Offence to book/travel using false name

[serfty]

Teacup meet storm!

IMHO, post #2 has it correct.

Posted on a wing and a prayer ...

 

[pshepvic]

One easy way to enforce ID checks - force the use of passports, even for domestic flights. Passports must be scanned in by a computer which will bring up the passenger's record (which means you can't use the fake passport which only appears to look real but doesn't operate correctly).

I'm sure this will not be a popular idea because it will naturally make the whole process much more coughbersome, and in this instance probably the most draconian process in the world, bar a few countries possibly. For example, someone who uses OLCI or NGCI and has no bags will still need some intervention at the airport before they can proceed to the gate, e.g. they must present themselves at a counter and someone must scan their passport, verify their details and record, then allow them to pass through to departures. It probably will also end the ability for non-travelling passengers to access airside. Also, domestic only flyers will obviously not be happy to carry and/or being forced to obtain a passport.

Whilst passports may be OTT, the same technology used there to prevent forgeries could be used in drivers licenses/18+ cards/national identity cards as an alternative for domestic travel.


Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly app

 

[harvyk]

In a country where it's possible to drive between major cities (excluding anything in tassie) what difference does it make if John Smith the criminal goes from SYD to MEL via a plane or goes via a private car?

Unless John Smiths criminal plans involved hijacking an aircraft, I don't see what difference it should make to an airline?

 

[medhead]

Does that run into legal problems if such a system were to be implemented for domestic-only travel?

You are right that the passport was designated for that purpose; that said, it does also serve as a general purpose (albeit, quite strong) identification item, not necessarily used for the purposes of cross-border travel.

There is a difference between using it coincidentally for ID purposes out of convenience and demanding that it is used for domestic travel.

You could also argue that the use of a drivers license as identification is an incorrect application of something issues to identify what you are licensed to drive....

My same comment applies, coincidental use as ID is very different to mandated use as ID. My licence clearly states on the reverse:

use of this permit/licence for ID purposes, other than for policing road traffic laws, is not intended or authorised, and is solely at the risk of the user.

Sent from the Throne

 

[markis10]

In a country where it's possible to drive between major cities (excluding anything in tassie) what difference does it make if John Smith the criminal goes from SYD to MEL via a plane or goes via a private car?

Unless John Smiths criminal plans involved hijacking an aircraft, I don't see what difference it should make to an airline?

Revenue loss aside it makes little difference to an airline, of course the burden of validating the ID does come at an airlines significant cost. Criminals like air versus road simply because the detection window is much smaller, once in the air they are free so the only real area of concern is airports, on the road the chance of interception is much greater, even if its random, just ask a bikie in Brisbane recently who was the subject of a random traffic stop, it led to millions of cash and drugs being found.

 

[medhead]

I think detection is becoming much less random. They have the ability to track number plates these days using recognition software on fixed cameras and in police cars. I believe this system has been used to make sure that known arsonists see a marked police car everytime they go for a drive on high fire danger days.


Sent from the Throne

 

[harvyk]

Revenue loss aside it makes little difference to an airline, of course the burden of validating the ID does come at an airlines significant cost. Criminals like air versus road simply because the detection window is much smaller, once in the air they are free so the only real area of concern is airports, on the road the chance of interception is much greater, even if its random, just ask a bikie in Brisbane recently who was the subject of a random traffic stop, it led to millions of cash and drugs being found.

Detection window is much smaller, but detection probability is much higher. I have never had a drug dog go through my car, but I've lost count the number of times I've had dogs go over my bags, this includes dom flights, and even once in the BNE QP.

Yes you have RBT's along the way which no doubt a copper will question anything which looks a little unusual, however when was the last time you had to go through an RBT on a long driving trip?

Plus names on lists are not always accurate either, my grandfather has found his way onto such lists in the past which turned out to be someone else with a similar (not even identical) name. So unless we enact a law which states everyone's name must be unique (whilst we're at it, why not change the law to simply assign numbers to people instead of names), a list of names without some other positive unchangeable identifier is next to useless IMHO. As a side note, for the systems I build, I usually try to match up first name, surname and mobile number prior to alerting a user of that system that they could be entering in a duplicate person, but again wouldn't work in this case as it's really easy for a criminal to change their mobile number.

 

[markis10]

Detection window is much smaller, but detection probability is much higher. I have never had a drug dog go through my car, but I've lost count the number of times I've had dogs go over my bags, this includes dom flights, and even once in the BNE QP..

I disagree, if you look at Sydney to Melbourne, maybe the window is 50 minutes with 25 at each terminal, and I have never seen a dog at either terminal in action despite working there for a good part of my life ( I am sure they do visit but normally when they have intelligence indicating a need). By comparison, doing the drive, a suspects vehicle will pass through 4 safe t cam sights on their way to Melbourne in NSW alone, they then enter Victoria which has over 100 vehicles capable of doing automatic intelligence checks in seconds. So if you look at the scenario, the risk of detection using a false name at an airport, versus taking a drive in a car that either has real plates and history or false plates that wont last the journey is significantly different.

If you look at the Australian Crime Commission report, Aviation and Maritime sectors are where such activity is high, not road transport:

The investigations also found that although the aviation sector is a point of organized crime activity, the maritime sector is more important to organized criminal enterprises in terms of importing bulk quantities of illicit goods, particularly drugs.

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/crime-profile-series-fact-sheet/crime-aviation-sector

 

[medhead]

Just to add if the real plate doesn't have history it will still be connected to a name that may/does have history.


Sent from the Throne

 

[harvyk]

I disagree, if you look at Sydney to Melbourne, maybe the window is 50 minutes with 25 at each terminal, and I have never seen a dog at either terminal in action despite working there for a good part of my life ( I am sure they do visit but normally when they have intelligence indicating a need). By comparison, doing the drive, a suspects vehicle will pass through 4 safe t cam sights on their way to Melbourne in NSW alone, they then enter Victoria which has over 100 vehicles capable of doing automatic intelligence checks in seconds. So if you look at the scenario, the risk of detection using a false name at an airport, versus taking a drive in a car that either has real plates and history or false plates that wont last the journey is significantly different.

If you look at the Australian Crime Commission report, Aviation and Maritime sectors are where such activity is high, not road transport:

Crime in the Aviation Sector | Australian Crime Commission.

Just me, but if I was going to go from SYD-MEL, and I was carrying something I shouldn't, I'd probably avoid the Hume where possible and stick to back roads, esp around safe-t-cam sites. It would also make a plausible story if you got stopped, you could state you where on a driving holiday looking at places of interest along the way.

If you planned it right it probably wouldn't add too much time onto the journey either.

 

[markis10]

Just me, but if I was going to go from SYD-MEL, and I was carrying something I shouldn't, I'd probably avoid the Hume where possible and stick to back roads, esp around safe-t-cam sites. It would also make a plausible story if you got stopped, you could state you where on a driving holiday looking at places of interest along the way.

If you planned it right it probably wouldn't add too much time onto the journey either.

Would make sense to avoid them where possible if you have something to hide, still hard to avoid the mobile units, which NSW also have 100 odd units not including police equipment. Its not hard to see why its easier to catch a plane if you have something to hide.

There is an interesting preso on the matter here:
http://www.aic.gov.au/events/aic up...conferences/2010-isoc/presentations/plumb.pdf

One case alone involved regular SYD-MEL-PER shipments of up to 40Kg of drugs via domestic flights.

 

[Mal]

Would make sense to avoid them where possible if you have something to hide, still hard to avoid the mobile units, which NSW also have 100 odd units not including police equipment. Its not hard to see why its easier to catch a plane if you have something to hide.

Organised crime gangs tend to use trucks to transport drugs between states as "additional cargo". None of these checks will flag anything inconsistent.

There is an interesting preso on the matter here:
http://www.aic.gov.au/events/aic up...conferences/2010-isoc/presentations/plumb.pdf

The main (interesting) thing I noted about the presentation is that it was completely full of fluff and inaccuracies. In particular, they noted that certain people used fake identities, yet then suggested checking ID would solve that (yeah right). There is also misinterpretation of how 9-11 actually occurred and many other inaccuracies. A very sad presentation.

 

[markis10]

Organised crime gangs tend to use trucks to transport drugs between states as "additional cargo". None of these checks will flag anything inconsistent. .

Mal, thats not what the various government agencies are reporting, do you have data to support that or is it just a feeling?

As for the preso, it is "interesting" , the peer review session post presentation I suspect would have been more interesting. I dont see how 9/11 was misrepresented, they were domestic passengers and took advantage of flaws in systems, including a lack of analytics behind the CCTV that could have raised alarms, in that contect cameras may as well have been installed like this:

 

[harvyk]

Would make sense to avoid them where possible if you have something to hide, still hard to avoid the mobile units, which NSW also have 100 odd units not including police equipment. Its not hard to see why its easier to catch a plane if you have something to hide.

There is an interesting preso on the matter here:
http://www.aic.gov.au/events/aic%20upcoming%20events/2010/~/media/conferences/2010-isoc/presentations/plumb.pdf

One case alone involved regular SYD-MEL-PER shipments of up to 40Kg of drugs via domestic flights.

I would take a guess that the majority of those 100 odd units are focused around the SYD area, the "country" deployment will most likely be limited to Newcastle, Wollongong and Goulburn with a few only venturing out further on NSW main highways (thinking Hume and Pacific), and only if intelligence says they should.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying that people don't use flights for illegal purposes, and I'm in no way saying that they shouldn't do things which actually prevent crimes been committed, it just we also need to keep perspective on this as well, and the fact is that getting from A to B in this country is not hard, and we don't have many checkpoints, and the ones we do have AFAIK are mainly there for quarantine reasons, and it's unlikely on a longer trip that you would be pulled over without doing something stupid like speed.

Just my opinion, not that I'm planning to actually try moving anything illegal around the place.

 

[markis10]

I would take a guess that the majority of those 100 odd units are focused around the SYD area, the "country" deployment will most likely be limited to Newcastle, Wollongong and Goulburn with a few only venturing out further on NSW main highways (thinking Hume and Pacific), and only if intelligence says they should.

Who knows where they are deployed, not point putting them on Safe T Cam routes for instance, regardless I still think the risk of road versus speed of a plane means such couriers use regular plane flights in preference to road if logic is applied. In some cases road will make sense for bulky goods such as Canabis, but generally where ships cannot do the job, its likely aviation will. No whether ID checking will solve that is a debate we are all having, personally I suspect its a bit like mowing the grass, it grows back sometimes in different ways, and Joe public is left with the cost for no real long term benefit.

 

[Mal]

Mal, thats not what the various government agencies are reporting, do you have data to support that or is it just a feeling?

Yes, I do - but I can't find links. The best I can come up with is : Trio guilty of $3.8m drug deals - The West Australian however, it has been well known that trucks are used for drug movement. Because I can't find an appropriate link, it would be inappropriate to discuss the methods used as I don't know the status of reporting on it (I have personal knowledge of this for reasons I won't mention)

As for the preso, it is "interesting" , the peer review session post presentation I suspect would have been more interesting. I dont see how 9/11 was misrepresented, they were domestic passengers and took advantage of flaws in systems, including a lack of analytics behind the CCTV that could have raised alarms, in that contect cameras may as well have been installed like this:

afaik The 9-11 attackers did not fake ID or use alternative names for their tickets, which means that checking ID for them would have been useless. Due to other reasons, they also weren't really on watch lists - so a watch list based system also would have failed.

 

[awilcockson]

Surely the greatest crime in flying under a false name is missing out on the FF points?

Unless of course you are getting other people to fly under your name so you can accrue the points without having to fly*

*Note: I have never done this.

 

[harvyk]

No whether ID checking will solve that is a debate we are all having, personally I suspect its a bit like mowing the grass, it grows back sometimes in different ways, and Joe public is left with the cost for no real long term benefit.

Agreed, but it would be nice if the effort was targeted rather than "lets throw a wide net and see what we can catch".

 

[markis10]

afaik The 9-11 attackers did not fake ID or use alternative names for their tickets, which means that checking ID for them would have been useless. Due to other reasons, they also weren't really on watch lists - so a watch list based system also would have failed.

There was only one terrorism watchlist at the time of relevance - TIPOFF and it failed, Hazmi and Mihdhar were nominated by the CIA for inclusion in TIPOFF but it was not linked to the FAA no fly list in any way. Its arguable that had the two been linked, an ID check would have worked, albeit a somewhat hypothetical argument.

 

[harvyk]

afaik The 9-11 attackers did not fake ID or use alternative names for their tickets, which means that checking ID for them would have been useless. Due to other reasons, they also weren't really on watch lists - so a watch list based system also would have failed.

I believe that the 9-11 attackers where on watch lists, and that they where known to authorities, and it was known that they where on those flights before hand. The problem was that they didn't take anything banned with them. At the time it was believed that a hijacking would simply result in holding people on the plane and release them once demands where met, any sort of attack against the plane itself was believed it would be done by bombing and only once the bomber was off the plane (eg check in luggage but fail to board, thus I do believe that the hijackers bags where the last to be loaded just in case they themselves did not board). I wouldn't say the US got caught with it's pants down, but sadly the terrorist's found a loophole and exploited it.

Now there may be some usable loophole which an ID check will cover off, but at a quick glance I don't see what that could be.