Travel Clampdown - the US Government

Originally posted by wanderingmariner
It just beggars belief that the Yanks feel that this type of thing will prevent terrorism. If the terrorists of the world want to get into the US all they have to do is get to Mexico and cross the border there, just like the thousands of others that do each year.

Then again this all boils down to the fact that the US population voted in a complete muppet of a President TWICE. All we can hope for is that McCain doesnt get in this time round because this guy really scares the bejesus out of me.

Time to look a little closer to home instead of blaming the rest of the world for America's problems.

And to think I thought us Brits could be so insular!

Ah (she said wearily). I would like to remind gentle V-Flyers that the US has a population of nearly 304 million people spread over 50 states with a geographic area encompassing nearly a million sq km. The UK has a population of 61 million people and an area of 244,800 sq km. Most people live south of Scotland.
That said, it always irksome to hear reasonably intelligent people assume that, in a huge country with a huge population, there is any kind of common thought. Boston is 3000 miles away from LA. London is 3000 miles from Boston. Disney World tourism has little impact on the economy of Montana. The most common international accent on 34th street has grown to be that of those visitors from the great shores of Great Britain eager to partake of a weak dollar/strong pound and the ability to cheaply purchase clothes and electronics made in China and Japan.

Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard wage, every now and again, strong campaigns to cecede from the mainland. The term 'you Yanks' might get you into some seriously hot water in Texas.

Unfortunately leaders in the US are generally elected because they have a huge war chest--which means their backers hope for tit for tat should they be elected. This is of course completely different from the situation in the UK.


That said--assumptions made about Americans, American political strongholds or an 'American' way of life are rather silly and beg comparison. We are now blue state/red state and even further demarcated by regional popular vote. Kindly be more specific to whom you are actually addressing as idiots.

(and note--although I am no more enthusiastic about more paperwork than anyone else, I have many visas glued into my passport....most I believe are more in aid of remunerating the good nation which has allowed my visit than they are a personal penalty).

Pedantically yours,

RR


[:w]

Originally posted by flyingfox
GJ we have been and continue to live under the threat of attack exactly in the same way as our friends in the US. I suppose it's a matter of response to those threats and how the respective Governments decide to act to limit the risk.

Vive la difference! That said, I like our results since 9/11, while admitting that the means to not being attacked again has resulted in some onerous processes -- and constitutionally suspect actions -- to be sure. There's definitely plenty to grumble about.

Still, outside of any complete violation of civil rights for citizens, I'll grudgingly take the shoe circus, additional paperwork for me and for foreign guests, and other bothersome bits if it means that my last memory is neither the nose of a 747 entering my office window nor the air being sucked from my lungs as I am engulfed in a fireball at 38,000 feet (or 500 feet).

GJ

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
Sorry -- lost in translation.

GJ

Sorry, GJ, the Billy Connolly joke is over tewnty years out of date, therefore I won't even attempt to put the joke into current context for fear of making a fool of myself.

But, John Smeaton is the Glasgow Airport baggage handler who administered a severe kick in the testicular area to a flame-engulfed terrorist last July. He gives us Scots a sense of security far greater than Dubya could possibly give the good ol' US of A.

Originally posted by GDE1966
But, John Smeaton is the Glasgow Airport baggage handler who administered a severe kick in the testicular area to a flame-engulfed terrorist last July. He gives us Scots a sense of security far greater than Dubya could possibly give the good ol' US of A.

I raise a glass to John Smeaton! And while I'm no fan of the current Oval Officeholder, I think slamming him has become passe enough to be seen as shooting fish in a barrel. 70% of Americans get it, believe me...

GJ

Originally posted by mitchja

Originally posted by DarkAuror
On a serious point about the Visa Wavier Scheme, do the EU have a similar scheme for the USA? Or do Americans have to have a visa?

The article preiffer posted mentions that if this does go ahead the EU will play tit-for-tat and introduce a similar scheme for US visitors.

If the Americans persevere in the proposed security crackdown, Brussels is likely to respond with tit-for-tat action, such as calling for visas for some Americans.

Hey-ho, here we go again. Am sure a whole bunch of us are beyond fed up with the already arduous process of getting through airports, on both sides of the pond. I'm certainly not gonna start knocking the US people - I love the country (must be why I keep going back!) but - if othersas enthusiastic about a place as I am start to seriously question whether they can be bothered with the increasing amount of rubbish associated with the whole thing, I have to wonder what effect these latest measures would have on tourism in general.

Just suppose all these measures do became cast in stone and then there's a huge fall-off in tourism - just what steps will the security folks take then???? I know I've mentioned this before - but I was in Boston at the time of 9/11, and my flight home was delayed by a few days because of it. I flew home out of NYC and yes, there were armed guards there. Armed guards who were taking absolutely no notice of anything or anyone around - and this after such an cataclysmic event. It all has to come down to staff vigilance, surely - asking for more and more info (including shoe size) simply for the hell of it is totally pointless....[:#]

[Bazz]

Excellent post Roadrunner! Some of my fellow Brits need to get out more [}:)][;)][:w]

Well thats it, if the Department of Homeland Security ever wants to come round our house for tea I'm going to make them take their shoes off, be mardy and not get out the best china.

Having re-read the article, two things pop up at me.

According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said.

Surely the easiest way would be to divert round the US, hmm maybe not, carbon emmission and fuel costs would rise.

Washington is also asking European airlines to provide personal data on non-travellers - for example family members - who are allowed beyond departure barriers to help elderly, young or ill passengers to board aircraft flying to America, a demand the airlines reject as 'absurd'.

I thought in the UK, if you don't have a boarding pass then you can't get through security. I thought anyone with special needs has an airport attendant with them if they're travelling on their own.

In both cases, it goes totalling against the UK data protection act, not sure about EU.

I do love going to the US (even got married there!) but how would these measures stop 9/11? If the collective Federal groups acted on the information that they had before hand, it could have been a different story.

However, as someone else has mentioned, all these proposals will get 'parked' by Capitol Hill this close to the election.

Data protection act - if only it worked as it should..... how can we ever have any faith that any of our data is protected? You only have to think of cds with data going missing, laptops being stolen - and those are only the ones we've heard about....

I agree that it's doesn't work when the data is lost. One of the principle though is keeping relevant data for a certain period of time. How would keeping information about people who are not actually flying over or landing in to the US work. And I bet that that information wouldn't be erased after the set period.

Catsilversword hits the nail on the head. The whole thing started due to a major lack of internal security at US airports. Fair enough UK airport security had its issues but the laxity in the US was amazing when i travelled there pre 2001. It was only a matter of time before someone took a chance and unfortunately we all know what happened.

Increased paperwork and information that could be falsified will not stop terrorists, increased vigilance on the ground where it matters will make the difference. If queueing for an extra half hour or so means i have a better chance of surviving my flight in tact then so be it.

Exactly!

I mean if the US was more vigilant in looking at was going on within their borders and the relevant federal bodies shared their information instead deciding who was the most important federal body then it could all be different.

After all, the terrorists were trained to fly in the US. In terms of paperwork, yes they can be falsified but you will have the potential terrorists who appear respectable i.e. the Glasgow Airport bombing and the failed bomb attack in London, the terrorists were trained doctors with no apparent link.

I think it comes to attitude, A majority of Americans (I apologise right now if I offend anyone) still think that 9/11 is a one-off and that it will never happen again. Just having lots of big men with large guns at airports will not stop the threat, it has to filter down to Joe Public to be vigilant.

I think people from the UK have an instinct to be more vigilant from the experience of the IRA attacks back in the 70s, 80s and 90s and are more security savvy.

Right, I will now get off my soapbox, go to a corner and be silent. Sorry Everyone![:I]

Originally posted by DarkAuror
I agree that it's doesn't work when the data is lost. One of the principle though is keeping relevant data for a certain period of time. How would keeping information about people who are not actually flying over or landing in to the US work. And I bet that that information wouldn't be erased after the set period.

Unless it was copied first.....[?]

Originally posted by catsilversword
I know I've mentioned this before - but I was in Boston at the time of 9/11, and my flight home was delayed by a few days because of it. I flew home out of NYC and yes, there were armed guards there. Armed guards who were taking absolutely no notice of anything or anyone around - and this after such an cataclysmic event.
It all has to come down to staff vigilance, surely - asking for more and more info (including shoe size) simply for the hell of it is totally pointless....[:#]

Thanks Cat--

I was t(here) as well and spent the day walking home (T was shut down) through a city stunned by possibility. I am also highly amused when I note that I am in the airport with many TSA and few passengers. The guards you saw apres 9/11 were probably assigned to look for 'suspicious' people and had no idea what that looked like.

Since then TSA has become its own industry--with excellent pay and excellent benefits and instructions to staff that they are the barrier to terror. I believe they are evaluated on demonstrating that persona while at work. Some of them do that extremely convincingly although the scariest experience I have ever had was at Heathrow T1 when I made a phone call in Spanish and found a very large soldier standing over my shoulder with an automatic weapon. He stayed until I finished my conversation, gave me what can only be called a menacing look and then shifted a few steps back to allow me to shuffle away. I certainly felt his eyes at my back as I walked away.

On another note--PBS radio says that UA are doing a trial run of charging for luggage....

cheers,

RR

Originally posted by DarkAuror
A majority of Americans (I apologise right now if I offend anyone) still think that 9/11 is a one-off and that it will never happen again.

You make a good point or two in your post, but I'm curious if you'd please cite the study from which you make this statement? From where I sit, it seems to me (mind you, I'm not making any claims to an academic insight) that our current president was re-elected (as were others who hold similar views) precisely because he was able to play off the fear many Americans have that we'll be attacked again.

Thanks,

GJ

Originally posted by DarkAuror
I agree that it's doesn't work when the data is lost. One of the principle though is keeping relevant data for a certain period of time. How would keeping information about people who are not actually flying over or landing in to the US work. And I bet that that information wouldn't be erased after the set period.

[Data Protection Officer Mode]
No, it doesn't. One of the principles (3rd) says that personal data shall, adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose(s) intended and another (5th) says personal data should not be kept for longer than is necessary.

Essentially, UK Data Protection Law is the same (or to the same standard) as any other EU country because, seeing as you ask, it must meet the standards as set by a directive called 95/46/EU. The UK probably has the weakest regulation of all UK countries, which is more to do with the Government not supporting the regulator rather than weak regulation per se.

The real crux of the matter is that the EU doesn't trust America with personal data, not least because it does not have legislation that comes to anywhere near the standard of said directive, which is a requirement of the 8th DP principle.
[/Data Protection Officer Mode]

mmmmmh!! Sorry, just taking off my self imposed gag!

It was more an observation from previous visits after 9/11.

I think I said in a previous post where I've been delayed in an US airport because of an impatient flyer wanted to getting to his flight and deciding to run through the security zone. It was also when we're waiting in the queue to get back in to the terminal, you hear the moans from other impatient passengers who think they're going to miss their plane (even though no plane would be flying until the alert has past) and I did actually hear someone 'It's not as if they're going to attack here! (this was LAS exactly one year after 9/11.

However, as pointed out, GWB was re-elected on the wave of fear from terror.

next question

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DarkAuror

I agree that it's doesn't work when the data is lost. One of the principle though is keeping relevant data for a certain period of time. How would keeping information about people who are not actually flying over or landing in to the US work. And I bet that that information wouldn't be erased after the set period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Data Protection Officer Mode]
No, it doesn't. One of the principles (3rd) says that personal data shall, adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose(s) intended and another (5th) says personal data should not be kept for longer than is necessary.

Essentially, UK Data Protection Law is the same (or to the same standard) as any other EU country because, seeing as you ask, it must meet the standards as set by a directive called 95/46/EU. The UK probably has the weakest regulation of all UK countries, which is more to do with the Government not supporting the regulator rather than weak regulation per se.

The real crux of the matter is that the EU doesn't trust America with personal data, not least because it does not have legislation that comes to anywhere near the standard of said directive, which is a requirement of the 8th DP principle.
[/Data Protection Officer Mode]

Agghhh! [:(!]You absolutely right! I apologise for the bad wording of my statement. It should have read something like this.

I agree that it's doesn't work when the data is lost. One of the principle though is keeping relevant data for a limited/Set period of time. How would keeping information about people who are not actually flying over or landing in to the US work. And I bet that that information wouldn't be erased after the set period.

I think my problem about data issue is that it's all after the horse bolted.

That's it, My gag is coming back. Again apologies to everyone [:I]

Agghhh! You absolutely right! I apologise for the bad wording of my statement. It should have read something like this.

I agree that it's doesn't work when the data is lost. One of the principle though is keeping relevant data for a limited/Set period of time. How would keeping information about people who are not actually flying over or landing in to the US work. And I bet that that information wouldn't be erased after the set period.

I think my problem about data issue is that it's all after the horse bolted.

That's it, My gag is coming back. Again apologies to everyone

Just re-read my response, and apologise for sounding a bit school-teacherish. Your points are actually very valid, and FWIW I totally agree with their sentiments.

Ironically, the EU data protection directive requires all organisations that process personal data (including the American Government) to be pro-active with data management. The American Government and its agencies just don't like having their demands questioned.

Originally posted by DarkAuror

I think it comes to attitude, A majority of Americans (I apologise right now if I offend anyone) still think that 9/11 is a one-off and that it will never happen again. Just having lots of big men with large guns at airports will not stop the threat, it has to filter down to Joe Public to be vigilant.

I'm not so much offended as truly surprised that you believe a 'majority' of Americans feel that way. [?]

Amongst my circle of friends & family, many believe it is only a matter of time before the US is attacked again on American soil, and I've heard the phrase 'it's not if, it's when' more often then I'd like.

In July 2005 my then fiance (now husband) and I were in the process of moving from NYC to London. A number of people expressed concerns for our safety after 7/7, but they shut up rather quickly when we replied 'Do you really think we are any safer living in NYC?'

I think people from the UK have an instinct to be more vigilant from the experience of the IRA attacks back in the 70s, 80s and 90s and are more security savvy.

Along the same lines, I recall reading an article after the 7/7 bombings that referred to things in London getting back to normal quite quickly due to British character and people having endured the Blitz. (Of course it also mentioned the difference in scale of the two events, which goes without saying.)

I did actually hear someone 'It's not as if they're going to attack here! (this was LAS exactly one year after 9/11.

I'm only guessing, but I'd say there was a good chance the 'here' the person you overheard was referring to actually meant LAS specifically, as opposed to the USA as a whole. [;)]

It's not my intention to be defensive here. Just offering my perspective & point of view on your original thought.

J

[buns]

I have found this is an extremely interesting thread - some truly valid points have been made both on the commercial suicide of the US authorities and how the EU view of civil liberty does not accord exactly with the US desire to stamp out terrorism.

The crux of the issue is whether this will deter the terrorist - security we all now take as routine surrounding air travel is littered with stable doors from past terrorist incidents (Dawsons' Field, Lockerbie, 9/11, shoe bomber etc. etc.) and as we in the UK have come to learn, the terrorist will always look for (and eventually find) the next weakest point.

I suspect collating huge tomes of data of passenger has only a limited effect, but this is the only alternative to the real answer of reverting to visa entry to the US. As others have already pointed out, this would result in tit-for-tat retaition from the EU.

Air Marshals are becoming a possibility, and it is only a matter of time before profiling becomes an acceptable practice. [:#]

buns

And I wonder how long it would be before we heard of our first rogue air marshall???

We have just recently had an Air Canada Pilot going loopy in mid air!

There is no room for any fire arms at all on any flight no matter who is carrying them.

I suspect most of us would actually welcome the US keeping all our data on file - provided they actually used it - so we did not have to fill in the forms every visit!

Most of us are happy with reasonable security - but with the emphasis on reasonable.

What really annoys is the stupidity of some security:
Removing a bottle of water from a member of flight crew - who is quite legally carrying a loaded gun!
Removing a pen knife from flight crew - when as soon as they step into their 'office', they have a fire axe available on the wall - not to mention the 250 tons of fuel laden aluminium that they can place at high speed almost anywhere they want!

Profiling I'd welcome - provided it was accompanied with some intelligence. It simply means less time wasted by (& on ) the rest of us!

I don't mean to offend any Americans (Many Apologies, Stars!), I was just offering an opinion. It looks like from some of the replys that it's not the majority. So unlike a lot of politicians, I will like to retract the statement about the majority of Americans think 9/11 wouldn't happen again.

Had to smile when I read about the Blitz and how we folks in the UK are because of it - had to smile, mainly because I suspect hardly anyone who lived through the blitz would still habe been scurrying to work when 7/7 happened! I suspect it's more to do with the fact that we've been living with fallout from the IRA problem for years (I remember bomb hoaxes happening at school, and everyone being herded outside into the playground - even as a child, it struck me as a totally useless move if there actually had been a bomb!) - plus the fact that we can be a pretty bloody-minded lot and take the attitude that these things are simply not going to affect out daily lives - purely because if we let them , then 'they' will have won.

But going back to the article - why not simply re-introduce the visa and be done with it? Although, that said - I had a visa before the waiver programme was introduced, and getting one wasn't a difficult process, it didn't involve personalinterviews or excessive amounts of unnecessary info gathering. I'm inclined to agree that the TSA has a life of its own, with increasing staff to support and also the need to justify its existence.

As to whether the EU would introduce tit-for-tat measures, I can quite see why that would be a knee-jerk reaction, but wonder just where the whole process could spiral to..... it smakcs of kids having a row. Saddens me tremendously to think things may truly get even more intrusive - the last thing we want is to made to feel like criminals, when all we're doing is taking a break, and bringing along some of our hard-earned and hard-taxed money into the country....

I'll shut the f up now....