<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: US government orders UK carriers to extend no-fly list Brits travelling to non-US destinations, even on flights that don&#039;t pass through US&#160;airspace</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html</link>
	<description>Brain candy for Happy Mutants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:40:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Ballantyne</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1388849</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Ballantyne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1388849</guid>
		<description>&quot;I think ...&quot; is almost completely redundant in written argument, and  useful only as an alternative to &quot;umm...&quot; or &quot;errr...&quot; in spoken discussion. The same goes for &quot;In my opinion...&quot;. &quot;I find that...&quot; has limited justification for its existence – at least it announces that what the speaker is about to report is based only on his or her own experience – but most of these phrases are just filler. Don&#039;t let me get started on &quot;Of course ...&quot; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I think &#8230;&#8221; is almost completely redundant in written argument, and  useful only as an alternative to &#8220;umm&#8230;&#8221; or &#8220;errr&#8230;&#8221; in spoken discussion. The same goes for &#8220;In my opinion&#8230;&#8221;. &#8220;I find that&#8230;&#8221; has limited justification for its existence – at least it announces that what the speaker is about to report is based only on his or her own experience – but most of these phrases are just filler. Don&#8217;t let me get started on &#8220;Of course &#8230;&#8221; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brainspore</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1385069</link>
		<dc:creator>Brainspore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1385069</guid>
		<description>At a certain point it&#039;s not just a matter of U.S. overreach, it&#039;s a matter of how far the U.K. will bend over backwards to go along with such insane demands. Sooner or later someone has to say &quot;no.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At a certain point it&#8217;s not just a matter of U.S. overreach, it&#8217;s a matter of how far the U.K. will bend over backwards to go along with such insane demands. Sooner or later someone has to say &#8220;no.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Maple</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384937</link>
		<dc:creator>John Maple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384937</guid>
		<description>I think you have discovered a new SF title:&quot;Being Dangerous&quot; – the latest work of fiction from the desk of xxx about Rham Teimes a small time dealer of home-brew X-box games that stumbles into an ominous communications network whose clients include governments, terrorists and financial powers who would stop at nothing to keep their secrets secret. . . </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you have discovered a new SF title:&#8221;Being Dangerous&#8221; – the latest work of fiction from the desk of xxx about Rham Teimes a small time dealer of home-brew X-box games that stumbles into an ominous communications network whose clients include governments, terrorists and financial powers who would stop at nothing to keep their secrets secret. . . </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Maple</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384933</link>
		<dc:creator>John Maple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384933</guid>
		<description>Geez, I thought that was a technical German term at first . . . </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geez, I thought that was a technical German term at first . . . </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Maple</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384931</link>
		<dc:creator>John Maple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384931</guid>
		<description>. . . and how!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>. . . and how!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spejic</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384917</link>
		<dc:creator>spejic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 03:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384917</guid>
		<description>I will now prove that terrorists are stupid. If they were smart, they would just get one known questionable individual to legally change his name to &quot;James Smith&quot; and get hundreds of thousand of Americans put on the no-fly list. Repeat with other common white American names and throw the no-fly list into chaos.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will now prove that terrorists are stupid. If they were smart, they would just get one known questionable individual to legally change his name to &#8220;James Smith&#8221; and get hundreds of thousand of Americans put on the no-fly list. Repeat with other common white American names and throw the no-fly list into chaos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DavidN6</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384842</link>
		<dc:creator>DavidN6</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384842</guid>
		<description>Well if you&#039;re going to stop people saying &#039;I think&#039; without appending a list of references you&#039;ll make conversation difficult.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well if you&#8217;re going to stop people saying &#8216;I think&#8217; without appending a list of references you&#8217;ll make conversation difficult.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Strong</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384799</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger Strong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384799</guid>
		<description>As always, turnabout is fair play.  If Canada is expected enforce the &quot;People Certified Harmless But Whose Opinions We Don&#039;t Like List&quot;, then obviously Canada can add a few people to the list also, or keep a list of its own.
 
Most flights from the US mainland to Alaska - especially those from Washington - pass over Canadian territory.  The same goes for flights to/from Europe; many take the polar route, and flights to the UK from the north-eastern US tend to fly over Nova Scotia and its waters.
 
If an Alaskan governor can&#039;t get home from Washington or a Congressman has problems getting home from Britain, Canada can simply point out that it&#039;s going by US rules.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As always, turnabout is fair play.  If Canada is expected enforce the &#8220;People Certified Harmless But Whose Opinions We Don&#8217;t Like List&#8221;, then obviously Canada can add a few people to the list also, or keep a list of its own.</p>
<p>Most flights from the US mainland to Alaska &#8211; especially those from Washington &#8211; pass over Canadian territory.  The same goes for flights to/from Europe; many take the polar route, and flights to the UK from the north-eastern US tend to fly over Nova Scotia and its waters.</p>
<p>If an Alaskan governor can&#8217;t get home from Washington or a Congressman has problems getting home from Britain, Canada can simply point out that it&#8217;s going by US rules.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judas Peckerwood</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384794</link>
		<dc:creator>Judas Peckerwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384794</guid>
		<description>Paranoid cowards with guns.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paranoid cowards with guns.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: teknocholer</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384757</link>
		<dc:creator>teknocholer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384757</guid>
		<description>As this post from a few years ago points out, people who are considered serious threats aren&#039;t even listed on the no-fly list for fear of tipping them off. 

http://boingboing.net/2006/10/18/nofly-lists-even-dum.html

So the no-fly list would be better named the &quot;People Certified Harmless But Whose Opinions We Don&#039;t Like List&quot;. 

Oh well, as long as the terrorists don&#039;t catch on to the &quot;give a false name&quot; trick, everything will be

I&#039;ve said too much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As this post from a few years ago points out, people who are considered serious threats aren&#8217;t even listed on the no-fly list for fear of tipping them off. </p>
<p><a href="http://boingboing.net/2006/10/18/nofly-lists-even-dum.html" rel="nofollow">http://boingboing.net/2006/10/18/nofly-lists-even-dum.html</a></p>
<p>So the no-fly list would be better named the &#8220;People Certified Harmless But Whose Opinions We Don&#8217;t Like List&#8221;. </p>
<p>Oh well, as long as the terrorists don&#8217;t catch on to the &#8220;give a false name&#8221; trick, everything will be</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve said too much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shinkuhadoken</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384754</link>
		<dc:creator>Shinkuhadoken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384754</guid>
		<description>Actually, Canada has had flights to Cuba for ages now (we don&#039;t share the same continued zeal against Castro I suppose). I had Christian friends who took their honeymoon there many years ago and smuggled as many Bibles into the country as they could for the people there (don&#039;t agree with their religion, but that took guts). And, yes, any flight going over U.S. airspace has to comply with the No Fly list, that just makes sense (if the No Fly list made more sense in the first place).

The thing about crossing into the country on land is, once you&#039;re in your country you have rights. As long as you&#039;re a U.S. citizen, especially one who isn&#039;t charged with a crime, they can&#039;t just turn you away on your own soil. That&#039;s why the &quot;keep away&quot; plan seems to be ideal for the dealing with the problem. And, if you didn&#039;t have the citizenship option, the borders are well-known to be particularly porous if you&#039;re determined enough. I suppose that&#039;s an extension to the logic, as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, Canada has had flights to Cuba for ages now (we don&#8217;t share the same continued zeal against Castro I suppose). I had Christian friends who took their honeymoon there many years ago and smuggled as many Bibles into the country as they could for the people there (don&#8217;t agree with their religion, but that took guts). And, yes, any flight going over U.S. airspace has to comply with the No Fly list, that just makes sense (if the No Fly list made more sense in the first place).</p>
<p>The thing about crossing into the country on land is, once you&#8217;re in your country you have rights. As long as you&#8217;re a U.S. citizen, especially one who isn&#8217;t charged with a crime, they can&#8217;t just turn you away on your own soil. That&#8217;s why the &#8220;keep away&#8221; plan seems to be ideal for the dealing with the problem. And, if you didn&#8217;t have the citizenship option, the borders are well-known to be particularly porous if you&#8217;re determined enough. I suppose that&#8217;s an extension to the logic, as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wayne Dyer</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384729</link>
		<dc:creator>Wayne Dyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384729</guid>
		<description>Date on the story is 
MONDAY 26 MARCH 2012

Earlier story:  http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/news/us-rules-could-stop-britons-from-flying-to-caribbean-7585276.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Date on the story is <br />
MONDAY 26 MARCH 2012</p>
<p>Earlier story:  http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/news/us-rules-could-stop-britons-from-flying-to-caribbean-7585276.html</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: penguinchris</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384722</link>
		<dc:creator>penguinchris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384722</guid>
		<description>You do still have to go through customs if you drive across the border. 

I was detained once coming back from Canada because I &lt;i&gt;looked like&lt;/i&gt; someone that was on one of their lists, even though my passport came up in the computer (right in the customs booth, not in secondary screening) as valid and AFAIK my name isn&#039;t on the DNF list (I&#039;m pretty sure it&#039;s on other lists now but I don&#039;t think it was at the time, it was a few years ago).

I guarantee that at the land borders they&#039;re hooked into the Do Not Fly list and that your name appearing on it will immediately flag you for secondary screening, and if they look through your passport and see that you avoided flying directly into the US, you&#039;re fucked. Even if to a rational person nothing you&#039;ve done is suspicious, and even though people who live near the border fly in and out of Canadian cities all the time to get cheaper international flights.

p.s. I was in Toronto last week and drove by a huge billboard advertising tourism in Cuba. If this is all true, presumably Canadian airlines are already sharing passenger information with DHS like is laid out here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You do still have to go through customs if you drive across the border. </p>
<p>I was detained once coming back from Canada because I <i>looked like</i> someone that was on one of their lists, even though my passport came up in the computer (right in the customs booth, not in secondary screening) as valid and AFAIK my name isn&#8217;t on the DNF list (I&#8217;m pretty sure it&#8217;s on other lists now but I don&#8217;t think it was at the time, it was a few years ago).</p>
<p>I guarantee that at the land borders they&#8217;re hooked into the Do Not Fly list and that your name appearing on it will immediately flag you for secondary screening, and if they look through your passport and see that you avoided flying directly into the US, you&#8217;re fucked. Even if to a rational person nothing you&#8217;ve done is suspicious, and even though people who live near the border fly in and out of Canadian cities all the time to get cheaper international flights.</p>
<p>p.s. I was in Toronto last week and drove by a huge billboard advertising tourism in Cuba. If this is all true, presumably Canadian airlines are already sharing passenger information with DHS like is laid out here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Fot</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384712</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Fot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384712</guid>
		<description>Well, I certainly hope that they aren&#039;t aware of the names on my Canadian passports. It&#039;s bad enough that I have to drive up to Hamilton or Toronto to fly to Europe and Canadian papers to fly. 

Came someone please ring up NATO and tell them that we&#039;re ready for our regime change?

Will this end as time travel to 1984 or THX-1138? Do they want to place a 24-hour surveillance on each of us? To what end? 

As Heinlein said, &quot;This can&#039;t go on...&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I certainly hope that they aren&#8217;t aware of the names on my Canadian passports. It&#8217;s bad enough that I have to drive up to Hamilton or Toronto to fly to Europe and Canadian papers to fly. </p>
<p>Came someone please ring up NATO and tell them that we&#8217;re ready for our regime change?</p>
<p>Will this end as time travel to 1984 or THX-1138? Do they want to place a 24-hour surveillance on each of us? To what end? </p>
<p>As Heinlein said, &#8220;This can&#8217;t go on&#8230;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: digi_owl</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384698</link>
		<dc:creator>digi_owl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384698</guid>
		<description>Given that they already demand that anyone Flying into USA get the same security checkups as a US flight, resulting in the checks more or less spreading globally to make connecting flights easier, i see no joke in this... </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that they already demand that anyone Flying into USA get the same security checkups as a US flight, resulting in the checks more or less spreading globally to make connecting flights easier, i see no joke in this&#8230; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MoreMoschops</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384694</link>
		<dc:creator>MoreMoschops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384694</guid>
		<description>Yes, under the old system such a hypothetical person as you describe would simply be met at the airport in arrival on US soil. That was clearly a rubbish option. Now, the US gets to play some kind of chase game, trying to second guess how they will come home. Could be by plane? Could be by boat? Maybe they&#039;ll sneak across from Mexico! It&#039;s so much more fun AND much more effective than simply meeting them at the airport. Actual malefactors will be alerted that Uncle Sam is on to them, so they can have a decent chance to go on the run, AND innocent people will be hugely inconvenienced. Everything points to your suggestion being exactly correct.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, under the old system such a hypothetical person as you describe would simply be met at the airport in arrival on US soil. That was clearly a rubbish option. Now, the US gets to play some kind of chase game, trying to second guess how they will come home. Could be by plane? Could be by boat? Maybe they&#8217;ll sneak across from Mexico! It&#8217;s so much more fun AND much more effective than simply meeting them at the airport. Actual malefactors will be alerted that Uncle Sam is on to them, so they can have a decent chance to go on the run, AND innocent people will be hugely inconvenienced. Everything points to your suggestion being exactly correct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bingobangoboy</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384675</link>
		<dc:creator>bingobangoboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384675</guid>
		<description>Not surprising in the least; in fact I suspect the UK will be complying whether or not they formally agree to.
Did you catch some of these cases, among others, in the past year or two?

British citizen barred from Toronto-UK flight, stranded because of &quot;US&quot; no-fly list:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8222470-british-citizen-stranded-in-toronto-by-being-on-us-no-fly-list-finally-goes-home

Aeromexico Mexico-Paris flight diverted to Montreal, passenger yanked off &amp; detained due to &quot;US&quot; no-fly list:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/30/montreal-plane.html

British authorities detain man who travels to the UK *by boat* because he&#039;s on the &quot;US&quot; no-fly list:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/oregon-muslim-on-us-no-fly-list-held-after-sailing-to-britain/1?csp=34news

&quot;US&quot; no-fly list orders mid-flight diversion of Air France Paris-Mexico flight:
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/no-fly-list-journalist-forces-flight-diversion-20090427-ajt9.html



Blatantly evil is the new mundane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not surprising in the least; in fact I suspect the UK will be complying whether or not they formally agree to.<br />
Did you catch some of these cases, among others, in the past year or two?</p>
<p>British citizen barred from Toronto-UK flight, stranded because of &#8220;US&#8221; no-fly list:<br />
<a href="http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8222470-british-citizen-stranded-in-toronto-by-being-on-us-no-fly-list-finally-goes-home" rel="nofollow">http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8222470-british-citizen-stranded-in-toronto-by-being-on-us-no-fly-list-finally-goes-home</a></p>
<p>Aeromexico Mexico-Paris flight diverted to Montreal, passenger yanked off &amp; detained due to &#8220;US&#8221; no-fly list:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/30/montreal-plane.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/30/montreal-plane.html</a></p>
<p>British authorities detain man who travels to the UK *by boat* because he&#8217;s on the &#8220;US&#8221; no-fly list:</p>
<p><a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/oregon-muslim-on-us-no-fly-list-held-after-sailing-to-britain/1?csp=34news" rel="nofollow">http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/oregon-muslim-on-us-no-fly-list-held-after-sailing-to-britain/1?csp=34news</a></p>
<p>&#8220;US&#8221; no-fly list orders mid-flight diversion of Air France Paris-Mexico flight:<br />
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/no-fly-list-journalist-forces-flight-diversion-20090427-ajt9.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/no-fly-list-journalist-forces-flight-diversion-20090427-ajt9.html</a></p>
<p>Blatantly evil is the new mundane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kimmo</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384674</link>
		<dc:creator>Kimmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384674</guid>
		<description>I have a feeling you may be onto a winner there...

As cowardly as they&#039;ve become, many Americans still seem to be plenty belligerent.

&quot;No-one... calls me... &lt;i&gt;chicken!&lt;/i&gt;&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a feeling you may be onto a winner there&#8230;</p>
<p>As cowardly as they&#8217;ve become, many Americans still seem to be plenty belligerent.</p>
<p>&#8220;No-one&#8230; calls me&#8230; <i>chicken!</i>&#8216;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EvilTerran</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384671</link>
		<dc:creator>EvilTerran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384671</guid>
		<description>This is completely and utterly irrelevant to &quot;flying out to Pakistan or somewhere&quot;, as it&#039;d only cover flights to &quot;the Caribbean, Mexico and Canada&quot;.

&quot;I think the no-fly list is among the most actively contributing post-911 controls towards the fact that we haven&#039;t sustained a single successful hijacking or airport/airplane terror incident since 9/11...&quot;

Er, yes. &quot;I think&quot; being the operative phrase there. David Icke *thinks* the British royal family are aliens. Rush Limbaugh *thinks* women who use the pill are whores. Plenty of people *think* plenty of boneheaded, patently false things. Do you have *any* data to back up your claim, or is it nothing more than conjecture?

And what of &quot;those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety&quot; an&#039; all that?

(Edit PS: &quot;the alternative&quot;? False dichotomy lol!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is completely and utterly irrelevant to &#8220;flying out to Pakistan or somewhere&#8221;, as it&#8217;d only cover flights to &#8220;the Caribbean, Mexico and Canada&#8221;.</p>
<p>&#8220;I think the no-fly list is among the most actively contributing post-911 controls towards the fact that we haven&#8217;t sustained a single successful hijacking or airport/airplane terror incident since 9/11&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Er, yes. &#8220;I think&#8221; being the operative phrase there. David Icke *thinks* the British royal family are aliens. Rush Limbaugh *thinks* women who use the pill are whores. Plenty of people *think* plenty of boneheaded, patently false things. Do you have *any* data to back up your claim, or is it nothing more than conjecture?</p>
<p>And what of &#8220;those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety&#8221; an&#8217; all that?</p>
<p>(Edit PS: &#8220;the alternative&#8221;? False dichotomy lol!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexG55</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384660</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexG55</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384660</guid>
		<description>Another way to get to Canada might be to fly directly from Heathrow to St. John&#039;s- but then you&#039;re stuck in Newfoundland...

Calgary and Vancouver also aren&#039;t on the list yet but might be soon.

Oh, and you can fly Frankfurt-Whitehorse apparently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another way to get to Canada might be to fly directly from Heathrow to St. John&#8217;s- but then you&#8217;re stuck in Newfoundland&#8230;</p>
<p>Calgary and Vancouver also aren&#8217;t on the list yet but might be soon.</p>
<p>Oh, and you can fly Frankfurt-Whitehorse apparently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexG55</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384657</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexG55</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384657</guid>
		<description>Oops- I thought Cubana didn&#039;t overfly the US, but apparently they do (didn&#039;t used to, which involved a fairly roundabout route to Montreal). Still works for getting to Mexico or the Caribbean, though, and I don&#039;t know if Cubana share passenger details.

For UK to Canada I suggest Icelandair LHR-KEF-YHZ or LHR-KEF-YYZ, but unfortunately the last leg of both is seasonal, and we&#039;d have to see if Icelandair are also sharing passenger details.

Also, your reference to DHS approval for Cuba is only for US citizens, I was referring to UK citizens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops- I thought Cubana didn&#8217;t overfly the US, but apparently they do (didn&#8217;t used to, which involved a fairly roundabout route to Montreal). Still works for getting to Mexico or the Caribbean, though, and I don&#8217;t know if Cubana share passenger details.</p>
<p>For UK to Canada I suggest Icelandair LHR-KEF-YHZ or LHR-KEF-YYZ, but unfortunately the last leg of both is seasonal, and we&#8217;d have to see if Icelandair are also sharing passenger details.</p>
<p>Also, your reference to DHS approval for Cuba is only for US citizens, I was referring to UK citizens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dnebdal</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384653</link>
		<dc:creator>dnebdal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384653</guid>
		<description>Going by wikitravel, there are route flights from Iceland to Nuuk, and a biweekly Copenhagen-Kangerlussuaq route. Getting from there to Canada looks more complicated: As of 2012, there are flights now and then to Iqaluit- but that&#039;s really the far end of nowhere as well, so getting to the metropolitan region of Canada will be (even more) expensive. They actually recommend going by Iceland if you&#039;re flying Canada-&gt;Greenland.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Going by wikitravel, there are route flights from Iceland to Nuuk, and a biweekly Copenhagen-Kangerlussuaq route. Getting from there to Canada looks more complicated: As of 2012, there are flights now and then to Iqaluit- but that&#8217;s really the far end of nowhere as well, so getting to the metropolitan region of Canada will be (even more) expensive. They actually recommend going by Iceland if you&#8217;re flying Canada-&gt;Greenland.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dnebdal</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384650</link>
		<dc:creator>dnebdal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384650</guid>
		<description>True, that does look a bit suspicious.  On the other hand, it&#039;s eminently believable - we&#039;ll just have to see tomorrow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True, that does look a bit suspicious.  On the other hand, it&#8217;s eminently believable &#8211; we&#8217;ll just have to see tomorrow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phoomp</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384642</link>
		<dc:creator>phoomp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384642</guid>
		<description>That might be valid, if the US No-Fly List weren&#039;t so easy to get on to and so impossible to get off of.  For example, when children are turned away because their name is on the List, it put into question the quality of the list.  When reporters critical of the List find out their names are suddenly on the List, it puts into question the motivations for using the List.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That might be valid, if the US No-Fly List weren&#8217;t so easy to get on to and so impossible to get off of.  For example, when children are turned away because their name is on the List, it put into question the quality of the list.  When reporters critical of the List find out their names are suddenly on the List, it puts into question the motivations for using the List.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ravenlunatick</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384635</link>
		<dc:creator>ravenlunatick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384635</guid>
		<description>The wonderful future where we have robot butlers and flying cars? Or the horrible future where humans are forced to battle gladiator-style for the amusement of their robot overlords?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The wonderful future where we have robot butlers and flying cars? Or the horrible future where humans are forced to battle gladiator-style for the amusement of their robot overlords?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shinkuhadoken</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384630</link>
		<dc:creator>Shinkuhadoken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384630</guid>
		<description>I know exactly why they are doing it.

Let&#039;s say you&#039;re an American who takes a little vacation to Africa, and while you&#039;re there some authorities back home stipulate you might actually be coordinating with Al-Queda instead of vacationing and add you to the No-Fly list. You discover this when trying to board your flight back that you can&#039;t go home. So what do you do?

You catch a flight to Canada or Mexico and drive over the border because there isn&#039;t a No Drive list, and you can get in that way at least. Obviously, this is an attempt to close that little loophole, sovereignty of other nations be damned (although considering Canada has a government who is more than happy to cave-in comply with any American demand, this might actually be something we&#039;ve wholeheartedly agreed to behind the scenes in spite of this granting the United States the ability to override our nation&#039;s immigration policy, a notion which previous governments have rejected every time).

I suppose they are also concerned about a would-be terrorist who could use a boat ride from Cuba  as a means to get into Florida (since that always works out so well). </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know exactly why they are doing it.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s say you&#8217;re an American who takes a little vacation to Africa, and while you&#8217;re there some authorities back home stipulate you might actually be coordinating with Al-Queda instead of vacationing and add you to the No-Fly list. You discover this when trying to board your flight back that you can&#8217;t go home. So what do you do?</p>
<p>You catch a flight to Canada or Mexico and drive over the border because there isn&#8217;t a No Drive list, and you can get in that way at least. Obviously, this is an attempt to close that little loophole, sovereignty of other nations be damned (although considering Canada has a government who is more than happy to cave-in comply with any American demand, this might actually be something we&#8217;ve wholeheartedly agreed to behind the scenes in spite of this granting the United States the ability to override our nation&#8217;s immigration policy, a notion which previous governments have rejected every time).</p>
<p>I suppose they are also concerned about a would-be terrorist who could use a boat ride from Cuba  as a means to get into Florida (since that always works out so well). </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: machinestate</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384626</link>
		<dc:creator>machinestate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384626</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t like it, but it beats the alternative - of a person in either the US &lt;b&gt;or&lt;/b&gt; UK making a bunch of threatening posts about how much they hate the west, and then being able to fly out to Pakistan or somewhere to meet with terrorists, or train at a camp.  More countries should collaborate and compare their no-fly lists through Interpol.  Force the terrorists, particularly the home-grown wanna-bes to stay online, where their activities can be easily watched by intel agents, and often even by private citizens, too.  And also where they can&#039;t get hands-on training, nor  established F2F connections.

I think the no-fly list is among the most actively contributing post-911 controls towards the fact that we haven&#039;t sustained a single successful hijacking or airport/airplane terror incident since 9/11, in spite of all the failures and blunders and unfairness involved.  Sure people have snuck devices on planes and attempted to detonate, but they didn&#039;t have either the tools - or, far more likely, the knowledge and experience - required to successfully down an airplane with a weapon or destructive device.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t like it, but it beats the alternative &#8211; of a person in either the US <b>or</b> UK making a bunch of threatening posts about how much they hate the west, and then being able to fly out to Pakistan or somewhere to meet with terrorists, or train at a camp.  More countries should collaborate and compare their no-fly lists through Interpol.  Force the terrorists, particularly the home-grown wanna-bes to stay online, where their activities can be easily watched by intel agents, and often even by private citizens, too.  And also where they can&#8217;t get hands-on training, nor  established F2F connections.</p>
<p>I think the no-fly list is among the most actively contributing post-911 controls towards the fact that we haven&#8217;t sustained a single successful hijacking or airport/airplane terror incident since 9/11, in spite of all the failures and blunders and unfairness involved.  Sure people have snuck devices on planes and attempted to detonate, but they didn&#8217;t have either the tools &#8211; or, far more likely, the knowledge and experience &#8211; required to successfully down an airplane with a weapon or destructive device.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Rucker</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384624</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Rucker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384624</guid>
		<description>The big thing is that you&#039;d need a route that doesn&#039;t risk US overflight, so a UK-&gt;Cuba-&gt;Canada route wouldn&#039;t work. (Besides, somewhere I saw a claim that DHS approval was specifically required for Cuba.)

A route that might work is UK-&gt;Greenland-&gt;flight plan that involves a horribly inefficient and ugly flight route to avoid the US to get to populated areas of Canada.

Mexico and Cuba, the best route may actually be through southern Europe or Africa, and South America.

To do Mexico to Canada while avoiding the US, best bet is to fly back east, then north, then back west, which is absurdly expensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The big thing is that you&#8217;d need a route that doesn&#8217;t risk US overflight, so a UK-&gt;Cuba-&gt;Canada route wouldn&#8217;t work. (Besides, somewhere I saw a claim that DHS approval was specifically required for Cuba.)</p>
<p>A route that might work is UK-&gt;Greenland-&gt;flight plan that involves a horribly inefficient and ugly flight route to avoid the US to get to populated areas of Canada.</p>
<p>Mexico and Cuba, the best route may actually be through southern Europe or Africa, and South America.</p>
<p>To do Mexico to Canada while avoiding the US, best bet is to fly back east, then north, then back west, which is absurdly expensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Lloyd</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384622</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Lloyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384622</guid>
		<description>And if your &quot;plotting&quot; is just searching Google for &quot;bomb&quot; or tweeting that you&#039;re going to have a &quot;blast&quot; in the US? You happy to go to Gitmo on the allegations of some TSA agents?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And if your &#8220;plotting&#8221; is just searching Google for &#8220;bomb&#8221; or tweeting that you&#8217;re going to have a &#8220;blast&#8221; in the US? You happy to go to Gitmo on the allegations of some TSA agents?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MoreMoschops</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/03/31/us-government-orders-uk-carrie.html#comment-1384619</link>
		<dc:creator>MoreMoschops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=152340#comment-1384619</guid>
		<description>Dude, that&#039;s not being arrested for &quot;being dangerous&quot;, which is not a crime. That would be being arrested for actual criminal activity, which _is_ a crime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dude, that&#8217;s not being arrested for &#8220;being dangerous&#8221;, which is not a crime. That would be being arrested for actual criminal activity, which _is_ a crime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
