AIR TRAVEL SECURITY PLAN QUESTIONED; CRITICS FEAR LOSS OF CIVIL LIBERTY.

Byline: Ted Bell Scripps-McClatchy Western Service

Airline passengers soon will find themselves under greater scrutiny before they board U.S. jetliners, and some may end up being searched, interrogated or even barred from boarding their planes.

Federal plans call for launching the new security program by the end of this year, with computer programs tracking passengers' travel habits as well as personal financial histories.

But the planned introduction of the program, which already is being tested in some U.S. airports, has created an outcry among some who say it is a gross invasion of passengers' privacy and gives civilian airline workers unprecedented power over travelers.

``This is not something for a $6- per-hour person rummaging through your purse,'' said Bill Olmsted, a former FBI agent and now a security consultant in Sacramento. ``A lot of people are going to be falsely accused.''

Federal officials dispute that view, saying the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening Program, or CAPS, is a needed security measure and will not violate any civil liberties.

``Terrorists only have to be lucky one time,'' said Rebecca Trexler, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration. ``We have to be aware all of the time.''

Isolate travelers

Under the plan, CAPS is designed to work this way:

When anyone steps up to an airline ticket counter and buys a ticket, the ticket agent may plug the person's name into the computer for a personal profile. The goal is to isolate travelers who are considered more likely to jeopardize the flight for political or personal motives.

Some passengers may be asked to submit to searches of their carry-on luggage or to submit to questioning. Those who refuse could be barred from boarding the plane.

The personal data is being compiled by the federal government and airlines, although neither will reveal the criteria being used or the kind of ``profile'' that will trigger suspicion by a ticket agent.

The secrecy surrounding the program has heightened concerns about how it will be used, and some sources say seemingly innocuous practices such as paying cash for an airline ticket or booking only a one-way flight may raise warning flags for airline workers.

The FAA and the airlines insist that an individual's appearance won't be considered when a passenger is profiled, and the U.S. Justice Department decided earlier this month that the system will not single out travelers because of their race, ethnicity or religion.

However, some question whether that can ever be the case in real practice.

``Do you really think that they're not going to look closer at someone with Middle Eastern features than at a white male in a business suit?'' Olmsted asked.

``There have been many bad experiences with people being stopped because of how they look and it is always an issue of concern to the Iranian community,'' added Homayoun Foutouhi of Sacramento's Persian Cultural Committee.

Officials insist the program is designed so that it will not violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches or invasion of privacy, and they caution that the FAA should frequently review the system and require special training for airline employees.

But critics say that to take individuals aside to frisk them, search their luggage and ask personal questions is more than just embarrassing and inconvenient, it violates constitutional guarantees against illegal searches.

``Reduced to its essentials, a `profile' is a stereotype,'' Gregory T. Nojeim, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the White House Commission on Aviation Safety last year.

TWA explosion

The panel was established after the explosion of TWA Flight 800 in July 1995 to recommend improvements in airline security. The CAPS system was one of the suggestions.

A profile ``is a proxy for real evidence,'' he said.

Nojeim said the government will record ``things like your bill-paying address, whether you pay bills at one address or several, your flying history with a particular airline, identifying information, criminal history, the identity of people you're flying with.

``For this system to work, you have to create files on everybody who might take a flight,'' he said.

David Fuscus of the Air Transport Association, an airline lobbying group, says fears of a computerized assault on travelers' civil liberties are unfounded.

``There has been profiling of passengers since 1972 and it is the single most effective security measure that we have,'' said Fuscus. For the past 25 years, ticket counter agents have decided themselves which passengers may pose a threat and selected those given extra scrutiny.

``The industry is in the process of computerizing the profiles in the ticketing/reservation systems. As someone goes through the reservation system, their criteria is measured.''

And what criteria is used?

``We can't get into that,'' Fuscus said. ``It would sort of defeat the purpose if we publicized what we are looking for. I can tell you that it has nothing to do with gender, ethnicity or religion. Basically, it's travel habits.''

Airline and government employees, speaking off the record, said the characteristics that marked screening of airline passengers during the height of the 1970s hijacking era will continue. Those involved behavior such as:

Using cash to purchase long-distance tickets.

Buying a one-way ticket.

Carrying no luggage except a briefcase on an overnight stay.

Failing to spell the name given on written documents.

Giving fictitious addresses or out-of-service telephone numbers.

It's what else that the computer will store - such as frequent destinations, credit and employment histories and other personal information - that bothers some critics.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Bender, who recently won a case involving the search of a railroad passenger who met a profile, said critics are missing the point.

``Profiling by itself isn't the issue,'' said Bender, who works in the Sacramento office of the U.S. Attorney's Office but emphasized that he was expressing his own views rather than those of the office. ``The profile is just one factor. By itself, it doesn't mean anything. The way someone pays a bill, or the use of a fictitious name . . . alone can be explained.''

It is when someone exhibits several suspicious characteristics that authorities can legally stop them based on ``reasonable suspicion,'' Bender said. ``That is a lower standard than the `probable cause' needed for a search or arrest warrant.''

Civil liberties aside, some question the actual value of a computerized profile system, especially if it is operated by people untrained in law enforcement.

``You have to remember that it took the FBI years and years to develop a criminal profile system,'' said Olmsted, the former FBI agent. ``This thing, put together so quickly and in the hands of nonprofessionals, is fraught with peril.''

Olmsted also questions ``very seriously'' if the computerized system is truly needed.

``Since the 1970s, how many people tried to carry a bomb aboard a domestic flight and how many domestic flights have been bombed?'' he asked.