Boston Globe Outs Secret TSA Tracking Program 'Quiet Skies' At Airports (bostonglobe.com) 259
The Boston Globe reports of a previously undisclosed program, called "Quiet Skies," that targets travelers who "are not under investigation by any agency and are not in the Terrorist Screening Data Base." The insights come from a TSA bulletin in March that describes the program's goal as thwarting threats to commercial aircraft "posed by unknown or partially known terrorists. The program "gives the agency broad discretion over which air travelers to focus on and how closely they are tracked," reports The Boston Globe. From the report: But some air marshals, in interviews and internal communications shared with the Globe, say the program has them tasked with shadowing travelers who appear to pose no real threat -- a businesswoman who happened to have traveled through a Mideast hot spot, in one case; a Southwest Airlines flight attendant, in another; a fellow federal law enforcement officer, in a third. It is a time-consuming and costly assignment, they say, which saps their ability to do more vital law enforcement work. TSA officials, in a written statement to the Globe, broadly defended the agency's efforts to deter potential acts of terror. But the agency declined to discuss whether Quiet Skies has intercepted any threats, or even to confirm that the program exists.
Already under Quiet Skies, thousands of unsuspecting Americans have been subjected to targeted airport and inflight surveillance, carried out by small teams of armed, undercover air marshals, government documents show. The teams document whether passengers fidget, use a computer, have a "jump" in their Adam's apple or a "cold penetrating stare," among other behaviors, according to the records. Air marshals note these observations -- minute-by-minute -- in two separate reports and send this information back to the TSA. All US citizens who enter the country are automatically screened for inclusion in Quiet Skies -- their travel patterns and affiliations are checked and their names run against a terrorist watch list and other databases, according to agency documents. The bulletin highlights 15 rules used to screen passengers. If someone is selected for surveillance, a team of air marshals will be placed on the person's next flight.
Already under Quiet Skies, thousands of unsuspecting Americans have been subjected to targeted airport and inflight surveillance, carried out by small teams of armed, undercover air marshals, government documents show. The teams document whether passengers fidget, use a computer, have a "jump" in their Adam's apple or a "cold penetrating stare," among other behaviors, according to the records. Air marshals note these observations -- minute-by-minute -- in two separate reports and send this information back to the TSA. All US citizens who enter the country are automatically screened for inclusion in Quiet Skies -- their travel patterns and affiliations are checked and their names run against a terrorist watch list and other databases, according to agency documents. The bulletin highlights 15 rules used to screen passengers. If someone is selected for surveillance, a team of air marshals will be placed on the person's next flight.
Using a computer (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, using the hours on an airplane to write up a report, play some small games or whatever else one can do on a computer is certainly cause for alarm.
Why don't they just make stasis pods mandatory on flights already.
Re: Using a computer (Score:2, Insightful)
âoeamong other behaviors,âoe
such as...generally disliking the TSA?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then everyone who ever had to put a travel through a US air port is a suspect.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that's the general idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd definitely sign a safety wavier if they could just put me in a coma for 12 hours while we fly and wake me up at the other end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So ... Looking at suspicious people (Score:2)
If travelling to and from terrorist areas meant that authorities would rifle through your bank account records, that would be a fourth amendment issue. If red flags mean that an air marshall physically looks at the person while in public on the plane - meh. Sounds like standard, proper investigation and protection to me.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are spending your tax dollars. Sounds like communism to me!
The TSA itself (Score:5, Informative)
has stopped exactly ZERO terrorist attacks. Congress has flat out asked them and the TSA claims they can't say for security reasons. Yeah that number is zero.
Re:The TSA itself (Score:4, Insightful)
has stopped exactly ZERO terrorist attacks
It's harder to tell how many it discouraged...
Re: (Score:3)
No, that answer is ZERO as well.
Re:The TSA itself (Score:5, Insightful)
has stopped exactly ZERO terrorist attacks
It's harder to tell how many it discouraged...
Just like it's hard to say how many it encouraged to do a terrorist attack. I'm certain that some people after being molested have thought about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The TSA itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
The two changes made immediately after 9/11 which had the biggest effect on airline safety was (a) hardened cockpit doors, and (b) changing airline passenger awareness on how to respond to a terrorist--from one of being a passive passenger during a hijacking to actively resisting the terrorist.
All the rest has been a waste of money, time and effort with "security theater" as the government plays cops and robbers on the taxpayer dime.
Re: (Score:3)
This was not an awareness campaign. It was a change in doctrine. Prior to 2001, flight attendants were told to cooperate with hijackers (because it was always a kidnapping/hostage situation), and to instruct passengers to comply with the hijackers.
Re: (Score:3)
The two changes made immediately after 9/11 ... (b) changing airline passenger awareness on how to respond to a terrorist--from one of being a passive passenger during a hijacking to actively resisting the terrorist.
After? More like during. Flight 93 crashed after fighting in the cockpit an hour after 2 WTC was hit.
The creation of the TSA was one of the terrorists greatest successes, after of course the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
With MA270 in mind I have to question your assertion that bringing guns on an airplane has increased security.
With his post I mind I have to question your reading comprehension, since he made no mention of guns at all.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn’t say anything about Air Marshals...
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I use the word "gun?"
And I'm well aware of plane hijackings before 2001. I know of people who got to spend a sunny afternoon couped up in an airplane on the tarmac in Cuba, due to defectors hijacking an airplane bound for Florida and rerouting it to Cuba.
Prior to 2001, airline passengers were told that during a hijacking, do not resist the hijackers, as the worse that will happen is that y
Re: (Score:2)
The beefed up presence could have had an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly, when they catch https://www.newsweek.com/tsa-f...
Re: (Score:3)
Good job slashcode. https://www.newsweek.com/tsa-f... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To the extent that it's trying to prevent another 9/11, it's a complete waste of money.
Those attacks worked because a,
a) they were methodically planned and researched, and
b) relied on us being trained to sit through hijackings, as usually your simply ended up at the wrong airport, although occasionally a single person would accidentally get shot.
b) broke down *completely* by the fourth plane.
As such, that type of attack wouldn't work again. Further, anyone capable of a) would take lack of b) into account.
T
Re: (Score:3)
Senators are on record saying they know TSA is a shame, but they wouldn't want to be around the day an attack happened after they voted to get rid of TSA.
And it's probably the same thing with your job. You don't NEED to security test going from DEV to QA, but the moment there is a hack in QA your name is on the chopping block.
Re:The TSA itself (Score:5, Insightful)
British police / MI5 put out figures (Score:2)
And they claim a significant number - though that is for all terrorist incidents, not just plane related. However the fact that they do does suggest the TSA has got something to hide...
Re: (Score:2)
"stopped exactly ZERO terrorist attacks."
They caught Ted Kennedy. Surely that counts for something.
sleeping on a flight and going to restroom is an i (Score:2)
omg staying awake on my next transatlantic flight is going to be hard, and my bladder will hate me
Spot the Air Marshal (Score:2)
No wonder this game is so easy... I was wondering why I always saw them!
Re:Spot the Air Marshal (Score:4, Funny)
No wonder this game is so easy... I was wondering why I always saw them!
Well. given the criteria... pretty much any Slashdotter is screwed:
”The teams document whether passengers fidget, use a computer, have a "jump" in their Adam's apple or a "cold penetrating stare," among other behaviors, according to the records.”
The list (Score:3)
The appearance part is a classic attempt to get past some nations later layers of security.
Embassy staff often try that with amusing results on camera.
Appearance changes is another attempt to use altered, fake documents, shared documents.
The person using the documents clean digital past is not who the documents got created for.
The sleeping part would tell if a person claimed to be on a flight for the first time in a long time but was like a well traveled person. Past digital information about travel on the used documents does not match real actions.
Great to see the licence plate part. Chat downs and documents can show a person rents a vehicle but their faith group, cult is waiting.
The penetrating stare is usually a sign of a war zone stressors. Not normal for normal people with normal reasons to travel and no listed war zone past.
Someone went to a combat zone, for a longer time and the digital documents did not show that.
The idea that staff need to be told about the suspicion of actual wrongdoing just shows another US agency could be tasking a parson of interest and does not want to talk about the why.
The other agency has no ability to trust what the TSA was created out of. But needs the domestic surveillance work done.
Very much like the GCHQ and UK mil used the UK police for issues in Ireland. Never talk of method and all secrets stay safe.
As someone on the spectrum (Score:5, Interesting)
My comfortable state of a dead-eyed, nearly unblinking stare. I find eye contact to be invasive.
The upshot of this is that I have to pretend to be normal. I have to jiggle my eyes around. Remember to blink.
I don't like having to 'fake normal.' But if I don't fake it, I get hassled by every authoritarian-leaning personality I encounter.
Re:As someone on the spectrum (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they're targeting poorly.
A *serous* "Quiet Skies program would target screaming children :)
hawk
waste of funds? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather they spend/waste their money on expensive, labor intensive HUMINT than spend it on more databases, better nudie scanners, etc and so forth. If they want to send a bunch of agents on wild goose chases writing reports, so be it. At least they might be there when someone gets blind drunk on a flight and starts harassing other passengers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Partially known" (Score:5, Interesting)
So your "solution" is to take everyone who might be against us, put them all in the same place, and make them miserable? Great idea!
Do you want jihadists? Because that's how you get jihadists.
Here's a better idea: Socialize these folks. Show them that what they think they hate isn't what they think it is. Listen to them. Figure out why they are angry. Work to assuage their fears, and make sure that they have what they need to live happy, comfortable lives.
And sure, this won't work for 100% of people. Adios is indeed the solution to them. But it will work for a damn good number of people. What you don't seem to realize is that immigrants aren't going to another country because they're happy and having a great time in their country. They're leaving because they are threatened, impoverished, or otherwise unable to have a fulfilling life in their home country.
If you shit all over those people, you're just making enemies. If you can make them feel welcome, you've not only gotten a friend, but you've now got ambassadors who can reduce the amount of hatred in their home country for yours. That's how you reduce all of the issues you identify, instead of increasing them they way your suggestions would actually function.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you decided that you wanted to live in a civil society and not a police state beholden to a military industrial complex sucking up all your tax dollars.
Or is that what you're looking for?
Re: (Score:3)
>"Here's a better idea: Socialize these folks. Show them that what they think they hate isn't what they think it is. Listen to them. Figure out why they are angry. Work to assuage their fears, and make sure that they have what they need to live happy, comfortable lives."
It might be a "better" idea, but it is completely and utterly impractical. Most are going to reject anything you try to show them. Some you might sway. But the reality is, it sounds like state-supported brainwashing (albeit of a relati
Re: (Score:2)
That worked in every other mass immigration to the US so far. Why don't you think it would work in modern times?
Or are you still worried about the Irish?
Re: (Score:2)
>"That worked in every other mass immigration to the US so far. Why don't you think it would work in modern times?"
Because in the past we weren't a PC welfare state and people very much wanted to assimilate into the "American Dream." Sadly, that seems to be disappearing now (well, for quite a long time now). Divisiveness, isolation, distrust, identity politics, government overbearing, and victimhood are beginning to take their toll (perhaps even more on generations of existing Americans than recent imm
Re: (Score:3)
immigrants or foreigners? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The risk of terrorism is not high enough that I'm willing to weaken the free speech protections. I'm only willing to limit speech in the most extreme cases.
You, are I are both far more likely to die while drooling and soiling ourselves in a nursing home bed, than we are to be killed by terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
What other criterea are used (Score:2)
Because it it's the number of drinks consumed in the airport bar, I'm going to be their prime target of the day. /s?
it makes sense (Score:2)
Can they tell if I have a jump in my eves serpent? (Score:2)
Where have I seen this before? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I see large, milataristic structures (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the problems modern civilizations have is there's not enough work to keep everybody busy 16 hours a day. Not only that, but you've got to figure out how to give out food and shelter to people who, well, just plain aren't needed anymore. You can let them starve, but then they find themselves a strongman and he uses them for a coup. You can just give them food, but that pisses off anybody still working.
America's solution was the Military Industrial Complex. The excess productivity made possible by modern farming and manufacturing goes into an endless war machine. Given the scale of the Stasi that's probably what's going on. I know for a fact China's doing exactly that to absorb all the engineers they kept training.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the same.
I guess it's impossible to spell "Stasi" in the US without T, S, A...
Re: (Score:2)
"Temba, his arms wide."
Once again (Score:3)
This is why I don't fly. I am not a criminal and don't appreciate being treated as one. Considering the TSA misses up to 95% of all fake bombs [go.com]taken on board planes, they have other issues to worry about than harassing people.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a lot of other ways to get from the US to Asia for a 2 day business trip.
Secrecy is for your own good (Score:2)
They kept the program secret because they knew that if you found out, you'd just spend time fretting about it.
Keeping it secret just shows that your happiness is their primary concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Share and enjoy!
Overbooked flights (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case then they should be bumping the person the Marshall is concerned about. That way the flight is "safe" and the taxpayers don't have to pay for the overtime, flight, hotel, or anything else.
Or maybe they are and it's you. :)
So, this means ... (Score:2)
Yeah. Got that.
Why not skip the surveillance (Score:2)
...And simply put armed air marshals on every flight? That way they can cover 100% of *possible* cases. And without all that pesky, constitutionally-raping without-probable-cause surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because many foreign countries won't allow armed passengers into their airspace.
Re:Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism does not have to equal a fascist police state. Your entire post is on point and insightful, but you should really have left the socialist tangent out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, when's the last time anyone in a civilized country was executed for not paying their taxes?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm sorry, when's the last time anyone in a civilized country was executed for not paying their taxes?
When they resist the big guys with guns who show up eventually when they refuse to pay them?
Force is behind laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that is only likely to happen if you start shooting at the police when they show up to take you to court or jail, at which point you are not being shot at for not paying your taxes but for being actively dangerous to other people.
Re: Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
capitalism is the most generous form of governance there is
There's no way I can parse that that makes sense. Strictly, capitalism is defined by private individuals owning/controlling the means of manufacture (trade/profit).
I cannot understand where, in that, generosity fits. In as much as capitalism is often associated with some form of free market it's competitive. Still not generous. Please, can you clarify?
You want to enforce charity of others by mandating fees and taxes be placed upon them
Language is important. You call it 'charity' when you describe taxes being used for people other than those that paid them. The problem with a strictly personal and competitive system is that there are numerous cases where individuals are bad at making rational decisions (cognitive biases like discounting future negatives) or where individuals, acting rationally, can cause themselves harm that could be avoided by acting in concert (tragedy of the commons). There are economies of scale that can be achieved where people contribute to a pool and a centralised system provides services or utilities where profit based competition would degrade service (healthcare, utilities) and that's before we look at social contracts and whether being born and raised in a country whose previous generations have provided you with peace, prosperity, education and health obligates you to at least leave the system no worse for your participation.
Call that 'charity' if you will, but you're being either obtuse or misleading.
'Socialism', in its pure form is just as toxic as 'capitalism'. Both need to be regulated and restricted, those countries with the longest history of high standards of living for most of the population have a mix of socialist policies along side of capitalism.
Noting that socialism fails at extremum is trivial. Your inability to consider anything less than 'pure' socialism is a kind of blindness that I can only presume is some relic of the US school system.
Re: (Score:3)
Get a load of this guy. He thinks words still have meaning.
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism is merely guaranteeing that people are supported when they need it. It doesn't change anything in the mechanism of taxes. Democratic Socialism means that voters choose what is guaranteed.
I think you are confusing the onerous responsibility of paying taxes with a type of governance. There are good and bad socialist countries. I was shocked to learn that many Europeans have guaranteed health care AND pay less in taxes in some cases.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
They also have the rest of Europe and the US to fall back on to bolster the populace.
Still, it's good to grant the government as few tools a dictator uses as possible, to stave off group collapse over the decades.
What history there is for democracy, or even just true legislative control, doesn't give one much hope beyond a few hundreds of years.
Most of Europe is still sub-100.
You are foolish to presume this amount of time is a statistically reliable indicator of long-term stability.
Re: (Score:2)
> He 'hires' a couple of his mates and teaches them his methods
Ah, imaginary property.
He'll hire a couple of his mates alright - to handle anything that might defy his... exclusivity. A word I am not using with the praiseful tone you did.
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand and Australia do not have national id cards and are FITHY SOCIALISTS by your yard stick.
Does Canada have an ID card system?
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, Canada has VOTER ID!!!
Re:Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:4, Interesting)
most countries in Europe do afaik require id-cards
Ironically, none [wikipedia.org] of the Nordic or Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland), which are often upheld as the classic examples of European Socialism, do.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck me. Sounds like you'd fuck your mother for a buck. Do you even know what socialism is?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even know what socialism is?
Considering that I was born in a country with "socialist" in name, I believe I do.
Re: Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:2)
Just like the DPRK is Democratic?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact this is modded up just shows that stupid doesn't stand alone.
Re: (Score:2)
A nation-wide socialist state? More like a wide national-socialist state if you ask me...
Oh, and there's nothing blueprinty or futuristic about it: it's here right now, and it's been implemented many years ago.
Re:Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
I think about that, what if the the US really is an authoritarian police state?
If it is, why doesn't it feel like that all the time? I mean, how do you explain how easy it is to get a gun, go places, bitch about the government, etc?
Am I just a lucky member of the police state's favored class? Were there people like me in East Germany or wherever who never really worried about losing their privileges, etc? I mean, I worry we're becoming more like a police state, but not that we really are in one now, but that's just my perception more than some scientific measure of the police state-ness of the US.
But does make me think about the role of perception, and if a police state is "done well" does that mean most people can't tell? Is that how it always is?
Re: (Score:2)
I think about that, what if the the US really is an authoritarian police state?
If it is, why doesn't it feel like that all the time? I mean, how do you explain how easy it is to get a gun, go places, bitch about the government, etc?
This is a good thing. Your logic is kicking in!
Your doubts make sense. Why, indeed, can you say anything you want about the political leadership, if we're a police state? It's because we aren't one.
There are legitimate concerns and debates we can have, but the overheated hyperventilating going on is absurd. You are catching onto that. That's a good thing!
Re:Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of his authoritarianism, like creative, expansive use of the regulatory power granted the executive by a cowardly, supine Congress who did not want to risk direct votes on anything that threw people into jail or took their money, you'd cheer in other contexts, read: a president you liked.
Come on over to the dark side, and oppose it in all contexts (which you now know how to interpret.)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's 'he'?
Re: Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:2)
Be that as it may, the point still stands.
Re: (Score:3)
>"A lot of his authoritarianism, like creative, expansive use of the regulatory power granted the executive by a cowardly,"
"His"? Which "His"? Obama? You do realize he was just as "into" authoritarianism and abuse of power as all other recent presidents. This expansion of the Executive branch "powers" has been going on for many, many decades now....
Oh, and the expansion of the Federal Government powers has been absolutely rampant for many generations. Way beyond what the Constitution demanded.
https: [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
East Germany with internal controls making travel halt before any international escape can be considered.
China with a social tracking report that prevents international travel depending on all domestic actions.
The lack of a passport depending on tax and criminal problems.
To go Cuban domestically with Committees for the Defense of the Revolution all over the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Socialist doesn't mean what you think it does...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me speaky no good words, repeat stupid me heard on internet
Re: Practicing for Nation-wide Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then you must believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea to you) is really a democracy, because its in its name.
The Nazi Party had "Socialist" in its name essentially for the same reason that "Democratic" is in the name of North Korea -- it was a popular marketing term, regardless of validity.
Here is a good discussion of this issue. [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
+2 Flamebait? That's a new one to me, not sure how the moderation system makes that happen.
Someone with mod points must have had an delicate little ideology protect.
All I did was point out a very exact parallel between believing that the word "socialist" in the official name of the Nazi Party - and beleiving on exactly the same grounds that Kim Jong Un runs a democracy, and give a sober factual link analyzing the false "the Nazis were socialists" belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't this long been established by Federal courts, that borders (including international airports) are at least a partial exception to some rights? Wikipedia has an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] , and admittedly the lines seem fine (a fixed border outpost versus roaming patrols). Now maybe there's some criticism of where the Supreme Court has drawn these lines, but let's be clear here, borders have always been special situations, and the Federal Government certainly has a unique interes
Re: (Score:2)
Assault is illegal. and often sends the wrong message.
Ostracizing is much more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.