As anyone who has flown on a plane since 9/11 knows, airports have been trying to make their security tighter and tighter. But this security may reach a whole new level that may prohibit passengers from entering their flights at boarding time. On April 7, 2005, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) presented the “2005 Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) Rule” that would regulate the transportation of passenger onboard aircraft and vessels traveling to and from foreign destinations and the US.

The APIS Rule will require background information on passengers and crews to be submitted no later than 15 minutes before departure or after arrival. If any passenger or crew members are flagged than they will not be permitted to board. The Rule is to begin action on January 14, 2007.

The stated benefit of the APIS Rule is the increase of security that would prevent dangerous individuals from boarding planes and executing terrorist attacks on the US.

However, it seems that to a certain extent, personal freedom cannot be compromised for the sake of “security.”

Although the right to travel is not explicitly stated in the constitution, the Supreme Court recognized in the 1958 case Kent v. Dulles, that “the right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”

The implementation of APIS Rule will certainly encroach this right while probably having little effect on terrorism.

The reason why the APIS Rule cannot successfully deter terrorist attacks is because fake identification is so easy to come by. With the expansion of the internet, just about anyone, from a 17 year old high school senior to a financially-backed terrorist, can get their hands on some form of false ID.

According to research done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, terrorists can work ID security systems to their advantage. Terrorists can tap into systems and discern which of them are flagged or not. They can then send members of their cell that they know will not be flagged.

Some argue that the people who oppose strict security measures such as the APIS Rule must be doing so because they have something to “hide.” If you have nothing to hide, than you have nothing to fear.

But more than likely, the innocent will not go unscathed by this process. In the worse case scenario, people with the same or similar names to flagged passengers could be prevented from boarding their flight and be detained. Overall, passengers will certainly be inconvenienced and the process of boarding a flight will become more arduous than it already is.

As an avid traveler and frequent flyer, I am apprehensive about how the APIS Rule will change my future traveling experiences. And for all the Guilford students who are planning on going abroad, this could affect you, too.

I have come to accept that we live in an unsafe world today and that some personal liberties must be sacrificed in order to ensure some level of security. But a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Such extreme government regulation of traveling that will affect so many normal citizens should not occur for the small chance of catching a few terrorists. A “terrorist-proof” security system is impossible; if an individual wants to attack our country, they will find a way.

The level of fear and paranoia surrounding terrorism does not necessarily reflect the actual level of danger. The implementation of the APIS Rule will not effectively reduce the risk of terrorism on our country’s airlines but will guarantee increased commercial and government control of citizens’ personal information.