| « Eavesdropping Over the Ridge of a Beer | Main | Sunday Gears » |
As Slashdot and Boing Boing readers likely know, Cory Doctorow was recently questioned by an American Airlines security agent in London and asked to write down the names and addresses of the people he planned to stay with in the States. According to Doctorow's account, the agent said this was due to a TSA regulation.
In a short post here, I noted that was likely untrue, but that we'd also never know because TSA abuses the SSI designation to hide its security procedures.
Yesterday, I gave American Airlines a call to ask them about the incident and spokesman Tim Wagner promised to get back to me after he looked into the matter.
To his credit, Wagner did just that today, sending me the following email:
After reviewing our documentation on Mr. Doctorow's experience in London, it is evident that both our contracted security screener and Mr. Doctorow contributed to what is not a representative example of our security screening process.Mr. Doctorow exhibited specific behaviors and cues before and during our initial security screening that caused our screener to initiate a secondary screening process. We will not publicize those behaviors because to do so might hamper the effectiveness of the screening process in the future.
That said, our contracted screener veered from standard procedure when she asked for Mr. Doctorow to write the addresses of his destinations in the United States. She did clearly state that once the interview was completed, the address list would be destroyed in front of Mr. Doctorow or that he could have the list to keep. American Airlines absolutely does not register or record that type of personal data.
Although the agent concerned is very promising, this incident clearly showed a lack of experience in the questioning process. The agent will go through additional training and supervision. Through daily briefings, the remainder of the station will benefit from the experience gained from this incident.
American Airlines is entirely serious about the security procedures we undertake to help ensure the safety of our passengers and crews. We expect that our passengers apply the same serious consideration when they encounter our procedures. The vast majority of airline travelers appreciate the increased security and have adapted to a new reality in air travel. That is not, however, an excuse for security measures to be applied unevenly, and to reiterate, we do not keep personal information gathered during screening processes.
We appreciate that Mr. Doctorow called our attention to the mistakes that were made because it helps us rectify the situation going forward. He will also receive a personal response to the letter he sent to our Customer Relations department.
Tim Wagner
American Airlines Spokesman
Now, the email isn't particularly detailed and doesn't address whether the screener invoked, correctly or incorrectly, the specter of unwritten TSA rules.
But the fact the company is dealing with the incident publicly says something about the power of Boing Boing and Slashdot, and/or American Airlines's corporate culture (depending on your degree of cynicism/jadedness).
It'd be nice to know more about exactly how this went down, or whether there is some TSA regulation out there instructing security agents to interrogate passengers -- mini El Al-style -- about who they are staying with and whether you have the right to refuse to answer such questions without being kept off the plane.
But it's late on a Friday, the screener already got sent to re-education, I'm unlikely to find that out from Mr. Wagner and I'm just happy the email included one of my favorite phrases, "secondary screening."
Update: Over at Boing Boing, Cory responds to the letter's version of events, writing:
Two things are wrong about this:1. The supposed TSA policy requiring me to write out my friends' addresses wasn't just talked about by the screener, but also by her supervisor, who came by to lecture me about how this was for my own safety -- if this was one rogue screener overstepping her authority, then why didn't her supervisor overrule her instead of sticking to the story that "the TSA requires this of us"
2. At no time did the screener or her supervisor ever state that the list would be destroyed in front of me, nor that I could keep the list. In fact, all three AA security people I dealt with -- the screener, her supervisor and the terminal manager -- told me that they didn't know what would be done with the list after the interview, that they had no idea what AA's document-retention and data-privacy policies were
He also questions the contention that he engaged in "specific behaviors" that cued secondary screening, asking:
I went where I was directed and told the screener when I got to the podium that I had packed all my own luggage and kept it in my control since packing it. Is anticipating a security question a suspicious behavior?
In fact, that may well be true. It could also be true that he was singled out for other reasons -- such as the well-known ones that include buying a one-way ticket (which can be true due to varying airline booking policies, even when you think you have booked a round-trip ticket) or buying the ticket on short notice.
It is also possible, and nigh-on unverifiable, that the TSA has ordered airlines to question folks flying from one country to another, while holding the passport of a third (in Cory's case, UK to the States using a Canadian passport).
Also unverifiable, except through repeated observation, is whether the TSA has ordered the airlines to institute some sort of El Al-style behavioral profiling, such as the one being tested in Boston's Logan airport.
Want to know why it is unverifiable? Check this post about Stephen Aftergood's essay on how Homeland Security has "deployed its new secrecy authority with gusto."
Posted by Ryan Singel at January 21, 2005 03:09 PM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.secondaryscreening.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/101
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cory Doctorow and Secondary 'Secondary Screening' Classes:
» American Airlines invents reasons to ask me for a dossier on my friends' home addresses from Boing Boing
Ryan called American Airlines to ask them why I was asked to produce a dossier of my friends' addresses when I flew from London to the US last week. They responded, in part: Mr. Doctorow exhibited specific behaviors and cues before and during our initi... [Read More]
Tracked on January 21, 2005 11:46 PM
» Secondary Screening: Cory Doctorow and Secondary 'Secondary Screening' Classes from Privacy Digest: Privacy News (Civil Rights, Encryption, Free Speech, Cryptography)
As Slashdot and Boing Boing readers likely know, Cory Doctorow was recently questioned by an American Airlines security agent in London and asked to write down the names and addresses of the people he planned to stay with in the States. [Read More]
Tracked on January 22, 2005 09:10 AM
» Followup on Doctorow's Interrogation from FreedomSight
Followup to the Who Are Your Associates? post from yesterday, there's more on Doctorow's secondary screening over at Secondary Screening, including a reply that site author Ryan Singel received from the TSA. TSA says they don't keep the address list:Th... [Read More]
Tracked on January 22, 2005 12:59 PM
» Your Papers Please from Zmetro.com
Cory Doctorow relates an odd and disturbing experience while travelling from London to Dallas on American Airlines. Ryan Singel contacts AA and receives this response....... [Read More]
Tracked on January 23, 2005 06:16 PM
» Friday, January 28, 2005 from Log: David Chess
Also from Schneier, a story about Cory Doctorow's encounter with airport screening, including an actual apology from the screening bureaucracy, and the screened's reaction to it. (Note also that this is from a weblog called Secondary Screening, which i... [Read More]
Tracked on January 28, 2005 02:14 PM
Post a commentwow, this is amazing!
In the words of the venerable MrsReagan,
"Just say no!"
Please make this inforation more widely known?"
Posted by: idknow at January 22, 2005 03:34 AM
This is why the rest of the world hates Americans.
Never support American corporations or interests, let them rot in isolation.
Posted by: hah at January 22, 2005 06:28 AM
I treat airport employees the same way I treat a border crossing guard: I am polite and pleasant, but only answer exactly what I am asked, no matter how much of a rush I am in.
Listen carefully to the questions, as they'll not always ask them in the same way.
Do this and I'll bet you'll never run into b*s like this again.
Posted by: Jack Schitt at January 22, 2005 06:55 AM
Did you notice that the suits and ties at American Airlines immediately shifted the blame to the low-paid and expendable security screener?
Here in Albany, NY (actually a suburb called Guilderland) an interesting incident happened that
made world headlines. A security guard at a giant indoor shopping mall detained a certain unassuming fellow for wearing a t-shirt that was thought to be expressing opposition to the then impending War Against Iraq. It read, "Give Peace A Chance." I kid you not.
This happened in early March 2002, just after the anti-american and unconstitutional "Patriot" Act was foisted by both major parties upon the unsuspecting public. The mall owners had instituted a strict policy of supressing politically incorrect t-shirts and there had already been a number of instances of mall security ejecting American citizens from the premises under threat of arrest.
What the mall owners didn't know was that this unassuming fellow, who looked like an easy target, was a lawyer who headed a NY State Commission. That's not surprising, since the state capital is just down the road.
The short version of this story is that the fellow was indeed arrested by the bozo Guilderland police, and an uproar ensued. Eventually, after a lot of stalinist posturing that backfired for them badly, the mall owners frantically backpedaled and dropped the charges.
So who got the blame? The mall owners for instituting an invasive policy? The police for making a false arrest? Of course not. The low paid security guard was fired from his job.
The moral of this story, and the Cory Doctorow AA story, is that if you are a low paid security guard, or, for that matter, a torturer at Abu Ghraib, you won't be able to protect yourself by saying, "...But I was just following orders!"
For a reprint of a local newspaper story:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-08.htm
-dwvr
Posted by: Dan Van Riper at January 22, 2005 07:10 AM
Well, although the screener seemed a bit zealous, and the supervisors didn't seem to know what their own policies were, I must admit that I think I know what the "suspicious behavior" was...
First of all, the thing that probably set them off was the fact that you were answering questions before being asked. It makes it seem like you memorized some sort of speech to give, and that you were attempting to prevent them from asking you questions.
Second of all, the reason why they then asked you for the names and addresses of the friends you were visiting was to find out if you actually *had* any friends you were visiting.
Sorry dude, but like the one guy said, you should treat it the same way as if you got stopped by a police officer: be polite, but keep your answers short and only answer the questions they ask.
I know it sucks, but truthfully, we should be glad that the government still allows *anyone* to fly *anywhere* for *any reason*. After 9/11, I was expecting the airline industry to be virtually shut down. I am actually surprised that it still continues to function as well as it does.
--Zeb
Posted by: Zebulon at January 22, 2005 07:43 AM
I agree w/Zeb on this one. The one thing you can't be in US airports these days is a smart-ass. Get used to it. I would suggest to Mr. Doctorow that if this incident is so bothersome to him, maybe he should just "vote with his wallet" as the saying goes.
Posted by: Lou at January 22, 2005 10:56 AM
The "security procedure" of asking the target for names/addresses of people they are staying with is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Why unnecessary? Because it is completely ineffectual. As has been demonstrated time and again, only the criminals that get caught are stupid.
I completely agree that one should always be polite when dealing with an officer of any kind (hell, one should just generally be polite anyway), Even in the face of the ineffectual stupidity that is "airport security", one should be polite.
Posted by: Barley Wine at January 22, 2005 01:20 PM
When entering any foreign country by air, I have always had to fill out a customs card (they hand them out on the plane), which has a section where I'm supposed to write the address where I'll be staying while I'm in that country.
It's a perfectly legitimate question, but it's strange that it was an airline official that brought it up, rather than a customs/immigration officer.
Posted by: telly at January 22, 2005 04:16 PM
Responses posted on Bruce Schneier's blog:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/01/american_airlin.html
Posted by: Davi at January 29, 2005 06:12 PM
I just went through the same bull*$#t yesterday on a domestic flight from San Jose, CA to San Diego. They treated me with no respect, claimed to have found traces of TNT on my suitcase. Tore through my suitcase and cosmetic bag, found nothing, but took down my name, address and social secruity number. Where does that info go? They don't know. Is my named tagged now as possible explosives holder? I don't know!!! They let me carry on my luggage after 45 minutes of hell. I want to complain but do not know who to or if I have a valid reason. The lady who screened me was rude to say the least. My biggest issue is that the screener should have never swabbed the inside of my cosmetic bag which can give false reading on explosives. She was just looking for a victory. Too bad for her, I was clean. It made me never want to fly American again. I understand the need for extra security but this time they went too far.
Posted by: Michele at February 18, 2005 12:48 PM
I work for AA security in the UK and can confirm anonymously that carring a passport of a country other than that of embarkation or disembarkation is a "suspicious sign" and requires further questioning of the passenger's reasons for travel, current residency and occupation.
The reason given for this is that security staff are likely to be unfamiliar with other passports, thus increasing the likelihood that a forgery would go undetected.
In cases where the passenger has no supporting documentation to confirm their answers, I sometimes have asked for the address where a passenger is staying in the US. I ask the passenger to write it down in front of me. If they unduly hesitate, don't know the address (obviously finding out where it's written down in their bag is normal, ringing someone up to get it is suspicious), or give an address that doesn't corroborate the rest of the story, then I will have more suspicions. When the screening process is completed, I always return the scrap of paper with the address on to the passenger or throw it away in front of them. I have not been trained to do that, but it seems the right thing to do.
You can make your own minds up as to whether that's justifiable under "security" or not.
Posted by: B at September 5, 2005 01:06 PM