No-Fly List

60 Minutes has a copy:

60 Minutes, in collaboration with the National Security News Service, has obtained the secret list used to screen airline passengers for terrorists and discovered it includes names of people not likely to cause terror, including the president of Bolivia, people who are dead and names so common, they are shared by thousands of innocent fliers.

[…]

The “data dump” of names from the files of several government agencies, including the CIA, fed into the computer compiling the list contained many unlikely terrorists. These include Saddam Hussein, who is under arrest, Nabih Berri, Lebanon’s parliamentary speaker, and Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia. It also includes the names of 14 of the 19 dead 9/11 hijackers.

But the names of some of the most dangerous living terrorists or suspects are kept off the list.

The 11 British suspects recently charged with plotting to blow up airliners with liquid explosives were not on it, despite the fact they were under surveillance for more than a year.

The name of David Belfield who now goes by Dawud Sallahuddin, is not on the list, even though he assassinated someone in Washington, D.C., for former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. This is because the accuracy of the list meant to uphold security takes a back seat to overarching security needs: it could get into the wrong hands. “The government doesn’t want that information outside the government,” says Cathy Berrick, director of Homeland Security investigations for the General Accounting Office.

When are we going to realize that this list simply isn’t effective?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted on October 6, 2006 at 6:07 AM • 69 Comments

Comments

raschi • October 6, 2006 7:39 AM

“When are we going to realize that this list simply isn’t effective?”
Well, you already have and so do probably many of your readers. Let’s hope this is a good start and keep spreading the word.

damir • October 6, 2006 8:17 AM

It is always the same
looks like story about credit rating lists in
“Database Nation”

No one knows what is origin of data there
and worse what is criteria of removal.
Rembers me on Kafka’s “Process”

Robert the Red • October 6, 2006 8:19 AM

“When are we going to realize that this list simply isn’t effective?”

Only when something obviously (to a fourth grader) better presents itself. That is to say, never, because we can’t be ‘weak’.

The current operating policy of the USA is ‘strength through stupidity and cruelty’.

Sean • October 6, 2006 8:43 AM

Like all the other databases out there, the National No-Fly list is a repository of outdated, innacurate and non-essential information. Not a case of FOAF, everyone of us has had an actual friend in a similar situation where some database out there has totally bogus financial information on file that causes them grief. It’s easy to get garbage into the system, but none of these database maintainers pay for a division to vet and clean up the data so it has any integrity. It’s a typical snapshot of the corruption in our society. It’s easier to ignore the problems than it is to remain vigilant and aware. It’s easier to implement quick and easy answers after the fact that steal our freedom than it is to do the basic police work that prevents the various disasters that happen.

Andre LePlume • October 6, 2006 8:47 AM

So do we get to see the damn list, or are their concerns about privacy that are preventing its publication?

Clive Robinson • October 6, 2006 9:59 AM

@regular_reader

“Gonna check on your neighbors?”

I don’t know about Andre, but I would like to know if I was on it so I could use it as an excuse to get “righteuous” on a politicion or two 😉

After all if they are dumb enough to give people the excuse to make their lives difficult, you might as well make the most of it.

(I guess I’m on the list now even if I wasn’t up untill now 😉

piglet • October 6, 2006 9:59 AM

The President of Bolivia on the US no-fly list should give a nice diplomatic embarassment. Once again, the US government is proving to the world that it is far more concerned with fighting democratically elected left-wing politicians than with fighting terrorists.

buntklicker.de • October 6, 2006 9:59 AM

This is so goddamn stupid. It could be really funny if it were not so serious.

It’s a good thing that only a handful of individuals on this planet share my (real) name. I am actually not aware of a single one.

What do all the John Kings do?

C Gomez • October 6, 2006 10:55 AM

No argument here… not only is the list effective, eveything about it is ineffective.

Methods of collection, removal, and use are all worthless. Even if someone could convince me such a list did anything to “make us safer”, this list without question is a waste of time and resources.

But in the end, I don’t see how this list does anything. To get on a passenger flight, I typically use a credit card to book and a driver’s license to enter.

My understanding is that these items are fairly easy to fake or obtain, and are especially effective on first use.

After all, every time I’ve encountered account fraud, it was only discovered because I saw charges on my accounts. So presumably someone could book and take a flight fraudulently.

None of this can be addressed by any kind of list. I’d rather any money and resources spent on this were spent on something else.

another_bruce • October 6, 2006 11:01 AM

“robert johnson will never get off the list” said the senior fbi agent. why not? who the fuck is he and what did he do to get on? in a world full of robert johnsons, how do we know when we’re interacting with the one terrorist, so we can take suitable precautions? this is incredibly stupid.
i’ve heard dave nelson has the same problem. who are these dangerous people with common names? also heard that senator kennedy was delayed going through a checkpoint once, i think they meant to put him on the no-drive list instead.

Rich • October 6, 2006 11:02 AM

“Gary Smith, John Williams and Robert Johnson are some of those names. Kroft talked to 12 people with the name Robert Johnson, all of whom are detained almost every time they fly. The detentions can include strip searches and long delays in their travels.

“Well, Robert Johnson will never get off the list,” says Donna Bucella, who oversaw the creation of the list and has headed up the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center since 2003. She regrets the trouble they experience, but chalks it up to the price of security in the post-9/11 world. “They’re going to be inconvenienced every time … because they do have the name of a person who’s a known or suspected terrorist,” says Bucella. ”

So, how do we get “Donna Bucella onto the list”?

mark • October 6, 2006 11:03 AM

I wonder if simply changing your name would be all it would take to avoid the “Robert Johnson” issue. Drastic to be sure – but if they are using name alone for their security, how easy is it to defeat this I wonder…

Anonymous • October 6, 2006 11:03 AM

Oh lord… that’s just what US-Bolivian relations need. What a bone-headed move. The Latin Americans will be citing this as another act of American arrogance for years to come…

Alan • October 6, 2006 11:26 AM

We have gone from “Security Theatre” to “Security Musical Theatre”.

“I have a little list of those who shall not be missed…”

bob • October 6, 2006 11:27 AM

@Rich: I assume you go to a payphone nowhere near where you live or work, put on gloves and the groucho marx glasses with the mustache, call 3 different diverse airports and say “Donna Bucella” is a member of a terrorist cell and is going to blow up an airliner next week.

Daniel Haran • October 6, 2006 11:32 AM

“[The list] also includes the names of 14 of the 19 dead 9/11 hijackers.”

We don’t know how to get anyone OFF the list, but a suicide attack has a 73% chance of getting you ON if you’d like.

Fazal Majid • October 6, 2006 11:41 AM

Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the list at some point in time.

Apart with the problems with homonymy, the big problem is that TSA just compiles the list but apparently does not have links back to the casework that justified adding names to the list in the first place, nor is there anything remotely resembling due process is getting one’s name off the list.

Tim Vail • October 6, 2006 11:58 AM

About the Robert Johnson issue. How long before the security screener start noticing that pretty much every Robert Johnson they see are innocent, and start getting lax about it?

Then the end result is the real guy they are after is more likely to get through…

Roy • October 6, 2006 12:13 PM

Generally speaking, the names belonging on the list are deliberately omitted, and the names on the list don’t belong there.

This makes perfect sense if you accept the premise that the DHS is, with malice aforethought (going back at least to the 1970s), deliberately counterfeiting national security.

Why would they do this? 1) To get the money, and the power. 2) To scare their own citizenry — to get more money, and more power.

Geoff Lane • October 6, 2006 12:42 PM

Keeping a list of names is wrong for a very simple reason. It encourages what little security there is to be concentrated on people whose name appears on the list. As none (to a close approximation) of the name matches will be terrorists, time and effort spent on those people is wasted. Reduce the list to just those people who are known to be currently active and include photographs and other identifying information and you might have something that is useful (but I’m sure that customs already have such a system devoted to criminals.)

Cerebus • October 6, 2006 12:44 PM

Omitting names of people under active investigation makes a certain amount of sense, as it might serve to alert the subject that he’s under scrutiny.

That said, it’s still a colossal waste of time. Years of anti-spam work taught me over a decade ago that blacklists and whitelists never function over the long term.

Joe Buck • October 6, 2006 12:54 PM

Robert Johnson, of course, was the legendary bluesman, worshipped by Eric Clapton among others, who, the story goes, sold his soul to the devil just to play guitar (and play blues guitar better than anyone else).

Of course we can’t let agents of Satan onto airplanes! No matter that the man has been dead for more than 60 years, that might have just been a trick.

Prohias • October 6, 2006 12:57 PM

Has any one changed their name because they made it to the no fly list? Changing the spelling of a common last name in a trivial way is possible.

What a brilliant use of tax payer money this list is.

kvenlander • October 6, 2006 1:24 PM

I don’t think changing the spelling of your name is going to help… They must use some sort of a soundex algorithm for all the various transliterations of Arabic/Farsi/etc. names.

Just recently an SF State professor was kept out of the country for three months because his name was similar to a name on this or some other watchlist (although the Arabic names may have actually been the same, they used different transliterations).

Adam • October 6, 2006 1:57 PM

Interesting! When I was on a panel with Donna Bucella (who runs the “Terrorist Screening Center”) I discussed that Osama wasn’t on the list. She falied to mention this, and talked about how well protected the list was.

Kathryn from Sunnyvale • October 6, 2006 2:15 PM

Back when the ‘David Nelson on the no-fly list’ topic came out, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the number of D.N.’s in the U.S. I calculated there’d be about 5,000 of them. There’s only one ‘bad’ David Nelson, a guy who (iirc) made threats or disrupted a flight decades ago.

For the time and money spent on David Nelsons at the airport, one could hire a 24-hour service to follow the one bad David Nelson.

jojo • October 6, 2006 2:28 PM

Another sign of the apocalypse.

Back in the early ’90’s there was an incident in central Florida where Muammar Qaddaffi was found eating at a local diner (believe it was lunch). The swat team was actually called out to raid the i-hop.

Security is only as good as the brains and intentions behind them. Clearly, both are failing us now.

Skate • October 6, 2006 2:32 PM

“The government doesn’t want that information outside the government,”

That is hilarious and scary. The the most dangerous terrorists we know of, those under active and secret investigation, will never be on the list because it could compromise the operations. That alone should make the “No Fly” list a “no go.”

Jack C Lipton • October 6, 2006 2:34 PM

@Alan

We have gone from “Security Theatre” to “Security Musical Theatre”.
“I have a little list of those who shall not be missed…”

Amended:

“We have a little list of those whose flights will be missed…”

or, since I seem to have had a TIA in the part of my brain that inhibits the creation of awful limericks:

The list of fliers to be denied
is hidden well away from our eyes
a fake is in use
to drive some abuse
by jack-booted thugs we despise

dragonfrog • October 6, 2006 2:38 PM

It also includes the names of 14 of the 19 dead 9/11 hijackers

Well, I should hope it does – and where are the other 5? That’s five potential zombie hijackers that could slip past the TSA.

Hasn’t anyone at the TSA seen Pirates of the Caribbean? Undead attackers are some of the most ferocious opponents, because they have nothing to lose.

jmr • October 6, 2006 2:46 PM

RE:
It’s not exactly a “secret list” if 60 minutes has a copy.

Posted by: derf at October 6, 2006 10:36 AM

That’s exactly the problem with the list. The list isn’t secret, because it’s distributed so widely. Investigating potential terrorists requires secrecy so as not to tip off the subject of the investigation. If all a terrorist needs to do to determine whether he is under surveilance or not is check the no-fly list, then it becomes that much harder to investigate potential terrorists unless you don’t put the potential terrorist’s names on the no-fly list. Thus, it has a self-defeating purpose.

As it is, the no-fly list just tells someone whether they need to bother obtaining a false ID before boarding a flight. If you’re not on the list, it’s cheaper to get on the plane. If you are, just change your name.

Rich • October 6, 2006 2:52 PM

No one has mentioned the trivial way to beat the no-fly list. Given a terrorist cell of size K all willing to die for the cause, send them on a flight. The no-fly-list will cause M of them to be arrested. The remaining K-M are clear for the operation.

Thomas Veesenmayer • October 6, 2006 3:55 PM

Re: effectiveness

Effectiveness may not be interesting if the list becomes an internal measure of “government efficiency.” The list of missile targets in the Soviet Union had a similar history: it was said to be diluted beyond any real use: it was trivial to add to it without consequences (generals actually competed for the privilege, bragging whose nominations “made it”), and nobody could remove entries (since that would have required taking responsibility for the removal).

I wonder how many US .gov employees’ performance evaluation involves quotas, say at least N new no-fly list nominations per year.

Paul • October 6, 2006 4:01 PM

Another possibility exists. Given 60 Minutes record for obtaining verifiable documents, some enterprising blogger should see if the list was generated with Microsoft Word 2010.

Petréa Mitchell • October 6, 2006 4:24 PM

“We have gone from ‘Security Theatre’ to ‘Security Musical Theatre’.”

Very musical, if John Williams is on the list! That’s gotta be making it interesting travelling to all his guest conducting gigs…

Alan • October 6, 2006 5:12 PM

@Petréa
“We have gone from ‘Security Theatre’ to ‘Security Musical Theatre’.”

Very musical, if John Williams is on the list! That’s gotta be making it interesting travelling to all his guest conducting gigs…

Actually musicians have been having a very hard time due to these rules. Imagine trying to fly with a Stradivarius and being told you have to put it in luggage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5273576.stm

Nick Lancaster • October 6, 2006 5:44 PM

“14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers …” – okay, while they’re dead, I could see this possibly making sense if a terrorist wants to use the name of a ‘famous martyr’ to carry out their own mission.

“We don’t want this information getting out of the government.” – Absolutely brainless. It’s the same, “We can’t give information away to the terrorists.”

I think the terrorists already know they’re terrorists. The only reason the list might be of value is to reveal whether or not a cover identity has been broken, in which case, they’d have to abort the plan and put someone else into play (or get the agent a new ID and book a new flight).

God forbid the terrorists should pick a common name like Dave Nelson.

Woo • October 6, 2006 6:45 PM

Does only 60min have a copy of that list, or is it available for peruse somewhere already?
I doubt that my real two-part name is on there, but it might be worth booking a ticket only on my wife’s surname which adds up to a name definitely on the list – just to see what they’re going to do with me on my next flight. I doubt they’ll be having much fun looking at me during a strip search.. ;o)
The list is so awfully idiotic that I’m unsure on whether to laugh or cry about it. Millions of dollars wasted through the time and personnel..
What are the regulations if I should miss a plance because of being unjustly detained for being on that list? Is the TSA going to cover the bill on a replacement ticket? Who pays the loss if I should fail to show up on an important business deal? I wonder whether there already have been precedence cases..

walterzuey • October 6, 2006 7:16 PM

Score one for Big Brother. Robert Johnson unabashedly lays out his plans for taking down an airplane:

Who been drivin my terraplane
for you since I’ve been gone
I’m on get deep down in this connection
keep on tanglin with your wires
I’m on get deep down in this connection
hoo-well keep on tanglin with your wires
And when I mash down your little starter
then your spark plug will give me a fire

quincunx • October 6, 2006 7:54 PM

Does anyone think that the Smiths, Jones, Johnsons, Wiliams, and Browns can form a special interst group to eliminate this?

8 million people is a lot to piss off.

Stefan Wagner • October 6, 2006 8:40 PM

@kvenlander: “They must use some sort of a soundex algorithm for all the various transliterations of Arabic/Farsi/etc. names.”

You would think so, I would think so (while soundex is complicated with names from multiple languages), but I’m not sure whether the inventors of that list do ‘think’, in a common sense.

Thomas • October 6, 2006 9:01 PM

@Bruce,

“””When are we going to realize that this list simply isn’t effective?”””

The list’s “effectiveness” depends on the “effect” you are trying to produce.

Was interning fereign nationals during WW2 “effective”?

Depends on whether you were trying to stop sabotage (which it didn’t) or bolster support for the war by daemonizing the enemy (which it did).

Maia C • October 6, 2006 10:18 PM

The No-Fly List is effective, just not for the purpose the government claims. Its real effectiveness is in harassing Democratic politicians, peace activists, members of “leftist” organizations, and other enemies of the Bush Administration.

Steve Parker • October 7, 2006 6:23 PM

I can see one reason for Saddam being on the list… it’s a ridiculously low probability, but if at some point in the future he hijacked a plane, it would be very embarrassing for the USA.

Todd Larason • October 7, 2006 8:47 PM

“The name of David Belfield who now goes by Dawud Sallahuddin, is not on the list … This is because the accuracy of the list meant to uphold security takes a back seat to overarching security needs: it could get into the wrong hands. “The government doesn’t want that information outside the government,” says Cathy Berrick, director of Homeland Security investigations for the General Accounting Office.”

What information? That David Belfield was a terrorist? That he now uses the name Daoud Salahuddin? That the US gov’t knows those things?

If it’s supposed to be a secret, shouldn’t they avoid putting it on the website of a US Gov’t run broadcast service, labelled “Wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation”? — http://www.ibb.gov/fugitives/belfield.html

James • October 7, 2006 9:26 PM

Anyone have a clue how stupid it is to think there’s anythng to the 60 Minutes report. So they got a list. Big deal. Who gave it to them? How old is it? How accurate is it? Is it the final list, or a list used to make a real list, which is an extremely common procedure?

And which all the hot air about the ineffectiveness of a list, I’ve never once heard anyone suggest an alternative that makes any sense at all.

Lists are very effetcive, when used properly, and it’s darned near impossible to do anything without a list. I don’t know a business, a government agency, or anywhere else that does not use lists.

The trouble with programs like 60 Minutes is that they come up with some silly list, refuse to say where they got it, how they got it, or how they can prove it’s anything like the final list that’s really used (Which this one isn’t) and nose-pickers jump on the band wagon and believe everything they say.

Didn’t anyone learn a thing from Dan Rather’s fiasco?

Geoff • October 8, 2006 7:07 AM

Once he was elected President of Bolivia, Evo Morales should have come off the list, but prior to that he was a noted anti-globalization activist and head of the Bolivian coca-growers’ union. I wouldn’t have wanted him to fly without a long conversation, either. In any case, whatever diplomatic embarrassment this might cause now, with a government that is pre-disposed to dislike us, it’s a poor example of the numerous failings of the No-Fly List.

haro • October 8, 2006 7:16 AM

The question that should be asked is – how many times does a terroristorganization have to let its potential hijackers fly to select who goes on the real mission.

Defiant1sgal • October 8, 2006 10:16 PM

It’s not just ineffective- it’s a tool that is used and misused. They have the power to flag any name they choose- in the name of “national security”. That includes American citizens, folks. If you think it doesn’t happen, think again. My fiancee is a military man with a high security clearance and is currently on that list- he’s fought for this country for more than 20 years and has an outstanding record of service. He’s on the list because he’s pissed off the wrong people. Why are so many people so willing to let go of thier civil liberties for this false sense of security?
These are scary times.

Defiant1sgal • October 8, 2006 10:22 PM

James- the problem isn’t that there is a list- it’s what they are allowed to do with the list- and that the list (and it does exist) doesn’t have the most dangerous folk on it, which rather defeats the purpose of the list- don’t you think? I agree a lot of tv shows will spin things and make them sound more dramatic, but I assure you this is a problem- it has been a pain in my family’s neck for the last year- They should not have the power to restrict American Citizens from flight with no evidence of a prior record/crime, or any ties to terrorists- it’s wrong and it’s the sort of thing that communist countries are known for- Not America.

Mr W • October 9, 2006 7:40 AM

@James

“So they got a list. Big deal. Who gave it to them? How old is it? How accurate is it? Is it the final list, or a list used to make a real list, which is an extremely common procedure?”

Read the full article James. Their list is dated March of this year. It was passed to them by someone working in aviation security, so it is the actual final list they’ve been using at airports this year.

JohnJ • October 9, 2006 8:41 AM

@quincunx: “Does anyone think that the Smiths, Jones, Johnsons, Wiliams, and Browns can form a special interst group to eliminate this?”

My name here has my first name and last initial. My last name rhymes with “bones”. I’d happily join a SIG if I knew that one existed. In the mean time, I vote with my wallet and choose to avoid flying whenever possible. I try to only attend local conferences and have restricted family vacations to those within driving distance (about a 600 mile radius).

TSA stupidity has caused me to miss a flight while on vacation before and I’m always subjected to more scrutiny than necessary. The TSA also delayed my father while he was travelling recently. He’s in his late 70s and is retired from the US Navy and from a state government job. He has a bad knee and standing in long lines is physically painful.

I suppose that there is a mild good point to my self-imposed travel restrictions. They lead me to spend my (and my employer’s) money on the local and regional economy.

croaker161 • October 9, 2006 9:56 AM

@Clive_Robinson

“>Gonna check on your neighbors?

“I don’t know about Andre, but I would like to know if I was on it so I could use it as an excuse to get “righteuous” on a politicion or two 😉

“After all if they are dumb enough to give people the excuse to make their lives difficult, you might as well make the most of it.”

Like getting righteous on your congresscritter will do any good. I was told in April 2004 by a bunch of gun-waving goons that I was on the list and would never fly again. I raised hell, not that it did any good. There is no mechanism to remove yourself, there is no mechanism to find out who put you on the list so you can sue them or at least find out why you were put on the list.

I am quite sure the reason for me was retaliation for exercising my First Amendment rights.

The true purpose of the TSA is to demonstrate that Americans are no longer citizens; we are now subjects of an incompetent empire. You will obey, even though you know we are being idiots and, and we know you know, and you know that we know that ou know, etc. In other words, obey! And yes, soldiers, it applies to you also. Salve, Sclave.

Kip Hawley is an idiot! http://www.kiphawleyisanidiot.com

Trevor • October 9, 2006 11:28 AM

Probably around the same time we stop pretending that 99.9% of travelers inside the U.S. have any terroristic intent prior to or during a domestic airline flight.

Never?

Jack C Lipton • October 10, 2006 1:47 PM

@Trevor:

“Probably around the same time we stop pretending that 99.9% of travelers inside the U.S. have any terroristic intent prior to or during a domestic airline flight.”

The problem I see is that this whole terror-inducing infrastructure (making us all paranoid about the likelihood of “false positives”) will, over time, be useful for culling the herd of those of us with any individuality, since the whole superstructure approves of sheeple.

I sometimes suspect that part of this abrasion of civilization will motivate people to be less obedient… so that the disobedient will be discovered and penalized because they’ll want, all on the basis of how they’ve been mistreated, to BE destructive.

Khalid Suliman • January 10, 2007 1:04 AM

Criminal convictions have resulted in middle eastern sounding names to be added to the No Fly List. In my midemenor conviction (related to insurance fraud), the court misspelled my first name and last name in a very unique way, I am always asked if I am that person, which I deny. This made me 100% sure where many of the names on the list came from.

Further penalizing a person (or denying him rights) in this way is a non-judicial punishment which is unconsitutional.

JFK Airline Worker • January 26, 2007 8:14 PM

I work for an airline and my name is on this NO FLY LIST. I have access to airplanes every day, I go through this process of going to the ticket counter before I fly. I can never get a ticket or print a boarding pass. I must go to the ticket counter each time which makes no sense. This whole list must be scrapped. Today I saw a lady named
Maria Sanchez on the list. How many Maria Sanchez are out there in the world? How about John Watson? He is on the list too, so everyone with that same name is on that list. That could be 100,000 people or more.
We are NOT safe

Bumped • February 23, 2007 7:21 AM

My name matches the no-fly list too, and like others it means I can’t print my boarding pass via the Internet, kiosk, or use curbside check-in, because my identity has to be verified.

As more and more people have started to use internet check-in, I’ve been bumped once and put on standby twice despite being at the airport two hours in advance. Why? Because the flights were overbooked, and the seats were claimed by people who printed their boarding passes via the Internet as early as 12 to 24 hours in advance of the flight. But us “false positives”, as we’re called, can’t check in until we’re at the airport.

Jonie • March 14, 2007 12:28 AM

I am planning a trip with someone by airplane. I am scared to travel. Do you have any suggestions? I want to go, but my sick-scared heart does not want to.

WhatIf • June 18, 2007 8:08 AM

Unless Congress legislates a requirement that the name of every congressman, plus the president, be on this list, until they legislate a way to restore the ability of false positives to print boarding passes at home and to use automatic kiosks.

ANdy • June 28, 2007 11:28 AM

I am so sick of being on this list. I went through the process of getting “cleared” two years ago and I’m still on it. I have even considered changing my name. My name is Andrew Smith (shock, horror). One of the ladies at the ticket counter said I would be OK if I had a middle name – so I am thinking that I might just legally add one. My only fear is that I will get automatically linked back to my old name on the list….Don’t we have any legal recourse against the govt on this? How about a class action??

Marty • October 27, 2008 10:06 AM

After flying from Lagos to Atlanta and having issues regarding Delta Airlines Excess Baggage charges, I am now on the No Fly List . . .

Any Advice?

Marty

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.