Shortly after last week's issue went to print, I became aware that the Ninth Circuit had recently ruled against the government in John Gilmore's case. This means that the government will have to reveal the law or directive, if any, which requires airline passengers to present I.D. in order to fly.

The government's assault on our liberties has not ended, however. Recently, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced that it will be requiring airlines to turn over passenger data from the month of June. This data, which may include credit card information, would be used in a program called "Secure Flight," which would check the airline's data against terrorist watch lists.

The program is reminiscent of the CAPPS II program, which would also have required airlines to give the government records of their passengers. That program was halted after several lawsuits were launched against the government by privacy advocacy groups.

Even if you believe it is acceptable for the government to be monitoring airline passengers, there are other aspects of the program that go beyond that. The TSA plans to compare the data against several databases to look for fraud and identity theft.

This is something that no one should accept. The government should not have the authority to demand private data from a private company, ostensibly for the purpose of "fighting terrorism," and then use that data for other, unrelated endeavors.

The Secure Flight program goes above and beyond existing watch lists. Instead of comparing a passenger manifest against a "no-fly" list, Secure Flight would also look for other "suspicous" factors. These include the method of payment, choice of meal, and in some cases, the passenger's nationality.

Recently, Sen. Ted Kennedy was prevented from flying, since a "T Kennedy" allegedly appeared on a watch list. It took Kennedy three weeks of phone calls with officials in the Department of Homeland Security to get his name removed. Most citizens do not have those connections, and would have little recourse for clearing their name.

With an "active" system like Secure Flight, as opposed to a passive one such as checks against a list, the potential for false positives increases. If the government creates a "profile" of a likely terrorist, such as an 18–35 year-old man of Arab descent, then thousands of people matching that profile will be stopped and searched simply for the "crime" of "being Arab." Meanwhile, all a terrorist group would have to do is use operatives who do not match the profile, since much of the security attention will be focused on those who do.

Our government is seeking new powers at the expense of existing liberties, all in the name of "making America safer" or "preventing another 9/11." Yet many of these proposals would do nothing for our safety, and had they been in place before the 9/11 attacks, would have done nothing to stop them. Do not let the government step on the liberties our nation has enjoyed for so many years.