Keeping track of carry-on reading materials

I try not to get too worked up over the hassles of airport security. Officials are well-intentioned and trying to provide a crucial public service.

But when federal officials maintain travel records on Americans that keep track of everything from destinations, to travel companions, to reading materials, one can’t help but wonder if some reasonable lines are being crossed.

The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials.

The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country. Officials say the records, which are analyzed by the department’s Automated Targeting System, help border officials distinguish potential terrorists from innocent people entering the country.

The Automated Targeting System isn’t exactly new; it’s been used to screen passengers since the mid-1990s. Apparently, though, officials are monitoring personal travel habits in a way that hadn’t been acknowledged before.

For what it’s worth, the Department of Homeland Security insists it is completely uninterested in passengers’ reading habits. There’s some evidence to the contrary.

DHS officials said this week that the government is not interested in passengers’ reading habits, that the program is transparent, and that it affords redress for travelers who are inappropriately stymied. “I flatly reject the premise that the department is interested in what travelers are reading,” DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. “We are completely uninterested in the latest Tom Clancy novel that the traveler may be reading.”

That certainly sounds encouraging, but then there’s the case of John Gilmore, a civil liberties activist in San Francisco.

Gilmore’s file, which he provided to The Washington Post, included a note from a Customs and Border Patrol officer that he carried the marijuana-related book “Drugs and Your Rights.” “My first reaction was I kind of expected it,” Gilmore said. “My second reaction was, that’s illegal.”

Defending the Automated Targeting System last year, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that “if we learned anything from Sept. 11, 2001, it is that we need to be better at connecting the dots of terrorist-related information. After Sept. 11, we used credit-card and telephone records to identify those linked with the hijackers. But wouldn’t it be better to identify such connections before a hijacker boards a plane?” Chertoff said that comparing passenger name record data with intelligence on terrorists lets the government “identify unknown threats for additional screening” and helps avoid “inconvenient screening of low-risk travelers.”

Maybe so. But why, then, include a book called “Drugs and Your Rights” in some guy’s file?

so what if we all start getting on planes carrying copies of “the turner diaries!”

  • Those canny DHS folk: they’ve tumbled to the fact that every terrorist always travels with a paperback copy of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s “How to Hijack Airliners and Blow Stuff Up” as well as an autographed picture of Osama bin Laden.

    But, here’s the real money graf from the WaPo article:

    Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, said in an interview that he has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006. Twice, he said, he was questioned by border officials about “politically charged” opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper. The essays were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he said. Once, during a secondary interview, he said, “they had them printed out on the table in front of me.”

    If that’s true then we’re more screwed than we ever thought we were.

  • If they document the title of a book a passenger is reading, that kind of trivia information then be certain that every Muslim has been profiled just for being Muslim…bet the same is not true of Jews. Big brother monitoring is totally unnecessary, these guys have just gone over the top. This monitoring of Americans by our government makes me more afraid of our government than any terrorist. I’ve sen movies like this and they always turn out bad for those being spied upon. When McConnell talks of not paying attention to information for screening of terrorists before 9/11 he should be referring to information like “Bin Ladden to attack within the US this summer” that Bush just dismissed along with several other bits of info being presented to him that warned of 9/11. Monitoring of reading materials pales to compare to having a WH that ignores overwhelming information of a terrorist attack.

  • bjobotts said: “This monitoring of Americans by our government makes me more afraid of our government than any terrorist.”

    Me too! But most enthusiasts of the “War on Terror” don’t see it that way. They would give the government all the power it wants (i.e. unlimited power) in exchange for “keeping your family safe.” (Hmmm… ever notice that the local news people promise us the same thing in exchange for our eyeball time?)

    Patrick Henry and the Founding Fathers had it right. But the government doesn’t hate Americans. The government is simply amoral, doing what governments do if we let them. The pantywaist cowards who want to trade freedom for an empty promise of safety are the ones who hate America.

  • Oh, man.

    So college students had better be careful not to read Marx on a plane.

    This is really bad.

  • What would I or any of us go for if the goal were to monitor a population that holds some presumably dangerous and highly undesirable persons, if all moral and constitutional considerations could be set aside? The ultimate attainment would be the development of a complete set of personal dossiers, I believe. (We need to practice thinking like those who can exercise power over us, without yielding our minds to them.) Authoritarians and totalitarians of the last several decades have used available technology, as well as word of mouth, in developing personal dossiers of citizens. Now some who claim to only be protecting free people have taken up personal dossier development in earnest. Having a detailed personal dossier for every person living in “the homeland” would make surveillance operations, along with preventive measures based on behavioral prediction, easier to implement on a mass scale, while also being a boon to the specific targeting of individuals. Isn’t large-scale personal dossier development a grand unannounced project fed, in varying degrees, by records of personal travel with related notes, personal governmental information, personal business and consumer information, electronic surveillance, and National Security Letters?

  • Reading Chomsky qualifies you for the “Tillman Special”. A quick semi-automatic 3 rounds to the head. That’ll bring your IQ down to about the level of Dear Leader…

  • If you do not want to see this kind of surveillance of Americans continue, and even expand, then you need to support ONLY Libertarians for congress and Dr. Ron Paul for president.

  • Comments are closed.