TSA Has Been Compiling A Shitlist Of Travelers It Just Doesn't Like
from the this-time-it's-personal dept
The TSA is the worst. Super-secret watchlists can keep people from flying -- people deemed too dangerous to travel but not dangerous enough to arrest. This isn't the TSA's fault. Not these lists. Those are maintained by agencies who could possibly cobble together enough intel to build a flimsy case against these "dangerous" would-be travelers.
The TSA, however, maintains its own database of travelers. It can't necessarily keep them from boarding airplanes, but it can give agents a heads up that the person in the queue probably needs to be detained and hassled. [via Boing Boing]
The Transportation Security Administration has created a new secret watch list to monitor people who may be targeted as potential threats at airport checkpoints simply because they have swatted away security screeners’ hands or otherwise appeared unruly.
A five-page directive obtained by The New York Times said actions that pose physical danger to security screeners — or other contact that the agency described as “offensive and without legal justification” — could land travelers on the watch list, which was created in February and is also known as a “95 list.”
It's an agency shitlist, and only the TSA knows who's on it. This list doesn't contain people who've actually assaulted agents, but people who've expressed their displeasure with intrusive gropings through words or non-violent deeds. The agency's official statements make it clear this is an arbitrary way to punish travelers who make agents unhappy, noting that it neither requires "injury" to a TSA employee nor the intent to do so. Instead, the list contains anyone who presents a "challenge" to the "safe and effective completion of screening."
That's about the end of the TSA's honesty on the matter, however.
So far, the names of fewer than 50 people have been put on the watch list, said Kelly Wheaton, a T.S.A. deputy chief counsel.
But two other government security officials who are familiar with the new watch list, describing it on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it, said that the number of names on the list could be higher, with travelers added daily.
Without evidence, the TSA claims a whole 34 of its screeners were "assaulted" last year. Keep in mind this number pales in comparison to the millions of travelers screened every year. The fact that this happened eight more times last year than it did the year before (26 in 2016) does not demonstrate the need for a special list of argumentative travelers. Also keep in mind the TSA's definition of "assault" -- much like law enforcement's -- covers actions or words that do cause "injury" and may have been committed with zero intent to cause harm.
On top of the seemingly punitive motivations for creating the "95 list", there's the fact that once you're on this list -- like other government lists targeting travelers -- you may never come off.
The directive obtained by The Times does not specify how members of the public can appeal being included on the list.
Just like all the other travel-related watchlists, then. Great. So, the TSA can freely antagonize travelers and slap them on a watchlist if they respond antagonistically. I guess we can mark this down as a win for terrorists because it sure doesn't feel like a win for Americans.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Assaults statistics
Millions of assaults on law-abiding travelers, almost everyone one of which involved non-consensual physical contact, and a substantial number of which would readily qualify as "sexual assault" if the assailant were not hiding behind a badge.
Yet the 34 assaults merit a secret harass-list and the millions go unredressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.'
The peons though? Please, they had it coming, their betters know what's good for them and they need to shut up and accept it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.'
And yet, if you touch a TSA agent right back in exactly the manner they touch you and in exactly the same places, you DO get charged with sexual assault.
Some animals are just more equal than other animals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.'
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.'
There are THOUSANDS of paedophiles, convicted and non-convicted put in a position to fondle children away from their parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.'
That is messed up. America really is an unsafe shithole. Which is why I never took any of my children with me on business trips to America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'SUBMIT!'
The Transportation Security Administration has created a new secret watch list to monitor people who may be targeted as potential threats at airport checkpoints simply because they have swatted away security screeners’ hands or otherwise appeared unruly.
So people who are unhappy with being groped in public are now being added to a list for extra attention to punish them and cow others into being good little victims. Charming.
As if people needed more reasons to avoid air travel unless you absolutely must engage in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'SUBMIT!'
May I please vote on this comment ten times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'SUBMIT!'
;p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'SUBMIT!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'SUBMIT!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'SUBMIT!'
Could be a way to keep them inline. If they want off it they must have shown good behavior for a year without anyone reporting them again.
Of course the site should be on a non-American server.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Americans worry about that when they actually vote for their rulers.
Police are always good; uncooperative citizens with non-mainstream political views are inherently dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect plenty worry about it, the problem is that it's a rare time when there's an alternative, and/or even those that are elected who do start out with good intentions quickly discover that they are surrounded by other politicians who quite like the privileged position they currently enjoy so they either stick to their guns and accomplish nothing, or start giving ground just to get something done, eventually having given everything up in the name of 'political expedience'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you possibly forget a coma after the word No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: a Shitlist Of Travelers - how about a DOG-SHIT List?
https://www.ajc.com/travel/delta-passenger-bitten-emotional-support-dog-couldn-escape-says- attorney/nYtlgO1rGbVMv68XekCWUL/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: a Shitlist Of Travelers - how about a DOG-SHIT List?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: re: a Shitlist Of Travelers - how about a DOG-SHIT List?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: a Shitlist Of Travelers - how about a DOG-SHIT List?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definitions
They call it assault, every child ever would call it a stern look of disapproval.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definitions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA has to do something or statistics will show they are fake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA has to do something or statistics will show they are fake
It's great for job security, other than that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Represented
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A list of people they want to GANG RAPE more likely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the identities of all TSA employees is public record, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To fasc: Verb
I think part of the problem is we forgot the details of exactly how the fascism fasces in a fascist state.
More and more examples pour in every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems law enforcement's definition of assault usually involves citizens "assaulting" a (or many) police officers fists with the citizen's face - though I suppose this does make it a close matchup to the TSA's definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitutionality
I'm absolutely sure it's contrary to the <i>spirit</i> of the constitution (the words are a bit trickier) for a state agency to choose by internal list what parts of the public to serve or not.
This is certainly covered by the indictments in the Declaration of Independence, though.
The thing is, there is nothing enforcing constitutionality at this point, whether or not it actually is or isn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't the airlines weigh in on this?
However, airlines have their own way of dealing with this issue: simply lower the price of the tickets. Then if someone can't fly due to the TSA's list, well, there's always someone else who's willing to buy the cheap ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radical but potentially wise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]