Hacker News Reader

Comment by adekok | Hacker News Reader

I first heard this 13 years ago. A friend visited an airline, and had a set of cables pointed out to him: "That's the feed to the NSA".

I thought it was well known that the NSA had feeds into the airline reservation system. We know for sure that the CBP gets data from all flights which overfly the US, or which might overfly the US.

There are well known stories about planes making unscheduled landings in the US (emergency, storm, delays, etc). Cue CBP opening the front doors, walking down the aisle, and pulling one guy off the plane.

"Sorry sir, you are forbidden to enter the US, and you have just done so illegally. You're under arrest".

Except for most people, we haven't cleared customs, and haven't tried to enter the States. So the rest of the passengers are "OK". Mostly.

This is known as having your cake and eating it, too.

View on HN

Everything in your post rings false.

> 13 years ago. A friend visited an airline, and had a set of cables pointed out to him: "That's the feed to the NSA".

13 years ago, that is 2004 noone would openly talk about the NSA, Room 641A was only exposed in 2006. I would also venture that in 2004 noone had or needed a direct feed to the NSA, the Internet would already do. In case you do not remember, how 2004 was, by 2000 you have Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, Hotwire, Tripadvisor all launched. Edit: as comments below and the article itself points it out, the NSA would get your data from the GDS if it's there, what I mean here is that OP claims a dedicated line running to the NSA when it could have just used the Internet instead of a dedicated line to connect to your system. By 2004, the Internet was plenty established for that. That's all I meant.

> There are well known stories about planes making unscheduled landings in the US

This is, in fact, extremely rare. A flight which does not start or end in the USA rarely has the need to fly over it. Europe/Asia - Central America would and not much else -- and there are very few such direct flights, mostly only to Mexico City. Even a London-Bogota flight wouldn't.

> CBP opening the front doors, walking down the aisle, and pulling one guy off the plane.

While the previous event is merely rare this would be extraordinary and all over the news, even if not mainstream news. All the news I can remember about law enforcement boarding an emergency landed plane is about unruly passengers, not this Bond shit. So... source?

> I would also venture that in 2004 noone had or needed a direct feed to the NSA, the Internet would already do. In case you do not remember, how 2004 was, by 2000 you have Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, Hotwire, Tripadvisor all launched.

That doesn't cover airline bookings that happened via travel agent or directly into the booking system. Many airline reservation systems pre-date the internet (SABRE, for example, came online in 1964), and much of the architecture driving the airline industry is archaic (which is one reason why a system outage can have such a massive impact on flights).

I'm not the OP but it doesn't strike me as absurd to imagine that if the security apparatus doesn't like you, they'll happily take whatever flimsy pretext presents itself to ruin your day.

E.g. if they can get you for some silly "illegal landing" violation they will, if not they'll try to trump up some other charges.

The post sounds a little off to me too but why do you think no one would openly talk about the NSA before 2006? Nerds have been telling each other ghost stories about ECHELON since the 90s at least and Bramford's books and many other disclosers are even earlier.

> A flight which does not start or end in the USA rarely has the need to fly over it. Europe/Asia - Central America would and not much else -- and there are very few such direct flights, mostly only to Mexico City.

How about Canada to Central/South America? There are nonstop flights from Toronto/Vancouver to several cities. There are also flights from Canada to southern Europe that pass through the US. Even flights within Canada (Toronto to Vancouver) pass over the US. And routes from Canada to Asia fly over Alaska.

> 13 years ago, that is 2004 noone would openly talk about the NSA

Nonsense. The movie Enemy of the State came out in 1998 and the NSA was involved in the production, though the agency was portrayed negatively, to its chagrin.

"The Puzzle Palace" was published in 1982.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace

> There are well known stories about planes making unscheduled landings in the US (emergency, storm, delays, etc).

Do you have a link to one such story?

I can't recall specifics, but look at this:

http://wikitravel.org/en/Avoiding_a_transit_of_the_United_St...

The US doesn't allow "sterile transit". You MUST clear customs if you land in the States. And it requires a visa for most people. FTA:

The US also has a "no fly list"; if your name is on that, you cannot board a flight that will pass through US airspace, even if the flight does not land in the US (eg. flights from Mexico to Canada).

i.e. there is every reason to believe that someone on a "no fly list" who accidentally lands in the States will be arrested. Similarly, anyone without a visa is breaking the law, and can be arrested.

> The US doesn't allow "sterile transit."

Sure, but that's entirely unrelated to the original comment. It also applies to everyone.

Your original comment suggested that a single passenger can be singled out for arrest due to a forced non-routine stop. If it's a "well known" phenomenon it shouldn't be hard to find a single source.

I'm not trying to be combative, but in general I think claims of sneaky and absurd behavior should be backed by evidence.

> I think claims of sneaky and absurd behavior

Such as following the law?

a) there is no "sterile transit" in the US

b) there is a "no fly list"

What do you think happens to someone who's on the "no fly list" and lands in the US? They get milk and cookies?

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority

s to identify and interdict persons who have already committed or may potentially commit a terrorist act in the future.

Or this:

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-the-passengers-crew-on...

So... you're saying they have the legal right to arrest people, and people will land in the States when they are banned from entry, but that it (a) has never happened, or (b) never will happen?

Come on... there's being skeptical, and there's being so closed minded that reality can't get in,

Your original comment made it seem like individual passengers would be targeted.

It's growing increasingly clear that you're not engaging in good faith. Instead of providing any evidence of this actually happening, you continue to insist on snark and vague accusations.

> a) there is no "sterile transit" in the US

There isn't, but that is completely immaterial: an international flight is extremely unlikely to include only a single non-American. In such a situation, it's absurd to claim that CBP would board and arrest a single non-American.

Your Quora link doesn't support your point. It makes it clear that there are sane procedures in place (ideally, passengers never deplane) and that CBP doesn't board planes and arrest people for accidentally entering the US.

Until you can provide a single example of this actually happening (someone being arrested for illegally entering the US after an emergency landing), I'm going to stop engaging with your FUD.

> an international flight is extremely unlikely to include only a single non-American. In such a situation, it's absurd to claim that CBP would board and arrest a single non-American.

<sigh> I was wondering if you could read my messages as written.

It is not absurd to suggest that someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US would be arrested in such a situation.

> Your Quora link doesn't support your point. It makes it clear that there are sane procedures in place (ideally, passengers never deplane) and that CBP doesn't board planes and arrest people for accidentally entering the US.

It shows that people involuntarily entering the States are processed by the CBP.

To repeat my last question, which you side-stepped:

you're saying they have the legal right to arrest people, and people will land in the States when they are banned from entry, but that it (a) has never happened, or (b) never will happen?

Only someone with an entirely closed mind would deny that it would never happen.

The fact that I can't find which article I read (years ago) is almost irrelevant. The laws permit them to do this, and no reasonable person would deny that the CBP would always sit idly by while someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US was in front of them.

> I'm going to stop engaging with your FUD.

Yeah, showing that the CBP (a) has the power to do something, and (b) has used that power... is FUD.

What, exactly, is wrong with you?

The burden of proof is on you.

If something is common and frequent, it really shouldn't be this hard to find evidence.

> Yeah, showing that the CBP (a) has the power to do something, and (b) has used that power... is FUD.

All you've shown is that the CBP has the power. You've yet to provide any evidence of someone being arrested solely for involuntarily entering the US.

Laws are rarely fully or evenly applied. Even if the law says something must be done it might still not be done. For example there are many thousands of people every year who are not allowed to be in the US but who self-identify as working in the US by paying income tax.

By your logic they would be deported. Mostly, they are not.

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm not saying that in every single case the CPB would deport someone. I'm saying that it's happened.

Can you not do simple logic?

That's scary considering the vast "overflight" area claimed by the US: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Overflight_Fee_...

Is there anything Canada could do, if the US started targeting overflights aggressively, forbidding travel by dual citizens from certain countries, etc.

Cuban charter flights to Canada used to dog-leg around the eastern region, nearly doubling their duration.

You can also see why the Polar 'over the top' routes became so popular when the USSR dissolved.

This isn't space unilaterally claimed by the US. It is delegated by the ICAO, as one of the articles using that image mentions [1]. If the US has the infrastructure to control that airspace, and typically charges less than nearby countries such as Canada, then I see no objection to US control.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air#First_free...

>then I see no objection to US control.

The fact that it seems to give the US free rein to kidnap any passengers entering that area doesn't strike you as problematic?

You are confusing airspace under US air traffic control and US airspace. Those areas are still international waters.

I am assuming that air traffic control can influence the paths those planes take.

They can of course influence paths, but they're not going to be able to tell some random plane in the Western Pacific to fly to the US, and I'm not even sure they'd have the legal power to order you to land somewhere in particular until you're actually flying over US territory.

They may not, but their friends might... https://www.washingtonpost.com/c281c2f4-e3eb-11e2-a11e-c2ea8...

re-read the OP comment about "kidnapping", the "well-known cases" OP referred to weren't as "well-known" as he originally thought, because he couldn't find even one instance of it happening.

How do they kidnap people from a plane crossing from south America to Europe via the Atlantic? Board the plane in-flight?

Wow. I wonder if it was opportunistic or planned. Either way, brilliant job of manufacturing consent. I'm both horrified and impressed.

That's not consent, manufactured or otherwise.

I've seen people get upset about overreach when the US asked to have a plane diverted / tried to strongarm extraditions / etc. I'd bet a large sum that this story was reported as "...detained while attempting to enter US..." and that nobody batted an eye upon reading it. That is the manufactured consent I was referring to.

So much of the conspiracy theory hearsay turned out to be true in the past 20 years, it really makes you think. Or not so much. Whatever.

In season 1 of the X-Files the 'Lone Gunmen,' a group of conspiracy theorists, was added to the show to make Mulder appear more credible and down-to-earth. One of their 'crazy, batshit insane,' conspiracy theories was that the government was recording all of our phone calls.

think of all of the circumstances we've become used to now that were the territory of conspiracy theorists 25 years ago.

> One of their 'crazy, batshit insane,' conspiracy theories was that the government was recording all of our phone calls.

> think of all of the circumstances we've become used to now that were the territory of conspiracy theorists 25 years ago.

There may be many such circumstances, but certainly not the one you mention: the government doesn't record all of our phone calls.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/teleph...

These days, your booking record (PNR) is pushed to the relevant agencies every time it's updated. It's how the watchlists are cross-checked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com