From daw Thu Jun 17 16:20:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from daw@localhost) by blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16721; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:20:03 -0700 From: David Wagner Message-Id: <199906172320.QAA16721@blowfish.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu> Subject: Comments on proposal To: 9-NPRM-CMTS@faa.gov Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:20:02 +0000 () X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO I am responding to a call for comments published in the April 19, 1999 Federal Register, concerning a FAA proposal on aviation security. I wanted to express concerns about the proposed use of profiling for domestic flights. I feel that civil liberties concerns have not received adequate attention, and I feel that the oversight provisions are inadequate. I propose that the FAA establish a public watchdog committee with members selected from the flying public and the civil liberties community. As a concerned member of the public, I am dissatisfied with the outside oversight in place. I do not expect any trouble finding people to serve on such a committee; I, for one, would be honored at a chance like this. Since the new proposed rule would infringe (to some degree) on the flying public's privacy, I ask for an independent, outside, public evaluation of how much security will be gained (or has been gained) from the profiling provisions. Privacy intrusions may be justified when they accomplish a significant increase in national security, but if no extra security is provided, the privacy intrusions are hardly justified. I would like to see a third-party assessment of the actual security gains. I realize that the FAA has employed civil liberties experts to provide advance advice on this subject. I also realize that the Dept of Justice has promised to provide a post-implementation review of CAPS. I ask for something slightly different. I ask for an after-the-fact post-implementation assessment (of the rules as actually implemented) by outside, independent civil liberties experts. I also have some technical comments on the details of the proposed rulemaking. I suggest that airlines should be required to inform passengers whenever they or their bags are selected for special inspection due to use of "profiling", "screening", "the CAPS database", or "random" choices. You asked whether selectee data should be retained for a longer period than the current limit of 72 hours. You suggested an extended period such as 18 months for non-random CAPS selectees. I feel strongly that if such an extension is granted, it should be very clear that the data be made available only if an investigation is requested by the selectee. Any other access should not be granted after 72 hours. I commend the decision to not retain any information about selectees for longer than 72 hours -- I feel that this was a good decision. Thank you for following this approach. Finally, I ask for more openness on the FAA's part. In many experience, many airline representatives are quick to blame the FAA for restrictions on air travel which are not in fact required by the FAA. Unfortunately, these incorrect statements are difficult to refute because the rules are too secret. As a specific example, I suggest that the FAA should publicly confirm that airlines are not required to ask passengers for photo ID for domestic flights when the passenger has no checked luggage; or, if this is no longer the case, I suggest that the FAA publicly state when and why this policy was changed. In general, I highly support bag matching for all passengers as a non-intrusive, minority-neutral security measure. I think this is a great example of a privacy-neutral technology that can be applied without implicating civil liberties concerns. However, I do object to the use of "profiling" and "automated screening" to select passengers for bag matching (or for other uses), and I feel that profiling raises significant civil liberties issues. I do not agree that CAPS will "eliminate the civil liberties concerns", as you state in the call for comments. Please feel free to make this comment publicly available. And thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rulemaking! Sincerely, David Wagner member of the public, speaking for myself, not for anyone else