http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278782/Outrage-secret-probe-47-000-innocent-flyers.html
Outrage at secret probe into 47,000 innocent flyers
Police secretly investigated the travel habits, family, friends and backgrounds of 47,000 innocent people last year after they bought plane tickets to fly into and out of Britain.
The intrusiveness has provoked fury among civil liberties campaigners and now may be stopped by Britain’s new coalition Government.
-snip-
Police have also used it to produce 14,000 intelligence reports on travellers for ‘future use’. They can be shared by security services worldwide.
‘Suspect’ requests likely to lead to innocent holidaymakers receiving ‘red flags’ as potential terrorists include ordering a vegetarian meal, asking for an over-wing seat and travelling with a foreign-born husband or wife.
The system will also ‘red flag’ anyone buying a one-way ticket and making a last-minute reservation and those with a history of booking tickets and not showing up for flights.
-snip-
All information passengers give to travel agents, including home address, phone numbers, email address, passport details and the names of family members, is shared with an unknown number of Government agencies for ‘analysis’ and stored for up to ten years.
The Home Office claims the system has led to arrests of murderers and rapists – and to 1,000 people being denied entry to Britain.
But it refused to say if any terrorists had been caught by the system, despite it being a counter-terrorist measure.
Even as the ‘profiling’ system went live, its reliability was being called into question. An internal Home Office document revealed that during testing one ‘potential suspect’ turned out to be an airline passenger with a spinal injury flying into Britain with his nurse.
etc.
Okay, now I understand that the Daily Mail is a bit of a trashy tabloid, so maybe I shouldn't take it's tone too seriously.
But, maybe someone can explain to me: What's the BF Deal here???
First of all being "innocent" is a reason to not be punished, not a reason not to be investigated. The whole concept of not investigating someone because he or she is innocent is absurd on its face.
Second, so what??? So, the government collects your info when you buy a plane ticket? So, certain seemingly innocent behaviors are considered red flags to prompt further investigation? What's so terrible about this? Why do people get so up in arms about their "privacy" regarding information they voluntarily give when purchasing airline tickets?
Now, I understand that the government should not be intruding into areas where people have reasonable expectations of privacy. The government should not be allowed to search your home without a warrant/probable cause/ whatever the applicable standard is in [fill in country]. I can even understand the sentiment that the government shouldn't be picking data from people's gmail accounts and whatnot. But sifting through data you voluntarily provide in applications for services for red flags? What's bad about that? I simply don't get the objection.
Originally posted by sh76Yep, that should do the trick. If you are a rapist. terrorist, drug dealers, or.....um......MIchael Savage you won't be getting into the country. 😛
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278782/Outrage-secret-probe-47-000-innocent-flyers.html
[i][b]Outrage at secret probe into 47,000 innocent flyers
Police secretly investigated the travel habits, family, friends and backgrounds of 47,000 innocent people last year after they bought plane tickets to fly into and out of Britain.
The intrusivene ...[text shortened]... for services for red flags? What's bad about that? I simply don't get the objection.[/b]
You do realize that your on their list now, right? Hope you did not have any plans to visit the UK. 😵
Originally posted by sh76In the States, as well as in the U.K., when this kind of intrusiveness provoked fury among civil liberties campaigners during the Bush period, conservatives both sides of the Atlantic condemned civil liberties campaigners of all manner of things ranging from a lack of patriotism to naivety to treachery to... offering aid to, or actively supporting, terrorists. Now The Daily Mail has its knickers in a twist?? I remember once, after making some point about how civil liberties must not be abandoned in the face of terrorist threats, whodey asked me, by way of retort: "Come to think of it, I can't remember you [FMF] ever explicitly condemning Al-Qaeda. Have you ever condemned them?" I recall you rebuking him for it, sh76.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278782/Outrage-secret-probe-47-000-innocent-flyers.html
[b]Outrage at secret probe into 47,000 innocent flyers
Police secretly investigated the travel habits, family, friends and backgrounds of 47,000 innocent people last year after they bought plane tickets to fly into and out of Britain.
The intrusivene for services for red flags? What's bad about that? I simply don't get the objection.[/b]
Originally posted by sh76Why assume they are all innocent when clearly some at least.if not many, have proved to be dangerously guilty?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278782/Outrage-secret-probe-47-000-innocent-flyers.html
[i][b]Outrage at secret probe into 47,000 innocent flyers
Police secretly investigated the travel habits, family, friends and backgrounds of 47,000 innocent people last year after they bought plane tickets to fly into and out of Britain.
The intrusivene for services for red flags? What's bad about that? I simply don't get the objection.[/b]
Had such steps been taken earlier several muzzie terrorists and their mentors would never have been allowed to land.
Originally posted by FMFI'm sure the civil rights groups are just trying to check government power. Fine; I get the concept of making sure government doesn't get too powerful. I'm not condoning reactionary conclusions about how unpatriotic the civil rights groups are.
In the States, as well as in the U.K., when this kind of intrusiveness provoked fury among civil liberties campaigners during the Bush period, conservatives both sides of the Atlantic condemned civil liberties campaigners of all manner of things ranging from a lack of patriotism to naivety to treachery to... offering aid to, or actively supporting, terrorists. N ...[text shortened]... ndemning Al-Qaeda. Have you ever condemned them?" I recall you rebuking him for it, sh76.[/b]
I just don't get the objection to this particular practice. Why shouldn't the government use all publicly available data to investigate possible threats? Especially when it is doing so wihout taking any additional measures that are invasive to people.
I think that people need to realize that 1984 is political satire, not a history book.
Originally posted by sh76you're understating the case.
I'm sure the civil rights groups are just trying to check government power. Fine; I get the concept of making sure government doesn't get too powerful. I'm not condoning reactionary conclusions about how unpatriotic the civil rights groups are.
I just don't get the objection to this particular practice. Why shouldn't the government use all publicly available ...[text shortened]... .
I think that people need to realize that 1984 is political satire, not a history book.
"I think that people need to realize that 1984 is political satire, not holy writ."
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf I had a nickle for every Orwellian comparison I heard during the Bush administration on the wild wild net, I'd be able to bail out Greece personally (not that I would...)
you're understating the case.
"I think that people need to realize that 1984 is political satire, not [b]holy writ."[/b]
I agree with Z. 1984 is the Bible to many on the far left*.
* I mean the social left; not the economic left; the "negative Y" part of the Political compass graph.
Originally posted by sh76It's just the Daily Fail. Making a mountain out of a molehill and seeing if it sticks is the MO for tabloids of its kind.
I'm sure the civil rights groups are just trying to check government power. Fine; I get the concept of making sure government doesn't get too powerful. I'm not condoning reactionary conclusions about how unpatriotic the civil rights groups are.
I just don't get the objection to this particular practice. Why shouldn't the government use all publicly available ...[text shortened]... .
I think that people need to realize that 1984 is political satire, not a history book.