Several months ago, I read
this story about James Moore, author of
Bush's Brain and how he suddenly found himself on the TSA's No-Fly Watch List. I read and re-read the article, thought about it, and decided to write my congress-critter. For reference, that would be John Dingell (D, MI-15).
He's finally replied and I've included his (slighly redacted :-) ) reply below the fold...
First, his reply:
Dear ***:
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Secure Flight program, civil liberties, and the importance of preventing the TSA from using commercial data to authenticate passenger identities. I agree with you.
As you may know, in October 2004, TSA unveiled the Secure Flight test program. It consisted of four elements: 1) a streamlined rule for more intensive screening, 2) an identity authentication process, 3) a passenger name check against the consolidated terrorist screening database, and 4) an appeals process for passengers who may have been misidentified. Concerned about this program, Congress included provisions in the FY 2005 Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-334) prohibiting deployment of this system until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that 10 elements related to privacy protections, data security, and redress for aggrieved individuals are adequately
addressed. At this time, those 10 elements have not been fulfilled.
In the FY 2006 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-90), Congress appropriated $57 million for Secure Flight. However, the conference report noted that the TSA failed to fully justify cost estimates for FY 2006. The law again prohibits deployment of the system on other than a test basis until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that the same 10 elements related to privacy, data security, and appeals for aggrieved passengers is addressed. Also of note, the provision in the FY2006 conference report would also prevent the TSA from using commercial data. While commercial data is seen as a possible means for authenticating passenger identities, I along with many of my colleagues have raised concerns over TSA's prior disclosure and handling of personal data obtained from commercial sources during the
development and testing of Secure Flight.
I understand that the TSA must maintain our safety. However, I cannot support a government program that has not been proven and could also lead to additional identity theft. In order to support programs such as Secure Flight, we must know they do in fact improve safety, while at the same time do not impede upon our civil liberties.
You will also be interested to know I recently opposed the USA Patriot Act conference report. I did so because it did not do enough to protect civil liberties. As Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Again, thank you for being in touch. For news on current federal legislative issues, please visit my website at www.house.gov/dingell; you can also sign up there to receive my e-newsletter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may be of assistance with this or any other matter of concern.
With every good wish,
Sincerely yours,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
I'm going to reply to Representative Dingell and inquire about the following:
If the GAO issued a negative assessment of "Secure Flight" and if Congress expressly barred DHS from fully implementing it in 2005 and, again, in 2006....then WHY is it that the story in question is from Late 2005? It sounds like this is more than a 'test implementation.'
It sounds like DHS has said "screw you, we're doing it anyways." Anyways, I wanted to share this...it seems indicative of how Congress has adopted a 'wait and see' attitude when it comes to oversight. I mean, really, it's obvious that the program is being used, whatever Congress has said...
...and it doesn't bother Mr. Dingell that DHS is doing it anyways?