‘No Fly’ List Traps Innocent

The first time Air Force Master Sgt. Michelle D. Green was delayed at the ticket counter before taking a plane in Fairbanks, Alaska, she took it in stride. An airline agent asked for her military orders and a long list of other information, delaying her for 45 minutes. When it happened again, she found it was no mistake: She had landed on the federal “no-fly” list intended to weed out possible terrorists. Others on the list have described body searches and missed planes.

When she could not find a way to get off the list, Green sued the government. Not for money, she said, but for “a fair and transparent process to remove my name from the ‘no-fly’ list.”

That seems fair. All travelers these days undergo inconvenience in the name of security and safety: from long lines to baggage searches to shuffling shoeless through metal detectors. But being on the “no fly” list puts travel far beyond “inconvenience.”

Given the lists’ troubled history of delay, inaccuracy and frequent mistaken identity, there has to be a swift, fair appeals process.

Green is part of a class-action lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. Others trying to clear their names include ministers, lawyers and social activists.

The response from the Transportation Security Administration so far has been less than satisfactory. First it denied the watch list existed; then it argued that mistakes were fairly rare. Then it said the problem was temporary and would be solved by a new, computerized system. Finally, it stated that travelers could report problems by accessing the TSA website. The website’s “contact us” page is standard fare, with e-mail and toll-free numbers. Based on the options, it’s not entirely clear how a passenger with an identity mix-up should lodge a complaint.

The TSA is contemplating a stepped-up plan called the Enhanced Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System. If put in place as currently envisioned, it would secretly rate fliers and tag some as “red” or “yellow” risks, without saying why.

Tight, even intrusive, airport security is justifiable and often necessary. But the tougher the security, the more it must be balanced by safeguards that can correct errors and prevent the innocent from constant harassment while trying to go about their business.