DHS Will Now Vet UK Air Passengers To Mexico, Canada, Cuba 417
First time accepted submitter illtud writes "From April, UK passengers flying to Mexico, Eastern Canada or Cuba will have to submit their details at least 72 hours before boarding to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for pre-flight vetting (as all passengers to the U.S. itself have had to do for a while). If they find against you, you're not getting on the plane, even though you're not going to the U.S. The Independent (UK quality newspaper) has the story."
Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it. There are some circumstances where you'd want to control exit (if someone is fleeing law enforcement for some reason, avoiding child custody or the like), but I wonder if that's the intent of this policy shift or if it's something else.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Funny)
Countries yes, but states no. For New Jersey, it is free to enter across the bridge. But you need to pay to leave.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe that's just New York charging you to enter...
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Funny)
No. Everybody wants to flee New Jersey.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Funny)
Live? Flee or die.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Funny)
As a New Jerseyan, I can definitely say they're charging you to leave. They make way more money that way.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Informative)
Australia already does this -- you have to clear immigration to leave. They make you fill out a card specifying who you are, if you're coming back, when, where you're staying overseas and so forth.
Having emigrated here from Canada, this got my freedom-deluded ire up at first, but I've since become used to it. It also prevents criminals from fleeing the country, so once again it comes down to that whole liberty vs security equation.
In a way, though, the US already has 'emigration' clearance itself -- since all flight passenger manifests must be cleared by the TSA, they could keep you from leaving if they wanted to.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Interesting)
Odd thought - wouldn't this mean that a Canadian citizen (for example) could, technically, become trapped in the UK at the behest of the US?
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Informative)
Sadly... (Score:4, Informative)
Or wait for April Fool's day to wear off.
Sadly, the article is dated 26th of March. It was also shared on Twitter and commented on that day.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was ever not justified for other countries to detest the USA, the valid reasons sure keep cropping up.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget the airlines. There's no legal way to enforce this (well, they might have an agreement in place with the UK govt), so it's most likely that BA et al are willingly complying so that they don't get shut out of US airports.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is fine if you don't live or travel anywhere near the US, Canada, Mexico, or Cuba. But seeing as how I live in Canada this rule pretty much means I can't travel anywhere without oodles of stress waiting to see if they accidentally confused me with someone else. The idea I need the express permission of a foreign country I have no intention of travelling to before I travel is, frankly, complete and utter bullshit.
In effect the US Government has made prisoners of the citizenry of four nations, including their own, unless of course we're willing to give up what tiny shred of personal rights and freedoms they've deigned let us keep.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Insightful)
I sincerely hope this gets challenged that way. I am getting thoroughly sick of the American Empire and its Imperialist ways.
Of course, Harper is charge still and the Conservatives believe in sucking up to the US, so even if it was determined this was illegal under Canadian law, nothing would ever be done.
Re: (Score:3)
Cross the channel from the UK to France, fly to Caribbean or South America, then fly to Canada (and crossing the Canada/US border illegally is a relative cake walk, even with the increased security).
It's a total bullshit situation but it's currently avoidable.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the great trans-Atlantic train tunnel from Wales to Cuba...
Passenger ferries across the Atlantic became unfeasible when air travel prices became low enough for the average traveler; who would want to spend days on board instead of a few hours in the air? These days only cruise ships ply the old routes, and they are way more expensive than flying.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Informative)
Direct flights that do not enter US Airspace would not be affected.
No, you're quite mistaken. While the U.S. previously only demanded passenger information for flights entering U.S. airspace, this new policy now covers flights that never overfly U.S. territory. The article notes that direct flights from the UK to the Canadian cities of Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto are affected, and the U.S. authorities intend to include western Canadian destinations in the near future.
Re: (Score:3)
The article is dated March 26. If it's an April fools joke, they screwed it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they did it perfectly!
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Informative)
These passengers are flying to the US, regardless of their final destination. As such they will likely be in a plane full of US citizens, over US cities. I suspect that in all these cases the plane will land in the US before continuing to their destination.
Direct flights that do not enter US Airspace would not be affected.
Are you sure?; the article
doesn't seem to back that up. It's highly possible the a liberal British tabloid might be sensationalize something more reasonable, or at least making one of the TSAs outrageous intrusive hare-brained ideas even more outrageous and intrusive than it is.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:5, Informative)
These passengers are flying to the US, regardless of their final destination. As such they will likely be in a plane full of US citizens, over US cities. I suspect that in all these cases the plane will land in the US before continuing to their destination.
No, they've been doing the TSA thing on planes flying over US territory for a while. This is planes flying to places like Halifax, 150 miles from the States according to TFA, soon to come to all major Canadian airports. The shortest route from the UK to Canada, especially the west, is over the arctic.
Basically this is America intruding on other countries sovereignty. As a duel Canadian and UK citizen they can stop me from traveling simply between the two. I don't think there are many ocean liners anymore and from experience I can say it can be a crappy way to spend a week.
Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (Score:4, Informative)
Christ how many idiots are going to say this as if it were what the story is talking about?
REPEAT AFTER ME NUMBNUTS: This story is about US DHS controlling who is allowed on flights which DO NOT originate in the US, terminate in the US, OR AT ANY POINT cross over the US.
AMERICA! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. Beat me to it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What's interesting is how plausible this is, and how poor the perception of the US' behaviour towards 'aliens' is. If true, this would make me unwilling to travel to see relatives in Canada, and it seems entirely within the US/TSA mindset to take its distasteful tactics / theatre beyond its borders.
Rgds
Damon
Re:Better be a gag... (Score:4, Informative)
Not a gag. This isn't an April fools trick. Read about this earlier in the week. It's just that Slashdot was late in reporting it. Just more US gov't exported bullshit.
Re:Better be a gag... (Score:5, Funny)
American tourism is bombing, tourist industries are crashing, income is burning out and management are exploding.
I think you've overloaded the entire NSA internet monitoring apparatus with one single post. Good job!
Re: (Score:2)
This is either an April fool's joke or an act of war against Cuba, Canada, Mexico and the UK.
-jcr
We're pulling out of Afghanistan, we're losing the war on drugs. The war on cancer is on hold until we pay off the other wars.
This is the USA. We've got to be at war with somebody. My guess is that this is meant to be a backup plan in case we don't go to war with Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a April fools joke.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is just playing the rather childish "it's my yard and my baseball, I set the rules or you can't play" card.
If the airlines really wanted they could make sure they plan their routes around US airspace. Though I'm sure the US could get more childish still and threaten to revoke landing privileges at US cities, which I doubt the airlines really care to test...
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a mature, naturally calm person never prone to profane outbursts, but the U.S. needs to fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were prone to fucking off, you'd be speaking German or Russian right now.
If we were prone to fucking off, Iran might have a reasonable secular democracy now [wikipedia.org]. Just because certain US actions might have achieved good goals, that does not mean that all US actions are quite so beneficial. And, in this particular case (just as in the cases of, say, the coups against Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, and Allende in Chile), in this particular case, the world (and, for this case, the US) would be better off if we truly did fuck off.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
German? Riiight..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII_Casualties#Charts_and_graphs [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Go to somewhere like Luxembourg, or the areas of France and Belgium near there, where they totally love the US army for what they did. They name streets after famous Americans, there are memorials to the armed forces in many towns and villages. The perception there is that the US liberated them. Visiting veterans from the US are treated with real respect by the locals when they come over to visit (which happens frequently).
I'm not saying I have an opinion either way, because I haven't studied the history, b
Already happening (Score:5, Interesting)
This has been going on in Canada for years now. Even if you aren't landing IN the States, so long as you fly OVER you are subject to screening. My father spoke to someone at the airport one day who was not cleared by DBS, but still managed to get on his flight to the Carribean. His plane had mechanical problems and was forced to land in Florida. When he got off the plane he was met by law enforcement, who read him the riot act and took him directly to jail. He waited there overnight, then was put ona plane home.
Living in southern Ontario, it is pretty much impossible not to fly over the states, even for domestic flights. That means we are all screwed by US rules, living in another country. Our freedom is limited by their assinine rules.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Our freedom is limited by the government who agreed to surrender our sovereignty to the US
Re: (Score:2)
In this situation you musn't leave the plane, if it belongs to another country, its offlimits to local authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, aren't the pre-customs areas of an international airport considered an international zone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This has been going on in Canada for years now. Even if you aren't landing IN the States, so long as you fly OVER you are subject to screening.
Yes, but Canada formally withdrew from the International Air Services Transit Agreement in 1988 so the first Freedom of the Air doesn't apply there. As far as I am aware the USA has not withdrawn from that agreement (yet), so this looks to me to be a breach of their international treaty obligations. I don't know the US legal system well enough to know what recourse a foreign national would have if the DHS refused them something that the USA had promised them by international treaty, though. Would it be a SC
Re:Already happening (Score:5, Insightful)
Fantastic idea Mr Moron.
Now, do you realise how many other countries airspace YOUR carriers fly over? How many of their laws are not
forced upon your carriers? Would you like them enforced?
There are international agreements and standards for these things, DHS just doesnt believe they have to comply
with anyones agreements (including it seems their own countries in many cases..)
And even more to the point, assuming the 'perceived risk' is someone taking control of the aircraft to crash it, how
would this safer if they took control outside US airspace, then flew in? aircraft can change course you know..
Its all just the most disgusting form of empire building and powerplays by DHS, as they have proved again and
again, I hope you are enjoying losing your freedoms slice at a time.
There are so many other actually useful things that could be focused on, but instead we just have endless security
theatre, empire building, and red tape to punish those who do follow the rules. IT seems so far more crime has been
created by DHS (all the stolen luggage, privacy violations, personal violations, etc) than stopped.
Re:Already happening (Score:5, Informative)
The news here is that this now applies to flights that do not go through US airspace. From TFA:
"Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding."
In particular, flights from UK to Halifax don't touch US airspace (check the map).
Re:Already happening (Score:5, Insightful)
Our rules are the rules of fucking cowards and everyone should be pissed that they need to abide by them.
The US shits its pants when it faces sheep herders armed with box cutters. Nothing is more delicious than the irony of a fat cowardly American happily getting his freedom fondles at a TSA check point, while at the same time stuffing another Big Mac into his diabetic maw. The fucking terrorist are not going to kill you. Grow up and stop being such a fucking child. Diabetes, heart disease, or cancer is going to kill your fat ass. Your shitty eating habits will kill you, your spouse, your children, your friends, and pretty the vast majority of everyone you know. The fucking terrorist are not going to kill you. They are not scary, you are just a fucking coward that shits himself at the absurdly small one in a million chance that you might die in a way more exotic that choking on the food your jammed into your diabetic maw.
If you are a coward, do everyone a favor and instead of making them get molested and spied upon to sooth your child like cowards fears, stop flying and stop voting. You are clearly too pathetic and cowardly to just suck it up and accept that there is an absurdly small chance that you might die to a terrorist. The least you can do is be brave enough to fuck off so that all of the non-cowards don't need pay for your cowardice.
America is Losing the Plot! (Score:2)
It's another example of America shooting itself in the foot. There is already unease in the UK over what is widely seen as an unfair one sided extradition treaty. You can be extradited from the UK for doing something that is legal under UK law but in the USA but it doesn't apply the other way around. There has been a special feeling towards America in the UK but that is slowly changing with what is seen as heavy handedness. When the Brits start turning against the Yanks you know America is in trouble long
Re:America is Losing the Plot! (Score:4, Interesting)
When the Brits start turning against the Yanks you know America is in trouble long term.
Lots of us already have. I've turned down two contracts there and none of my colleagues consider having a holiday there.
If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (Score:5, Informative)
The article starts out with...
Emphasis mine. This statement is what is supposed to re-assure us that it's ridiculous.
( Not to say that it isn't, but keep reading... )
Emphasis again mine. So here's the twist. If you fly through a particular nation's airspace, are you 'steering clear of' that nation's territory?
Wikipedia (don't worry, dictionaries appear to agree) states...
Emphasis once again mine.
Their airspace, their rules. Some flights not too long ago were probably barred from entering Polish airspace as well and had to skim along its borders for its flight.
( http://twitter.com/#!/flightradar24/statuses/128071958293266432 [twitter.com] )
It's still ridiculous because it makes little sense. Not just because of the notion that you wouldn't actually set afoot in said territory, but because the few cases in which you might (such as an emergency requiring diverting to one of that nation's airports) also apply to many other routes that don't cross that airspace but still come close enough for the pilots to decide to, or be forced to, land there - security clearance issues or no security clearance issues.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still ridiculous because it makes little sense. Not just because of the notion that you wouldn't actually set afoot in said territory, but because the few cases in which you might (such as an emergency requiring diverting to one of that nation's airports) also apply to many other routes that don't cross that airspace but still come close enough for the pilots to decide to, or be forced to, land there - security clearance issues or no security clearance issues.
To push it to a point, would you allow a foreign fighter/bomber jet to invade your airspace? No. Then you've pretty much agreed that each nation control their airspace. During an emergency, well they should be afforded all the privileges of non-combatants under the Geneva convention - which is not that much, but it's basic protections against torture and other inhumane conditions. There's not really any other guarantee you have.
Re: (Score:2)
To push it to a point, would you expect a nation's response to a foreign fighter/bomber to be different to the response to a civilian jet?
Apples and oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about what one expects, but what's needed under treaties generally signed by most countries. Geneva convention is one such treaty. It affords no special treatment just because you're a civilian. As Kjella said, it's rather rudimentary stuff. They aren't supposed to starve you and such, otherwise it's fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. Like RabidMonkey mentioned above, expect a bed and meals and send you on the first flight home. Not sure about the whole jail part, but the general idea sounds fair enough.
My objection was to the point that a civilian jet invading our airspace would be handled the same way as a fighter or bomber invading our airspace. Unless there is reason to believe that the latter is defecting, I'd be perfectly okay if the decision was to shoot him down. The former should be handled with a bit more diplomati
Re: (Score:3)
The "steer clear" and "over-fly US airspace" in your quotes are in different contexts - they were specifically emphasizing that the new rules are about flights that don't enter the US airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you forgot to read on.
Washington has extended the obligation to air routes that over-fly US airspace, such as Heathrow to Mexico City or Gatwick to Havana.
Now the US is demanding passengers' full names, dates of birth and gender from airlines, at least 72 hour before departure from the UK to Canada. The initial requirement is for flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and the Nova Scotia capital, Halifax â" 150 miles from the nearest US territory. A similar stipulation is expected soon for the main airports in western Canada, Vancouver and Calgary.
UK -> Canada certainly doesn't go through the US airspace.
Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm reasonably certain that the possibility of airspace was a convenient excuse for the real reason: it is damn easy to get into the US from Canada and Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your conclusion.
Say you have 80,000 flights a day in your airspace. Of those, say 70,000 are arriving at or departing from your land. The other 10,000 are only traveling through your airspace. That's 10,000 unvetted potential attack vectors. Implement the new policy and now those are all vetted too.
As for emergencies, how many of those are there each day? And of those, how many are from unvetted flights just passing by? I think we can agree it's not very many. It is much easier to have a
Because everybody knows (Score:5, Funny)
Self Contradicting Article (Score:2)
Fly from Paris or Madrid? (Score:3)
This only applies to UK-departing flights so far?
Paris would have a few flights to Montreal, Madrid to Mexico City and Havana, no?
Anyway, as far as 'no-fly' lists go, I'd be shocked if UK and USA intelligence services weren't sharing databases already. This theatre just serves to piss off anyone buying tickets within 3 days of travel when existing controls such as immigration, checkin and boarding serve to validate one's passport electronically 3 times before boarding a flight.
Sealand anybody?... (Score:3, Interesting)
canada and the porous border (Score:3)
I suspect the flights to Canada have more to due with the fact that the border between Canada and the US is fairly porous. The US is concerned with people getting into Canada and then sneaking across the largely undefended border so in the past couple of years they have been stepping up coordination of border/immigration security. Since this is a bilateral effort, what I suspect is going on is that the Canadian government is telling airlines they have to clear their passengers with US's DHS.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
not an april fool's joke. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/agents.shtm#secflght [tsa.gov]
Secure Flight Program: Overflight Overview and the Overflight Table for Third-Party Providers
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/SFP_Overflight_Overview_Table.pdf [tsa.gov]
Re:Haha, good one. (Score:5, Informative)
Guess you never seen the date of the article in question
was posted on "March 26th"
Re:Haha, good one. (Score:5, Funny)
If I was an evil dictator, I would implement all of my worst schemes on April first and no-one would bat a fucking eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcement would consist of the airlines in question not being allowed to fly into the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can deny permission in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the airline would be violating that regulation in the same way that a U.S. airline representative would be violating regulations by allowing a person who has been denied boarding to board a flight in the U.S. anyway. This is a legal barrier with legal definitions, not a physical barrier with physical ramifications. The argument seems sort of semantic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:April fools? (Score:5, Informative)
The article does not just leave that out, it contradicts it, and goes further, mentioning that it applies to flights that do not enter US territory, so do you have a citation that this only applies to flights that actually land in the US?
The US will enforce this (Score:5, Interesting)
... and here's how. "Oh, you won't comply? Guess you don't want your airline to have landing rights in the US, then."
The US, unfortunately, can get away with extortion. I live in Canada and have family in the United States, but this is seriously offputting. I think it's time to boycott travel to the US until they back away from this kind of insanity.
They dont have to ban all flights (Score:2, Interesting)
They just say the flight that are not vetted cannot enter us airspace. London to havana doesn't really have to enter US airspace.
Neither does London to Mexico. Its just quicker and more fuel efficient that way. The US wont get that info
from Cubana airlines so its kinda pointless to ask from the other airlines.
Any flight to London to Toronto flies over New York and Boston so yeah anyone on a flight that
flies over the US northeast SHOULD be vetted.
Re:The US will enforce this (Score:5, Insightful)
... and here's how. "Oh, you won't comply? Guess you don't want your airline to have landing rights in the US, then."
That only works for airlines that want/need to land on US airports.
So, why, then, is Canadian Affair [canadianaffair.com] complying (if the claim in the article that they are is true), as I see no evidence on their Web site that they land in the US? Perhaps some of their flights cross US airspace, and the US might deny them the right to do so if they don't impose those restrictions on all travelers even for flights that don't cross US airspace. Or perhaps they're being beaten into complying by their government or the UK government under pressure from the US government.
READ the goddamned story (Score:4, Informative)
This applies to Canada from the UK, if you had a brain and ever got out of your mothers basement you would know that you fly to the American continent via a northern route even if you got to go to the South of USA. Now, Canada is WHERE on the American continent? Why would you fly PAST Canada into the US on your way to Canada?
This is NOT about passing over a country or landing at an airport, this is about a flight that doesn't cross US territory and the US demanding to have anything to do with it. These UKCanada flights won't even appear on US traffic control radar screens.
It shows just how much of a control freak the US has become and how of a lapdog the UK is.
Re: (Score:3)
It shows just how much of a control freak the US has become and how of a lapdog the UK is.
The UK doesn't have a say in the matter, it's between the US and the airlines. The US says to the airlines 'do this or we won't let any of your planes land in the USA. Oh, and we may arrest members of your board if they happen to be in the USA'. The airline either does it or loses a very large part of their operating capability.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that we have air travel and border agreements as well, 3 of the aforementioned (canada the UK and mexico) all have particular agreements with the US, and Cuba well, you can't fly to cuba from the US directly anyway, so canadian flights for example must go around US airspace. But the US could make that a lot less pleasant.
Flights to Cuba do not go around US airspace (Score:3, Informative)
you can't fly to cuba from the US directly anyway, so canadian flights for example must go around US airspace.
Flights between Canada and Cuba are not required to travel around US air space. That is not at all required.
One example is a recent Air Canada flight [flightaware.com] from Toronto to Havana. I'm not sure how long this link will work beyond today, but the flight clearly travels over
New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.
Re:April fools? (Score:4, Informative)
you can't fly to cuba from the US directly anyway
You can now, actually. One of the first things Obama did was relax the travel embargo rules [state.gov] to allow exactly this.
You can go there without a license if you are:
1) is of a noncommercial, academic nature
2) comprises a full work schedule in Cuba
3) has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination.
For every other reason/visitor you need to get permission from the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control.
Re: (Score:3)
As a world traveler, I tried to get permission to travel to Cuba purely for tourist reasons. I explained that I would be staying with a friend (not family), and would be spending under $100 USD while in Cuba. Denied by Dept of State AND Dept of TOFAC.
The workaround? If you want, you can fly to Cancun or other Mexican cities and hop a short flight to Havana, without a Cuban passport stamp ever hitting your passport. Its almost as silly as the TSA itself.
Re:April fools? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://actionplan.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?mode=preview&pageId=337 [actionplan.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see a US court enforce this.
No courts are required. The airlines have already complied - it happens fast when you threaten to shoot down their planes. Don't you remember this flight [cnn.com]? That is the whole point of what is happening - the US government now thinks it can side-step that whole pesky "legal system" by killing people with drones, or enforcing arbitrary "regulations" as if they were laws because they are done overseas. Scary, but people refuse to wake up.
Yeah, you are right (Score:4)
The UK is a sovereign country, sure, but Canada is more like the 51st state.
ummm, no. we are not.
He is right, silly AHuxley. Thinking the UK is a sovereign country. The correct term is vassal state.
Re:Flying over US airspace. (Score:5, Insightful)
UK -> Canada never comes near US airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
UK -> Canada never comes near US airspace.
If you read the article, you'll see this policy doesn't cover all flights to Canada, only to those to cities like Toronto, which could potentially pass over US airspace. Even if the flight plan doesn't take the flight over the US, if the flight is diverted a bit due to weather or traffic, it could be in US airspace.
Re:Flying over US airspace. (Score:4, Informative)
That depends on which city you are flying to. For example, part of Canada is actually south of Detroit, Michigan. Imagine that, if you want to go from Windsor, Ontario to the US, you have to travel north.
Re:Flying over US airspace. (Score:5, Insightful)
How inconvenient is it going to be if every other country in the world insists on vetting all US carrier passengers flying over THEIR airspace? As a US citizen you might have to have your flight plans checked by several different countries for a single flight. And some of those countries not particularly nice countries at that.
Enjoy your flight!
Re: (Score:3)
My alternative is to stop ratcheting up the pointless security theatre.
Re: (Score:3)
Even though the flights may be landing in Canada or Mexico, there's still a good chance they will fly over U.S. airspace. As pathetic and cowardly the U.S. policies tend to be, they do have a right to control flights over their airspace.
There, I fixed it for you.
The amount of civil liberty and money pissed away at a way of dying that ranks right up there with shark attacks is very sad commentary on the character of the Americans these days. Far more worthy and braver Americans stormed beach heads where every other man was killed. Braver Americans faced bayonet charges during the civil and revolutionary wars. Vastly more worthy Americans faced down police lines during the civil rights movement and took beatings and risked death during th
Re:Flying over US airspace. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind your emotional response at something you saw. What are the statistics?
Last I saw flying was still the safest form of transport. And the chance of a building being hit by hijacked plane is tiny. You're in way more danger driving, crossing the road, walking under ladders. etc.
These ever increasing security measures are not worth the inconvenience nor the cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, how safe would someone be from a coordinated suicide attack on TSA screening checkpoint lines? Not at all. Assume ~50 ppl in switchback lines at a checkpoint, 3-5 checkpoints per terminal, 3 terminals per airport (at least). With very little effort, a group of people could kill more than what took place on 9/11. Don't believe you can coordinate on that scale without being caught? Look at the Indian massacare a terrorist group effected several years ago.
We hit the diminished returns part of the curve a
Re: (Score:3)
Air travel is safe because of tremendous efforts exerted towards making the process safe.
That's really funny. Sad, but funny.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue has less to do with purpose (we all know the US is a paranoid quasi-police state with lots of international pull) and more to do with ability. The US does not have any jurisdiction over a flight from Heathrow to Halifax. Therefore they should not have the ability to screen those passengers.
This is like standing at the end of your driveway and demanding to know the personal details of anyone walking down the sidewalk before they even enter the street. Even if they're going to be walking on the oppo
Re: (Score:3)
The term 'demand' seems to be a journalistic excess here. For example the Canadians actually passed cooperative legislation enabling this.
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2011/2011-10-12/html/sor-dors209-eng.html [gazette.gc.ca]
As has the UK.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march/uk-opts-in-to-eu-us-pnr-agreement/ [out-law.com]
So this so-called 'demand' seems to have been handled by typical intergovernment negotiations.
Re:Joking right? (Score:5, Funny)
they only take the piss if it's in larger bottles. 100ml at a time should be fine.