> downloading the no fly list and offering to share
(This is a genuine question) but where's the actual value in having this list?
I'm afraid I regard it as yet another piece of security theatre.
Full disclosure: my passport always fails to scan at the UK Border automated gates.
I had a discussion this week with yet another border agent after getting another "seek assistance" message and having to queue for a manual check.
I pushed for more information on why, for the last couple of years, it refuses to scan.
He suggested it's because I have very common first and middle names (although my surname is not common at all), so let's say I'm called Alice Bob MacQuaffle, someone called Alice and/or Bob is "on a list" somewhere. I would bet a substantial sum there is no-one on any terrorist watch list called MacQuaffle.
This sounds like someone approved a ridiculously broad match, meaning anyone called Alice and/or Bob is inconvenienced every single time they go near a border.
I would prefer to be safe when travelling just like the next guy, but matching watch lists using common first names ... only .... really?
We can be pretty sure it's not to protect anyone. Anybody too dangerous to allow on an airplane should probably be behind bars. What it does accomplish is letting the government punish people without justification let alone a trial and with pretty much no transparency or consequences when innocent people end up being hurt by it. I imagine that's a power which is hard to surrender, and 'we the people' haven't exactly been insisting that they give it up either.
> Someone who the US deems a danger but isn't in the US would fit this criteria.
If the bad person isn't in the US there's no need for US airlines to maintain a list of them which prevents them from getting on a plane, but then just sends them on their way to arrange other travel plans. What we want for really bad people outside of the US who should be arrested on sight at airports are warrants. Signed by judges. Not secret lists with no oversight or transparency, and not sending dangerous people back out into the American population.
Someone who is apparently so bad they can't be allowed through airport security into an aircraft, but only if that aircraft is travelling to or within the US?
Yet someone who is apparently so innocent they can't be arrested/detained/charged with anything, anywhere, and so are free to travel the rest of the world.
(This is a genuine question) but where's the actual value in having this list?
I'm afraid I regard it as yet another piece of security theatre.
Full disclosure: my passport always fails to scan at the UK Border automated gates.
I had a discussion this week with yet another border agent after getting another "seek assistance" message and having to queue for a manual check.
I pushed for more information on why, for the last couple of years, it refuses to scan.
He suggested it's because I have very common first and middle names (although my surname is not common at all), so let's say I'm called Alice Bob MacQuaffle, someone called Alice and/or Bob is "on a list" somewhere. I would bet a substantial sum there is no-one on any terrorist watch list called MacQuaffle.
This sounds like someone approved a ridiculously broad match, meaning anyone called Alice and/or Bob is inconvenienced every single time they go near a border.
I would prefer to be safe when travelling just like the next guy, but matching watch lists using common first names ... only .... really?