CNN reporter who covered TSA watchlist gets hassled every time he flies
CNN reporter Drew Griffin helped expose on TSA's bloated one-million-name terrorist watchlist. Now, he's getting hassled every time he flies . The airlines tell him his on a list, too:
"Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA. Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket," Griffin reported. "What does the TSA say? Nothing, at least nothing on camera. Over the phone a public affairs worker told me again I'm not on the watch list, and don't even think that someone in the TSA or anyone else is trying to get even."
The TSA, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, said Griffin's name wasn't even on the watch list, and the agency blamed the airlines for the delays the reporter experienced. The airlines, on the other hand, said they were simply following a list provided by TSA. [Raw Story]
Bravo to my Raw Story colleagues, David Edwards and Nick Juliano, for getting picked up by BoingBoing.
Now that you've reported this, let us know what happens next time you fly, Lindsay.
Oops, now I'M on the list....
Posted by: Peter VE | July 24, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Perhaps the only solution is to bloat the list. Get TSA management on the list. Get local government officials on the list. Get the congress critters on the list. Get anyone and everyone on the list. Bloat it until the whole damn process bogs.
Not that they aren't doing that without any help...
Posted by: jd | July 24, 2008 at 02:53 PM
Yeah, "bloat it until the whole damn process bogs". Thats how we protect the country. Better a thousand Mohammad Attas fly whenever they like than Drew Griffin be hassled at check in.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 24, 2008 at 03:36 PM
Oh, come on.
How can constructing a watch list that covers damn near 0.5% of the adult population of the country -- and growing -- help prevent future Mohammad Attas from flying?
Posted by: Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog | July 24, 2008 at 04:00 PM
The list is already so hopelessly bloated as to be useless. There are over 1 million names on it, but nobody really knows how many people are affected because i) Many different people have the same name, ii) The files don't include physical descriptions and may not contain any uniquely identifying information, iii) The same person may have multiple aliases in the database, iv) The data is dirty and quality control is non-existent.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | July 24, 2008 at 04:13 PM
"Thats how we protect the country."
Yeah, like the TSA is actually protecting us.
http://tinyurl.com/5csfjr
Posted by: TB | July 24, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Reminds me of my boss when I worked in government. He had a list of 'Non-Mericans'. Lesbians, gays, Buddhists, those people...you know...Urban, Unitarians, Liberals, Democrats, the judge who called him a liar in open court (this is rare-outside of criminal conduct the stuff is usually swept under the rug), the appelate judge who upheld the finding of falsehood, 'uppity' subordinates (that's me), the entire public.
Yeah, he's a Republican, thinks government is evil...but not so evil that he turned his nice cheque over to charity, never once dated women until the 'uppity' subordinate mentioned that it was odd that he didn't date, has a restraining order in place by his 'wife' that never allows him unsupervised contact with her underage boys, and based enforcement measures on how "christian" the offender was.
Posted by: Mold | July 24, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Finally, someone who could actually be a plaintiff in a suit against TSA - Griffin seems to have a genuine first amendment claim that he is being harassed by the gov't for his exercising his freedom of speech and of the press. Why he thinks this is coincidental is beyond me.
Posted by: Bloix | July 24, 2008 at 06:30 PM
This is how they protect Tampa from truth. When I blog they follow me down Dale Mabry Ave in whatever firetruck they haven't used in awhile.
This doesn't even surprise me. I mean... about this guy. I'm just a person with valuable property who got OUTRAGED (lol that overused word these days) when I realized what they were doing and decided to talk them down from the beanstalk they were climbing. This guy's just a journalist doing his job.
TSA (not all individuals involved but many of them) are very comparable to NAZI grunts. Sorry about that. You could take over an airliner or anywhere else in the world with a #2 pencil if you had a mind.
BLOIX, stellar idea. I'd love to see more law-yers putting their degrees to such use.
Posted by: voxy | July 24, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Lindsay, exactly.
"i never liked that asshole" is reason enough to get put on the list. LOL
I'm probably on it.
I keep meaning to fly to orlando or somewhere and find out but never have taken the time. Preferring to drive.
Although I like what the french woman did.
Posted by: voxy | July 24, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Ghost, Lindsay
Well the answer is to cull names that don't belong from the list. And very likely to add new names to that list.
Unless you oppose the very concept of a watch list.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Well the answer is to cull names that don't belong from the list
We can start by culling roughly 999500 names. Even 500 names might be a bit cumbersome. A million name list is worse than useless, it's a joke.
Posted by: cfrost | July 25, 2008 at 01:51 AM
It's never been revealed what the various methods are for getting on the list, and there doesn't seem to be any procedure for getting names off the list. Just having a list isn't a bad idea. What's stupid is having no procedure for ensuring the names on the list belong there.
An intelligent watch list process would include
(1) a formal procedure for adding and removing names
(2) a record of the process by which each name is added (so that abuses can be corrected and abusers punished)
(3) regular review of names on the list
(4) an appeals process for those who believe they have been added to the list improperly
Posted by: togolosh | July 25, 2008 at 08:30 AM
togolosh
Agree with much of what you say, but 1 and 2 are not on If it is a "formal" process (with lawyers! Oh good!) , it will get bogged down, which would be the intention of the Human Rights Industry, which loathe the concept of such a list.
The list is not and should not be made public. A lot of the names on the list are there because of their ties to "militant" groups --information often gained thorough wiretapping or monitoring of e-mail (horrors!). There is no way any responsible government is going to allow for these methods to become public in individual circumstances.
If someone has ties to a militant group and/or has made phone calls to the NW Frontier Province of Pakistan, I want that guy on the list. And I don't want the methods to be on the front page of the NY Times.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 25, 2008 at 09:22 AM
Schneier, as usual, gets it right:
"Who knew that a million people are terrorists. Why, there are only twice as many burglars in the U.S. And fifteen times more terrorists than arsonists.
Is this idiotic, or what?
Some people are saying fix it, but there seems to be no motivation to do so. I'm sure the career incentives aren't aligned that way. You probably get promoted by putting people on the list. But taking someone off the list...if you're wrong, no matter how remote that possibility is, you can probably lose your career. This is why in civilized societies we have a judicial system, to be an impartial arbiter between law enforcement and the accused. But that system doesn't apply here.
Kafka would be proud."
You're either interested in making thing secure, or making it look like you're doing something.
So far, America only seems to be capable of the second.
Posted by: TB | July 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM
TB
The fact that there have been no terrorist incidents in the US since 9/11 does not exactly help your case.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Really The Phantom???
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
Posted by: TB | July 25, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Now you know why the Bushistas didn't want union protection for TSA. A civil service job is somewhat protected. Bosso tells you to do illegal acts, you decline and grieve. With faith-based hiring and promotion, no recourse to a union procedure, and no oversight...you do what you are told.
Posted by: Mold | July 25, 2008 at 12:16 PM
TB
I've seen that before. Its played out.
The govt is doing some things right, and some of those things have involved security.
The lack of incidents over this particular seven year period is not a coincidence.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Lack of incidents The Phantom?
Try telling that to Joseph P. Curseen.
What a surprise, a conservative that doesn't know what they're talking about.
Posted by: TB | July 25, 2008 at 04:27 PM
tb, you're kinda awesome (despite my friendly exchanges with the phantom ... he seems too smart to still think the way he does and I have HOPE for him PLUS he has proven on at least one occasion that his heart is in the right place)
HOMER!!!
Posted by: voxy | July 25, 2008 at 04:49 PM