Airport security program under attack

A new computer program designed to locate suspected terrorists will go online in most major U.S. airports Jan. 1, 2000.

The CAPS program — which stands for “Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening” — is designed to automatically search airline passenger computer databases and match pre-programmed terrorist criteria with travelers who fit key profiles.

Critics, however, are charging that the profile criteria are too ill-defined and will inevitably lead to the detention of “scores” of innocent travelers who may be subjected to unreasonable delays, extensive questioning about travel plans and even strip searches. So much so, in fact, the American Civil Liberties Union is looking for anyone who believes he or she has been victimized by the new regulations.

CAPS was authorized in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act signed by President Clinton Sept. 30, 1996, and the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act signed Oct. 9, according to information published by the Federal Aviation Administration. Included were funds necessary to begin a trial of the CAPS program, conducted through a grant given to Northwest Airlines in mid-1996. Since then, the FAA has authorized several other airlines — including American, Continental, U.S. Airways, Delta, TWA, and United Airlines — to begin “work on developing their CAPS systems in May 1997.”

The decision to go ahead with CAPS was made by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security following the explosion of TWA flight 800, even though officials at the FBI and the National Traffic and Safety Board concluded the Trans World Boeing 747 exploded because of “a mechanical malfunction.”

“It’s typical of the government: In order to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, politicians want to hijack your privacy, spend your money, and strip you of your constitutional rights,” said Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party. “You don’t need a computer to figure out where the real threat to our security comes from.”

Researchers speculate that traveling alone, buying your ticket at the last minute, visiting unapproved foreign countries, or frequent travel could get you tagged as a possible terrorist.

“Passengers could also be picked at random,” added Dasbach.

Party spokesman George Getz told WorldNetDaily that the plan could turn flying into a nightmare for thousands of innocent Americans, is probably unconstitutional, and won’t make the skies any safer.

Furthermore, he said, he questioned the FAA’s “harping” on two themes throughout the published provisions outlining the CAPS program — the agency’s insistence that no racial or ethnic profiling will be used, and that all information gathered from airline computers about their passengers will be expunged within 72 hours.

“Skeptics of this provision remember that the FBI said the same thing about instant background check data,” Getz noted. “But yet, it was discovered later, they lied about that and are now in court over it because they didn’t expunge those records.”

“Why should we trust any other federal agency when they tell us the same thing?” he asked, noting the frequency in which several Clinton administration agencies have been caught being less than honest with the public.

“One of the most interesting aspects of this regulation isn’t what it says; it’s what it doesn’t say,” he added. “You’re not told what criteria are going to lead to an agent interrogating passengers. They tell you which criteria won’t.” Getz said he had telephoned the Department of Transportation for a clarification of the regulations, but he said officials there told him they couldn’t provide criteria specifics.

“They told me they couldn’t tell me what they would be looking for in a passenger profile because ‘that would violate security regulations,'” he said. “So it’s one of those incidents where, if you don’t know what the law is, how are you supposed to follow it?”

Getz said it appeared to him that “the government has figured out the American people don’t like racial profiling and they don’t like being entered into databases.” That’s why, he said, the regulations are ambiguous, intentionally vague, and why “they’ve gone out of their way to make sure we know what they won’t do.”

Nationally syndicated radio talk host Blanquita Cullum told WorldNetDaily she believes she may already be an unintended victim of one aspect of CAPS that the FAA and DOT have said wouldn’t happen.

“I travel quite a bit and I have noticed in the past year, year and a half, that I am always being told to check my luggage inside (the main terminal) instead of out on the curb like I used to do,” she told WorldNetDaily. She said she has asked airport luggage officials why, and they answer, “It’s not you — it’s the computer.”

“I tell them, ‘Of course it’s me — otherwise I could check my bags in here!'”

She admitted that she wasn’t sure she was being singled out as a possible terrorist by CAPS, but did say “it’s possible” she had a negative profile because of her Hispanic ethnic background or her conservative political views, “which are both well known, of course.”

“CAPS will turn air travel into computerized Russian roulette, where a microchip will decide if security agents should detain or search you,” Dasbach said. “Last year, 50,892 airline passengers underwent some kind of body search by airport personnel. You could be next — even if you are 100 percent innocent of any crime — and their excuse will be: ‘The computer made me do it.'”

Though the CAPS security provisions have not been outlined, Getz said, “If you fit the ‘terrorist profile,’ security agents could pull you out of line, search your luggage, interrogate you about your travel plans, tag your luggage with bright orange labels, or escort you onto the plane. In a worst-case scenario, you could be x-rayed, strip-searched, or subjected to a body cavity search.”

Neither the FAA nor the DOT returned phone calls for comment.

The FAA’s published information said the agency was accepting comments on the new CAPS regulations until Aug. 17, 1999.