Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DHS Will Now Vet UK Air Passengers To Mexico, Canada, Cuba

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the so-very-giving-of-them dept.

Canada 417

First time accepted submitter illtud writes "From April, UK passengers flying to Mexico, Eastern Canada or Cuba will have to submit their details at least 72 hours before boarding to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for pre-flight vetting (as all passengers to the U.S. itself have had to do for a while). If they find against you, you're not getting on the plane, even though you're not going to the U.S. The Independent (UK quality newspaper) has the story."

cancel ×

417 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Haha, good one. (0)

wer32r (2556798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537683)

I actually believed it for a few seconds.... Oh, first post :)

Re:Haha, good one. (5, Informative)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537707)

Guess you never seen the date of the article in question

was posted on "March 26th"

Re:Haha, good one. (5, Funny)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537893)

This shit right here is why I FUCKING HATE April Fools Day.

If I was an evil dictator, I would implement all of my worst schemes on April first and no-one would bat a fucking eye.

Emigration vs Immigration control (4, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537685)

This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it. There are some circumstances where you'd want to control exit (if someone is fleeing law enforcement for some reason, avoiding child custody or the like), but I wonder if that's the intent of this policy shift or if it's something else.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (5, Funny)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537753)

This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it.

Countries yes, but states no. For New Jersey, it is free to enter across the bridge. But you need to pay to leave.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (3, Interesting)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537843)

Or maybe that's just New York charging you to enter...

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537889)

I think you forgot about all the crossings to Delaware and Pennsylvania.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537983)

Fun fact: If you take a road from Jersey to PA or DE, it loops back around to Jersey. I learned this the hard way after visiting family by Newark.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538113)

Fun fact: If you take a road from Jersey to PA or DE, it loops back around to Jersey. I learned this the hard way after visiting family by Newark.

As a person who lives on the Pennsylvania, Jersey border (Easton FTW), getting into to Jersey is easy, getting out can cost you if you don't know how. It's not hard to find your way out, but avoiding the toll is a sport in itself. The Northampton street bridge is nice, and Belvidere is an option, but anywhere else, and you'll pay.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538151)

Trenton, NJ and Morristown, PA are connected by three bridges. Two are paid. All are less than a mile apart.

Taking the free bridge isn't a huge detour, although that way tends to be more crowded...

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (4, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538159)

No. Everybody wants to flee New Jersey.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (5, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538097)

I think most people are more than willing to pay to leave New Jersey.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (3, Informative)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537951)

Australia already does this -- you have to clear immigration to leave. They make you fill out a card specifying who you are, if you're coming back, when, where you're staying overseas and so forth.

Having emigrated here from Canada, this got my freedom-deluded ire up at first, but I've since become used to it. It also prevents criminals from fleeing the country, so once again it comes down to that whole liberty vs security equation.

In a way, though, the US already has 'emigration' clearance itself -- since all flight passenger manifests must be cleared by the TSA, they could keep you from leaving if they wanted to.

Re:Emigration vs Immigration control (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538175)

Australia already does this -- you have to clear immigration to leave. They make you fill out a card specifying who you are, if you're coming back, when, where you're staying overseas and so forth.

Australia was a prison colony.

April's fool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537695)

In UK first?

Re:April's fool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538051)

TFA timestamp: Monday 26 March 2012.

Derp

AMERICA! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537697)

FUCK YEAH!

Re:AMERICA! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537749)

Damn. Beat me to it.

Re:AMERICA! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537881)

You mean:

OBAMA! YES WE CAN!

Re:AMERICA! (2, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538093)

He stole that from Bob the Builder

Joking right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537701)

Hope this is an early April 1st post.

Re:Joking right? (1)

nitrowing (887519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537717)

I bloody hope this is an April 1st post! I already hate the US Govt - this is taking the piss.

April fools? (0, Flamebait)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537705)

If not April fools then I would love to see a US court enforce this. Canada and the UK are both sovereign countries. Poor US losing its influence now beating up the few countries that barely care about it.

Re:April fools? (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537713)

Enforcement would consist of the airlines in question not being allowed to fly into the U.S.

Re:April fools? (1)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538047)

Yeah, they can do that. But the US can't "deny boarding" to a passenger at a UK airport.

Re:April fools? (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538107)

They can deny permission in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the airline would be violating that regulation in the same way that a U.S. airline representative would be violating regulations by allowing a person who has been denied boarding to board a flight in the U.S. anyway. This is a legal barrier with legal definitions, not a physical barrier with physical ramifications. The argument seems sort of semantic.

Re:April fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538101)

Just like the Cuban embargo, right?

The US will enforce this (5, Interesting)

dskoll (99328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537727)

... and here's how. "Oh, you won't comply? Guess you don't want your airline to have landing rights in the US, then."

The US, unfortunately, can get away with extortion. I live in Canada and have family in the United States, but this is seriously offputting. I think it's time to boycott travel to the US until they back away from this kind of insanity.

Re:The US will enforce this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537769)

(Idiot mouthbreather who doesn't have a calendar in his mom's basement, thinks the US is terrible and Iran is a world leader)

Re:The US will enforce this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537875)

(Idiot mouthbreather...)

My frequent sinus trouble does not lower my IQ. Go fuck yourself.

Re:The US will enforce this (-1, Offtopic)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538087)

go masturbate with your gun because it obviously makes you an important person.

Re:The US will enforce this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537811)

Until the US gets a taste of its own medicine here with a lot of very rich and/or powerful people, I don't see much changing this. Though there might be a lot more grumbling.

Re:The US will enforce this (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537895)

... and here's how. "Oh, you won't comply? Guess you don't want your airline to have landing rights in the US, then."

That only works for airlines that want/need to land on US airports. A small carrier that only does a few routes (none including a US airport, never going near US airspace) could simply ignore such a threat.

Personally I think countries should just tell the US to stuff it. Lose landing rights in the US? Okay, then planes originating from the US lose landing rights in our country. Regardless of who loses more in such a fight, that would quickly end this nonsense.

Control what flies in US airspace? Sure. Exercise such control a bit outside that space, let's say to give intercepting fighter jets time to take off? Understandable. Control who gets on planes that never come close? Get the @*%^^) off!

Re:The US will enforce this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537905)

Yeah, because if there's anything Americans hate, it's not having enough foreigners here.

They dont have to ban all flights (1, Interesting)

voss (52565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537959)

They just say the flight that are not vetted cannot enter us airspace. London to havana doesn't really have to enter US airspace.
Neither does London to Mexico. Its just quicker and more fuel efficient that way. The US wont get that info
from Cubana airlines so its kinda pointless to ask from the other airlines.

Any flight to London to Toronto flies over New York and Boston so yeah anyone on a flight that
flies over the US northeast SHOULD be vetted.

Re:They dont have to ban all flights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538037)

A flight from london to toronto does NOT fly over the US.

Re:They dont have to ban all flights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538091)

Any flight to London to Toronto flies over New York and Boston so yeah anyone on a flight that
flies over the US northeast SHOULD be vetted.

You do recall that ALL of the airliner terrorists on 11 September 2001 were living in the United States of Amerika and boarded their flights within the same country. I would enjoy seeing Prime Minister Harper (Canada) or Prime Minister Cameron (England / Britain), both Conservatives, slap President Obama (United States of America) upside the head for making such a demand. Then ban all flights out of the United States of America destined for or transiting through the airspace of any current and former British colony.

Re:April fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537737)

Nope, North American Union, fools...

Re:April fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537761)

In what sense is U.S. hegemony waning in the western hemisphere?

Re:April fools? (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537775)

Keep in mind that we have air travel and border agreements as well, 3 of the aforementioned (canada the UK and mexico) all have particular agreements with the US, and Cuba well, you can't fly to cuba from the US directly anyway, so canadian flights for example must go around US airspace. But the US could make that a lot less pleasant.

Re:April fools? (4, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537831)

Canada is now working very well with the USA thanks to the "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness" declaration.
http://actionplan.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?mode=preview&pageId=337 [actionplan.gc.ca]

Re:April fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537879)

The UK is a sovereign country, sure, but Canada is more like the 51st state.

Re:April fools? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538081)

I would love to see a US court enforce this.

No courts are required. The airlines have already complied - it happens fast when you threaten to shoot down their planes. Don't you remember this flight [cnn.com] ? That is the whole point of what is happening - the US government now thinks it can side-step that whole pesky "legal system" by killing people with drones, or enforcing arbitrary "regulations" as if they were laws because they are done overseas. Scary, but people refuse to wake up.

Better be a gag... (1, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537729)

This is either an April fool's joke or an act of war against Cuba, Canada, Mexico and the UK.

-jcr

Re:Better be a gag... (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537785)

What's interesting is how plausible this is, and how poor the perception of the US' behaviour towards 'aliens' is. If true, this would make me unwilling to travel to see relatives in Canada, and it seems entirely within the US/TSA mindset to take its distasteful tactics / theatre beyond its borders.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Better be a gag... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537799)

This is either an April fool's joke or an act of war against Cuba, Canada, Mexico and the UK.

-jcr

We're pulling out of Afghanistan, we're losing the war on drugs. The war on cancer is on hold until we pay off the other wars.

This is the USA. We've got to be at war with somebody. My guess is that this is meant to be a backup plan in case we don't go to war with Iran.

Re:Better be a gag... (1)

jonfr (888673) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537801)

It is not a April fools joke.

Re:Better be a gag... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537849)

More insightful analysis courtesy of USian 'libertarians'. And you lot wonder why nobody votes for you and why Ron Paul gets 1/100th the votes that an idiot like Santorum gets.

It's because you're fucking idiots.

Re:Better be a gag... (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537911)

The US is just playing the rather childish "it's my yard and my baseball, I set the rules or you can't play" card.

If the airlines really wanted they could make sure they plan their routes around US airspace. Though I'm sure the US could get more childish still and threaten to revoke landing privileges at US cities, which I doubt the airlines really care to test...

Re:Better be a gag... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538119)

I doubt the international airports in USA would like to go bankrupt too. Where do they get their money? From the airlines who pay to land there.

Huh? (5, Insightful)

fullback (968784) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537731)

I'm a mature, naturally calm person never prone to profane outbursts, but the U.S. needs to fuck off.

Re:Huh? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538167)

If we were prone to fucking off, you'd be speaking German or Russian right now.

Has to be April fools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537735)

Has to be April fools, from what I remember; its a violation of EU privacy laws to share passenger information with any 3rd party not directly involved with flight scheduling.

April Fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537751)

is it?

Already happening (5, Interesting)

RabidMonkey (30447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537773)

This has been going on in Canada for years now. Even if you aren't landing IN the States, so long as you fly OVER you are subject to screening. My father spoke to someone at the airport one day who was not cleared by DBS, but still managed to get on his flight to the Carribean. His plane had mechanical problems and was forced to land in Florida. When he got off the plane he was met by law enforcement, who read him the riot act and took him directly to jail. He waited there overnight, then was put ona plane home.

Living in southern Ontario, it is pretty much impossible not to fly over the states, even for domestic flights. That means we are all screwed by US rules, living in another country. Our freedom is limited by their assinine rules.

Re:Already happening (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537781)

Our freedom is limited by the government who agreed to surrender our sovereignty to the US

Re:Already happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537823)

Your domestic carriers are free to fly around U.S. airspace rather than through it. You, personally, are free to catch a flight from another city. Sorry it's inconvenient, but our airspace, our rules.

Re:Already happening (5, Insightful)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537925)

Fantastic idea Mr Moron.

Now, do you realise how many other countries airspace YOUR carriers fly over? How many of their laws are not
forced upon your carriers? Would you like them enforced?

There are international agreements and standards for these things, DHS just doesnt believe they have to comply
with anyones agreements (including it seems their own countries in many cases..)

And even more to the point, assuming the 'perceived risk' is someone taking control of the aircraft to crash it, how
would this safer if they took control outside US airspace, then flew in? aircraft can change course you know..

Its all just the most disgusting form of empire building and powerplays by DHS, as they have proved again and
again, I hope you are enjoying losing your freedoms slice at a time.

There are so many other actually useful things that could be focused on, but instead we just have endless security
theatre, empire building, and red tape to punish those who do follow the rules. IT seems so far more crime has been
created by DHS (all the stolen luggage, privacy violations, personal violations, etc) than stopped.

Re:Already happening (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537991)

Did you intetionally miss the part about affecting routes that don't actually pass through US airspace?

Re:Already happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538061)

Eh, I didn't care much for our tourism industry anyway, 'specially in a city like San Diego that's perpetually overrun with yuppie tourist douches. Hopefully the shitty weather will keep them away this year.

Speaking of fascist leaders on a power trip, I have been banned permanently from Slashdot. And if you post with a sense of humor, you're next.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Already happening (5, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538139)

The news here is that this now applies to flights that do not go through US airspace. From TFA:

"Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding."

In particular, flights from UK to Halifax don't touch US airspace (check the map).

Re:Already happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538147)

Sucked into the troll, but anyway.
You do realize that the giant penis of Ontario thrusting into the US causes a bit of an issue, if you told US domestic flights they couldn't go over Canada???? It can go both ways.

Re:Already happening (1)

Artemis3 (85734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537827)

In this situation you musn't leave the plane, if it belongs to another country, its offlimits to local authorities.

Re:Already happening (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538129)

Furthermore, aren't the pre-customs areas of an international airport considered an international zone?

Re:Already happening (2)

hobbes vs boyle (974630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537833)

Well, it's one thing to impose restrictions on air traffic over your own air space. But imposing restrictions on traffic that only gets near your airspace, as in a flight from London to Montreal? That's quite a different thing. Thanks Canada for playing along.

Re:Already happening (2)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538131)

This has been going on in Canada for years now. Even if you aren't landing IN the States, so long as you fly OVER you are subject to screening.

Yes, but Canada formally withdrew from the International Air Services Transit Agreement in 1988 so the first Freedom of the Air doesn't apply there. As far as I am aware the USA has not withdrawn from that agreement (yet), so this looks to me to be a breach of their international treaty obligations. I don't know the US legal system well enough to know what recourse a foreign national would have if the DHS refused them something that the USA had promised them by international treaty, though. Would it be a SCOTUS matter?

Flying over US airspace. (1, Insightful)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537779)

Even though the flights may be landing in Canada or Mexico, there's still a good chance they will fly over U.S. airspace. As annoying and paranoid the U.S. policies tend to be, they do have a right to control flights over their airspace.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537805)

UK -> Canada never comes near US airspace.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538085)

UK -> Canada never comes near US airspace.

If you read the article, you'll see this policy doesn't cover all flights to Canada, only to those to cities like Toronto, which could potentially pass over US airspace. Even if the flight plan doesn't take the flight over the US, if the flight is diverted a bit due to weather or traffic, it could be in US airspace.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538143)

(preface: yes, I know this is April Fools).

That's not actually likely. London is further north than those other cities, and the earth is a sphere. You don't draw a straight line on a mercator projection between London and Toronto. To oversimplify a bit, to go from London to Toronto, you go west first, then south. You're not likely to cross into the US on the way to Toronto.

The other listed cities are completely implausible, because they don't stick out into the continental US at all like southern Ontario does. I'd like to see the situation that diverts a plane from Halifax into US airspace. Even if you get one, it's not going to be something a terrorist could predict or arrange.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (-1, Flamebait)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537841)

I used to have to drive by the smoking hole in the ground and the impromptu memorials that friends and relatives of victims set up at the site that was the WTC.

I will never forget it. It was an absolutely stunning sight.

After this the idea of keeping people of questionable background out of reach of American air space makes a lot of sense. What is questionable about this is the accuracy of the no-fly list. Oh well. Nobody is perfect.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538013)

You've not seen much in your life then, and you can't make any sense of what you see everyday either. Next time you see a car crash, don't forget that either. Because car crashes kill just a couple orders of magnitude worth of towers worth of people every year, right here in the good ole U.S.of A. People die every day. Get used to it. That's the way it is. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a blip on the radar in the grander scheme of things. Their effects were economic, and were absolutely staggering. This got nothin' to do with holes in the ground, though. The loss of life was relatively minuscule.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538111)

Never mind your emotional response at something you saw. What are the statistics?

Last I saw flying was still the safest form of transport. And the chance of a building being hit by hijacked plane is tiny. You're in way more danger driving, crossing the road, walking under ladders. etc.

These ever increasing security measures are not worth the inconvenience nor the cost.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538155)

We are not talking about planes flying over US airspace here. We're talking about flights that never cross the US borders, but which are "close enough" that TSA gets all uppity. Check out where Halifax, NS it on Google Maps.

Re:Flying over US airspace. (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538073)

How inconvenient is it going to be if every other country in the world insists on vetting all US carrier passengers flying over THEIR airspace? As a US citizen you might have to have your flight plans checked by several different countries for a single flight. And some of those countries not particularly nice countries at that.

Enjoy your flight!

America is Losing the Plot! (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537783)

It's another example of America shooting itself in the foot. There is already unease in the UK over what is widely seen as an unfair one sided extradition treaty. You can be extradited from the UK for doing something that is legal under UK law but in the USA but it doesn't apply the other way around. There has been a special feeling towards America in the UK but that is slowly changing with what is seen as heavy handedness. When the Brits start turning against the Yanks you know America is in trouble long term.

Re:America is Losing the Plot! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537927)

You can be extradited from the UK for doing something that is legal under UK law but in the USA but it doesn't apply the other way around.

This is false. The US has never refused an extradition request from the UK. The UK has refused US extradition requests seven times.

The British media has people up in arms because the British media is meant for easily-excited idiots.

When the Brits start turning against the Yanks you know America is in trouble long term.

The UK is not turning against anyone, and historically, your statement is factually incorrect.

Re:America is Losing the Plot! (4, Interesting)

nitrowing (887519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537963)

When the Brits start turning against the Yanks you know America is in trouble long term.

Lots of us already have. I've turned down two contracts there and none of my colleagues consider having a holiday there.

Re:America is Losing the Plot! (-1, Flamebait)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538153)

So? Don't come. We'd just make fun of your bad teeth anyways.
The sad fact is the West is at war with the Middle East. A war you, as a Brit, should be responsible for since your fucking country started it. But you dropped it our laps. The US is far from perfect, and I'm glad there's people that fight the bad legislation. The US saying, "if you want to come in our airspace, or be cleared to if you have an emergency, then you need to do X" isn't the OMFGZ the posts here are making it out to be.

The entire West is abusing and raping the Middle East, the Middle East is not doing anything about it except bitching at the West with the rare minority resorting to shoving explosives up their ass, and the US gets all the blame. Very convenient. Why don't you take care of your own countries actions that got us into this mess and keep us there before pointing 4 out of 5 fingers back at yourself.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537791)

Not a joke: Published: Monday 26 March 2012

If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (4, Informative)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537819)

The article starts out with...

New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities. [...] Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding.

Emphasis mine. This statement is what is supposed to re-assure us that it's ridiculous.
( Not to say that it isn't, but keep reading... )

Washington has extended the obligation to air routes that over-fly US airspace, such as Heathrow to Mexico City or Gatwick to Havana.

Emphasis again mine. So here's the twist. If you fly through a particular nation's airspace, are you 'steering clear of' that nation's territory?
Wikipedia (don't worry, dictionaries appear to agree) states...

"Airspace means the portion of the atmosphere controlled by a country above its territory, including its territorial waters or, more generally, any specific three-dimensional portion of the atmosphere."

Emphasis once again mine.

Their airspace, their rules. Some flights not too long ago were probably barred from entering Polish airspace as well and had to skim along its borders for its flight.
( http://twitter.com/#!/flightradar24/statuses/128071958293266432 [twitter.com] )

It's still ridiculous because it makes little sense. Not just because of the notion that you wouldn't actually set afoot in said territory, but because the few cases in which you might (such as an emergency requiring diverting to one of that nation's airports) also apply to many other routes that don't cross that airspace but still come close enough for the pilots to decide to, or be forced to, land there - security clearance issues or no security clearance issues.

The Best Lies are Half-Truths (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537861)

It's still very, very scary: rttnews.com [rttnews.com] .

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537939)

It's still ridiculous because it makes little sense. Not just because of the notion that you wouldn't actually set afoot in said territory, but because the few cases in which you might (such as an emergency requiring diverting to one of that nation's airports) also apply to many other routes that don't cross that airspace but still come close enough for the pilots to decide to, or be forced to, land there - security clearance issues or no security clearance issues.

To push it to a point, would you allow a foreign fighter/bomber jet to invade your airspace? No. Then you've pretty much agreed that each nation control their airspace. During an emergency, well they should be afforded all the privileges of non-combatants under the Geneva convention - which is not that much, but it's basic protections against torture and other inhumane conditions. There's not really any other guarantee you have.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537949)

To push it to a point, would you expect a nation's response to a foreign fighter/bomber to be different to the response to a civilian jet?

Apples and oranges.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538029)

It's not about what one expects, but what's needed under treaties generally signed by most countries. Geneva convention is one such treaty. It affords no special treatment just because you're a civilian. As Kjella said, it's rather rudimentary stuff. They aren't supposed to starve you and such, otherwise it's fair game.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538089)

Fair enough. Like RabidMonkey mentioned above, expect a bed and meals and send you on the first flight home. Not sure about the whole jail part, but the general idea sounds fair enough.

My objection was to the point that a civilian jet invading our airspace would be handled the same way as a fighter or bomber invading our airspace. Unless there is reason to believe that the latter is defecting, I'd be perfectly okay if the decision was to shoot him down. The former should be handled with a bit more diplomatic tact.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (2)

glwtta (532858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537947)

My reading was that they already had similar rules in place for flights crossing US airspace (which, fine, sort of makes sense), but now they want to extend them to all flights going to the specified cities.

The "steer clear" and "over-fly US airspace" in your quotes are in different contexts - they were specifically emphasizing that the new rules are about flights that don't enter the US airspace.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537953)

Apparently you forgot to read on.

Washington has extended the obligation to air routes that over-fly US airspace, such as Heathrow to Mexico City or Gatwick to Havana.

Now the US is demanding passengers' full names, dates of birth and gender from airlines, at least 72 hour before departure from the UK to Canada. The initial requirement is for flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and the Nova Scotia capital, Halifax â" 150 miles from the nearest US territory. A similar stipulation is expected soon for the main airports in western Canada, Vancouver and Calgary.

UK -> Canada certainly doesn't go through the US airspace.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (3, Insightful)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537961)

I'm reasonably certain that the possibility of airspace was a convenient excuse for the real reason: it is damn easy to get into the US from Canada and Mexico.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538141)

Only if you're white!

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538057)

Interestingly enough, the most direct route from JFK to Heathrow, goes over Canadian territory. I think Canada needs the right to screen US passengers.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39537967)

I don't understand your conclusion.

Say you have 80,000 flights a day in your airspace. Of those, say 70,000 are arriving at or departing from your land. The other 10,000 are only traveling through your airspace. That's 10,000 unvetted potential attack vectors. Implement the new policy and now those are all vetted too.

As for emergencies, how many of those are there each day? And of those, how many are from unvetted flights just passing by? I think we can agree it's not very many. It is much easier to have a protocol in place to handle this handful than to handle 10,000 unvetted flights. In addition, any attack from such a flight will always be coming from outside the borders rather than from within the U.S.–not so of unvetted flyovers.

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39537997)

10,000 attack vectors from people flying through your airspace? What, are you afraid they're going to roll down the window and spit on your head from the plane or something?

Re:If not A'Fools, airpace may be the key word (1)

nitrowing (887519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538019)

any attack from such a flight will always be coming from outside the borders rather than from within the U.S.

Well, fuck, you've forgotten recent history real damn quick.

Common Sense Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538045)

This is a common sense issue that those having (here he goes again) plaques on the wall don't (want to) understand. If there is enough fuel on that aircraft to reach those destinations, to the terrorist that means there is enough fuel to fly into a building somewhere in the USA.

underfuckingstand you educated and enlightened?

==//==

Because everybody knows (4, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538079)

The people with the British accents are the bad guys.

Twenty first century schizoïd man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39538095)

Twenty first century schizoïd man...

You people are all insane.

Period.

Re:Twenty first century schizoïd man... (1)

nitrowing (887519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538137)

Fear-mongering is bigger business than war-mongering these days.

Self Contradicting Article (1)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538109)

Self contradicting article. Summary says "even for flights hundreds of miles from American airspace" and then the article says "air routes that over-fly US airspace". So which is it?

Fly from Paris or Madrid? (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39538173)

This only applies to UK-departing flights so far?

Paris would have a few flights to Montreal, Madrid to Mexico City and Havana, no?

Anyway, as far as 'no-fly' lists go, I'd be shocked if UK and USA intelligence services weren't sharing databases already. This theatre just serves to piss off anyone buying tickets within 3 days of travel when existing controls such as immigration, checkin and boarding serve to validate one's passport electronically 3 times before boarding a flight.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>