TSA- Deny infants to fly

Status
Not open for further replies.

AK-74me

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
339
Airlines- Deny infants to fly

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list."

It sounds like a joke, but it's not funny to parents who miss flights while scrambling to have babies' passports and other documents faxed.

Ingrid Sanden's 1-year-old daughter was stopped in Phoenix, Arizona, before boarding a flight home to Washington at Thanksgiving.

"I completely understand the war on terrorism, and I completely understand people wanting to be safe when they fly," Sanden said. "But focusing the target a little bit is probably a better use of resources."

The government's lists of people who are either barred from flying or require extra scrutiny before being allowed to board airplanes grew markedly since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union say the government doesn't provide enough information about the people on the lists, so innocent passengers can be caught up in the security sweep if they happen to have the same name as someone on the lists.

That can happen even if the person happens to be an infant like Sanden's daughter. (Children under 2 don't need tickets but Sanden purchased one for her daughter to ensure she had a seat.)

"It was bizarre," Sanden said. "I was hugely pregnant, and I was like, 'We look really threatening.'"

Sarah Zapolsky and her husband had a similar experience last month while departing from Dulles International Airport outside Washington. An airline ticket agent told them their 11-month-old son was on the government list.

They were able to board their flight after ticket agents took a half-hour to fax her son's passport and fill out paperwork.

"I understand that security is important," Zapolsky said. "But if they're just guessing, and we have to give up our passport to prove that our 11-month-old is not a terrorist, it's a waste of their time."

Sanden and Zapolsky would not allow their children's names to be used in this story because they fear people who prey on children.

Well-known people like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, and David Nelson, who starred in the sitcom "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet," also have been stopped at airports because their names match those on the lists.

The government has sought to improve its process for checking passengers since the September 11 attacks. The first attempt was scuttled because of fears the government would have access to too much personal information. A new version, called Secure Flight, is being crafted.

But for now, airlines still have the duty to check passengers' names against those supplied by the government.

That job has become more difficult -- since the 2001 attacks the lists have swelled from a dozen or so names to more than 100,000 names, according to people in the aviation industry who are familiar with the issue. They asked not to be identified by name because the exact number is restricted information.

Not all those names are accompanied by biographical information that can more closely identify the suspected terrorists. That can create problems for people who reserve flights under such names as "T Kennedy" or "David Nelson."

ACLU lawyer Tim Sparapani said the problem of babies stopped by the no-fly list illustrates some of the reasons the lists don't work.

"There's no oversight over the names," Sparapani said. "We know names are added hastily, and when you have a name-based system you don't focus on solid intelligence leads. You focus on names that are similar to those that might be suspicious."

The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 -- or select them for extra security checks -- even if their names match those on a list.

But it happens anyway. Debby McElroy, president of the Regional Airline Association, said: "Our information indicates it happens at every major airport."

The TSA has a "passenger ombudsman" who will investigate individual claims from passengers who say they are mistakenly on the lists. TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said 89 children have submitted their names to the ombudsman. Of those, 14 are under the age of 2.

If the ombudsman determines an individual should not be stopped, additional information on that person is included on the list so he or she is not stopped the next time they fly.

Clark said even with the problems the lists are essential to keeping airline passengers safe.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html
 
Last edited:
Your thread title is hugely misleading. It is the airlines that are being morons in this instance, not the TSA for a change.

The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 -- or select them for extra security checks -- even if their names match those on a list.
THAT is actually pure common sense.

Mike
 
You are right, not what I meant to write for title. Either way it is just beyond my understanding for them to deny a 2 yr old child flight becasue a similar name came up on a list.

1. it is not their name

and

2. it is a baby who can hardley walk FCS.
 
it is a baby who can hardley walk FCS.
Only 2 year olds I've seen that could barely walk were developmentally disabeled in some fashion. My daughter was not just walking, but running by 13 months. She's now 16 months old and quick enough that she can get close and then jet off before I can grab her sometimes.

Still your point is valid. I read that article and went :scrutiny: :rolleyes: a bunch of times. Not sure if that is worse, or the fact that I got bumped off a flight (not for security reasons) over Christmas at the last second before boarding and could not fly with my wife and daughter. Only reason I was able to fly out the next day was a friend of mine works for another airline and helped me out. Had I stuck with America West, I'd have been 2-3 days late getting there. Stupid airlines.
 
Makes sense to me, terrorists can come in all shapes, sizes and ages. Maybe these people will be more careful when choosing names for their kids in the future.
 
Profiling Bad!

rick_reno said:
Makes sense to me, terrorists can come in all shapes, sizes and ages. Maybe these people will be more careful when choosing names for their kids in the future.

Yeah, rick_reno has the idea. You've seen the Palestinian baby pictures with the babies all dressed up in suicide bomber gear?

Besides, focusing our efforts (AKA, "profiling") is sure to lead to EVEN MORE terrorists on planes, as the terrorists recruit thousands of 70 year old black church ladies, middle-aged white guys with crew cuts and pot bellies, and 7 month old infants.

Also, the parents who negligently named their children after some suspected terrorist ought to be ashamed. Of course, since the list is in "double secret probation" status and cannot be seen by mere commoners, the parents will have to go to their closest TSA rep for a TSA-issued name and bar-code tattoo for junior.

Remember: it is for the children.
 
Only 2 year olds I've seen that could barely walk were developmentally disabeled in some fashion. My daughter was not just walking, but running by 13 months. She's now 16 months old and quick enough that she can get close and then jet off before I can grab her sometimes.

I have a young son too, I know... that was not the point.

Eventually Rick, having a "normal name" doesn't preclude you either so
 
The government has sought to improve its process for checking passengers since the September 11 attacks. The first attempt was scuttled because of fears the government would have access to too much personal information. A new version, called Secure Flight, is being crafted.
Okay, it's relatively obvious that this whole thing -- the stupidity of searching/delaying babies and the added publicity caused by such stupidity -- is going to please some people or it wouldn't be happening.

So who's benefitting?

Off hand, I'd say that the people who are trying to push through the "Secure Flight" database/safety intrusion would be the first place to look.

Oh, and Coronach? Of course this
The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 -- or select them for extra security checks -- even if their names match those on a list.
is pure common sense. But it's not happening that way. I know it is not, because my 10 year old was selected for the full works when he was travelling with his grandparents awhile back. They thought it was funny; I am glad I wasn't there. I did not and do not think it is funny at all.

pax
 
I note there is a rising groundswell--albeit very slow--in the mainstream press about the idiocies of the TSA. More and more "anti-terrorism experts" are being quoted about the inefficacies of the TSA.

Maybe there's hope, but I don't expect real-world improvements anytime soon.

Art
 
Well, my wife finally got wind of this and is less than enthused. Maternal instinct has kicked in and she has shot off letters to her Congress-critters (Schumer and Clinton) about it.

She's also working on getting a group of mothers to sign a petition to send out.

It's fine with me me if we never fly again. I hate the entire process these days.
 
Good lord.

Im not going to blame "the list" for this. There is a limited amount of name combinations and repeats are inevitable. What kind of utter moron denies an 11 month old child from flying though?

Actually, to play devils advocate let me put this idea foreward. The list isnt *just* about terrorists. Its about people who cant fly for a variety of reasons, not necessarily related to terrorism. I suppose that its *possible* that an infant could be placed on that list due to some kind of custody dispute in which one of the parents was likely to flee with the child. I admit that its unlikely, but do you *really* expect the $7/hr attendant to take the burdon of that decision on themselves? Absolutely not, for what we pay these people ANYTHING that comes outside the norm is going to get kicked upstairs, and people are going to err on side of caution no matter how absurd, simply because its safer and easier.
 
The TSA is nothing more than an illustration of everything that is wrong with government.

If the ACLU starts hammering on the TSA, hell might freeze over and I'll become a dues paying member yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top