of other countries. BC has made it very clear that we shouldn't trust each other. Under the circumstances I think he is right. I would expect my government to demand and get the same information on US flights transiting Canada.

Like I said, you wrongly assigned a belief to me and stated it as mine and you owe me an apology. Anyone reading partically through this thread and reads that post but not mine will believe that is my belief. For that you owe me not only an apology, but an edit to your post.

I'm sorry but any apology I might give would not be genuine. Other readers of this thread can decide for themselves. If you want to complain to the moderator, so be it.

[bush_cheney2004]

In other words, no relevance. Thanks.

In other words..."we're insulted" = croc tears

[guyser]

In other words..."we're insulted" = croc tears

Airspace = crossing the border via car. Gotcha.

Dont cry.

[bush_cheney2004]

Airspace = crossing the border via car. Gotcha.

Dont cry.

We're insulted = crying

[Guest American Woman]

A death by a firearm is a death by a firearm, what does it matter whether it was self inflicted?

It matters because one doesn't need a firearm to commit suicide, as evidenced by Canada's higher rate of suicide the year you quoted U.S. firearm statistics from. So the fact that well over half of our firearm deaths were self inflicted is most definitely of significance.

As for the rest of your post, I have no desire to carry on an exchange of ideas with someone who is dishonest.

Edited October 16, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

To those of you who are leary of giving out your information to our government, I understand where you are coming from. I don't trust my present government either, and can understand why this would be a question mark in your travels-- wondering if some error or 'matched name' could upset your travel plans.

However, I have no problem with giving this information out. If Canada wanted it in order for me to fly into your airspace, I would be perfectly ok with it. I've given my full name, DOB, and gender to countless people, including many governments in the world. So personally this is not a problem for me.

For those of you who do consider it a problem, I understand where you are coming from-- especially in light of the fact that Canadian and Mexican flights can fly over U.S. airspace without giving that information.

Edited October 16, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

It matters because one doesn't need a firearm to commit suicide, as evidenced by Canada's higher rate of suicide the year you quoted U.S. firearm statistics from. So the fact that well over half of our firearm deaths were self inflicted is most definitely of significance.

One doesn't need a firearm to commit a crime either.

As for the rest of your post, I have no desire to carry on an exchange of ideas with someone who is dishonest.

Whether I am correct or not, I am being honest about what I believe, that's why I won't apologize.