Unlike the TSA's troubled and controversial use of computer databases to scan for individuals whose names occur on passenger "watch lists," SPOT is based on observing passenger behavior. George Naccara, the TSA's Federal Security Director who has been overseeing the SPOT program in Boston, is a big booster. "This system is conducted by trained personnel and closely monitored by supervisors," he says. "It provides another significant layer of security."

Here's how it works: Select TSA employees will be trained to identify suspicious individuals who raise red flags by exhibiting unusual or anxious behavior, which can be as simple as changes in mannerisms, excessive sweating on a cool day, or changes in the pitch of a person's voice. Racial or ethnic factors are not a criterion for singling out people, TSA officials say. Those who are identified as suspicious will be examined more thoroughly; for some, the agency will bring in local police to conduct face-to-face interviews and perhaps run the person's name against national criminal databases and determine whether any threat exists. If such inquiries turn up other issues countries with terrorist connections, police officers can pursue the questioning or alert Federal counterterrorism agents. And of course the full retinue of baggage x-rays, magnetometers and other checks for weapons will continue.

So far, the results for SPOT have been encouraging. According to Naccara, the SPOT program has resulted in the arrest of more than 50 people for having fake IDs, entering the country illegally or drug possession. It also has caught one of its own: several months ago a representative from the Department of Homeland Security tested the system by trying to get a fake weapon through the screening checkpoint; he was successfully stopped by a STOP screener. The TSA will also consider deploying SPOT teams to other transportation systems like train and bus stations.

The SPOT program comes none too soon, since the current TSA system of screening for threats on airplanes has been, well, spotty. Earlier this month TSA screeners not trained in the SPOT program pulled over three Marines in dress uniform for special screening. After being patted down and scrutinized closely, the Marines were finally let go and allowed to continue their duties - escorting the body of one of their colleagues killed in Iraq.

The program began at Boston's Logan International Airport -- the departure point for the two hijacked airplanes that were crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11. It is also being implemented in Miami among other airports.

George Naccara, the federal security director at Logan, said the TSA program is modeled on behavior detection systems used in Israel and some other countries.

"It's been very effective overseas," Naccara said, where the effort "is much more confrontational and much more aggressive."



Officers are taught to look for abnormal behavior in passengers, such as people wearing coats when it's warm in order to disguise bombs, or people acting fidgety or nervous.

Naccara said they look for signs of "stress, fear and deception."

"We associate that with people who are doing something wrong -- some kind of criminal or terrorist intent," he said.

The officers must be able to differentiate between nervous travelers and those having something to hide, he added.

Some civil rights groups have complained the program involves racial profiling. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Massachusetts Port Authority over its behavior pattern recognition program.

TSA officials said race is not used to monitor passengers. Officers fill out a score sheet identifying behaviors that trigger extra screening for a passenger or police attention.

"The vast majority of those referred to law enforcement ... do in fact have something wrong," said Hawley. "They are either illegal for false ID, immigration status, drugs or prohibited items."

The driver, who was not identified, was pronounced dead at the scene with multiple gunshot wounds, said Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department. No other injuries were reported.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents began following a black sport utility vehicle after somebody reported seeing it pick up suspected illegal immigrants near the U.S. side of the Otay Mesa border crossing, said Lt. Kevin Rooney of San Diego Police Department.

As traffic backed up near the border, the vehicle stopped on the shoulder. When agents approached, the suspect "began to drive off and he veered hard to the left, trying to get back in traffic," Rooney said. Two agents then opened fire, he said.

Five passengers in the vehicle, whose identities were not released, were taken into custody and were being interrogated, Rooney said.

Anna Valderrama of Tijuana, Mexico, who was about four vehicles back when the shooting occurred, said she was stuck in her car for more than two hours.

"I was going to eat with my family," said Valderrama. "I feel desperate to go home."

During his detention, al-Masri said he was beaten and sodomized with a foreign object by his captors. He also alleges that a CIA team forced him to wear a diaper and drugged him before a flight to an Afghan prison and refused to contact German authorities about his arrest.

Ellis said he was satisfied after receiving a secret written briefing from the director of central intelligence that allowing al-Masri's lawsuit to proceed would harm national security.

"In the present circumstances, al-Masri's private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets," Ellis wrote.

Al-Masri's lawsuit named former CIA Director George Tenet and three private companies that allegedly helped transport al-Masri from country to country.

The lawsuit says al-Masri was initially held for almost a month in Macedonia before being taken to a secret CIA prison in Kabul, Afghanistan, known as "the salt pit."

Al-Masri said the CIA knew shortly after his arrival in Kabul that he was a victim of mistaken identity. He further alleges that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice knew by early May 2004 that al-Masri was mistakenly detained but that he was still not released until May 28.

Ben Wizner, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing al-Masri, said he expects to file an appeal.

"We expect we will continue this fight in the courts," Wizner said.

He said it is absurd to think al-Masri's lawsuit would expose state secrets because many of the details of al-Masri's detention have been made public and confirmed by government sources in newspaper reports.

"There isn't really any dispute about what happened," Wizner said.

Judge Ellis' ruling "confers a blank check on the CIA to shield even the most outrageous conduct from judicial review," Wizner said.

Ellis did not describe what information he received that convinced him a lawsuit would expose state secrets and harm national security.

But he said he received a briefing labeled "JUDGE'S EYES ONLY" and that "it is enough to note here that al-Masri's publicly available complaint alleges a clandestine intelligence program." Ellis added that "any admission or denial of these allegations by defendants in this case would reveal the means and methods employed pursuant to this clandestine program and such a revelation would present a grave risk of injury to national security."

Ellis, at the end of his ruling, writes that "putting aside all the legal issues, if al-Masri's allegations are true or substantially true, then all fair-minded people ... must also agree that al-Masri has suffered injuries as the result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy."

But Ellis said that remedy must come from Congress or the executive branch, not the judiciary.

Wizner said the Bush administration has not yet offered any financial settlement.

A Justice Department spokesman said the judge's ruling is under review and declined comment.

"In jail for eight hours -- sleeping on a concrete floor next to a toilet," Kelly said.

"It was a nightmare," Brook said. "I was in there thinking I was just dreaming and waiting to wake up."

Collins reported it was a nightmare ending to a nearly perfect day. He said the couple went to a company picnic and watched the Orioles beat Kansas City. It was their first trip to Camden Yards and asked two people for directions to Interstate 95 South when they left.

Collins said somehow they ended up in the Cherry Hill section of south Baltimore. Hopelessly lost, relief melted away concerns after they spotted a police vehicle.

"I said, 'Thank goodness, could you please get us to 95?" Kelly said.

"The first thing that she said to us was no -- you just ran that stop sign, pull over," Brook said. "It wasn't a big deal. We'll pay the stop sign violation, but can we have directions?"

"What she said was 'You found your own way in here, you can find your own way out.'" Kelly said.

Collins said the couple spotted another police vehicle and flagged that officer down for directions. But Officer Natalie Preston, a six-year veteran of the force, intervened.

"That really threw us for a loop when she stepped in between our cars," Kelly said. "(She) said my partner is not going to step in front of me and tell you directions if I'm not."

Collins reported the circumstances got worse. Kelly pulled 40 feet forward parking next to a curb and put his flashers on while Brook was on the phone to her father hoping he could help her with directions. Both her parents are police officers in the Harrisburg, Pa., area.

"(Brook's father) was in the middle of giving us directions when the officer screeched up behind us and got out of the car and asked me to step out. I obeyed," Kelly said. "I obeyed everything -- stepped out of the car, put my hands behind my back, and the next thing I know, I was getting arrested for trespassing."

"By this time, I was completely in tears," Brook said. "I said, 'Ma'am, you know, we just need your help. We are not trying to cause you any trouble. I'm not leaving him here.' What she did was walk over to my side of the car and said, 'Ok, we are taking you downtown, too.'"

Collins said the couple was released from jail without being charged with anything. Brook is now concerned the arrest may complicate a criminal background check she's going through in her job as a child care worker.

Collins said police left Kelly's car unlocked and the windows down at the impound lot. He reported a cell phone charger, pair of sunglasses and 20 CDs were stolen.

Baltimore City police said they are looking into the incident.

The federal magistrate judge balked and asked the Justice Department to submit an additional brief to demonstrate that such a request would be legal.

Instead, prosecutors asked Judge Hogan to step in. He reviewed the portion of federal law dealing with "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices--terms originating in the world of telephone wiretapping--and concluded it "unambiguously" authorizes the e-mail surveillance request.

Though the language may be clumsy, Hogan said, the Patriot Act's amendments authorize that type of easily obtainable surveillance of e-mail. All that's required, he said, is that prosecutors claim the surveillance could conceivably be "relevant" to an investigation.

Excerpt from the court's opinion:
"In 2001, Congress enacted the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the "USA Patriot Act"), Section 216 of which explicitly amended the authorities relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices...by expanding the definitions of these devices to include "processes" to obtain information about "electronic communication."

"Commenting on the very language that was finally enacted in Section 216 of the USA Patriot Act, several members of Congress highlighted the fact that the amendments would bring the state of the law in line with current technology by making pen registers and trap and trace devices applicable to the Internet and--more to the point--e-mail.

"For example, a section-by-section analysis of the bill that Representative John Conyers included in the record before the final House vote, which contains the same language that was finally enacted by Congress, states that Section 216 "extends the pen/trap provisions so they apply not just to telephone communications but also to Internet traffic."

"In addition, Senator Jon Kyl, who is currently Chairman of the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology & Homeland Security, noted that the same language in the Senate version of the bill "would codify current case law that holds that pen/trap orders apply to modern communication technologies such as e-mail and the Internet, in addition to traditional phone lines."

"The Congressional Research Service also published a legal analysis of the USA Patriot Act that states that the Act "permits pen register and trap and trace orders for electronic communications (e.g., e-mail)."

"The plain language of the statute makes clear that pen registers and trap and trace devices may be processes used to obtain information about e-mail communications. The statute's history confirms this interpretation and there is no support for a contrary result."

At the conference Sununu addressed several issues in privacy legislation including the Patriot Act, datamining and economic contracts.

The Patriot Act, which gives government increased access to private information by wiretapping, and electronic interceptions, Sununu said created fundamental constitutional questions.

The violation of personal data collected by corporations is also questionable ethically, though allowed by the latest legislation. In many cases banks release personal information to the government or sell it to corporations but Sununu pointed out this wasn't unconstitutional but Americans should know under what conditions these transactions may take place.

But Sununu said the market may be more effective in weeding out questionable behavior because markets can assert direct retribution on those who infringe upon the privacy of citizens.

Sununu took a market approach to the privacy laws, which fellow panelists said was explainable by the congressman's business background.

One key problem Sununu noted was that privacy laws concerning new technology have no protection under the Constitution. Also Congress may have difficulty in creating appropriate legislation on technology they often know nothing about.

"If you are going to be effective you need some sort of framework," Sununu said. "To develop a good solution you must understand what it is."

Sununu said the federal government should put more faith into governments at the state level.

Martin Frost, a former democratic representative from Texas, addressed difficulties associated with creating new legislation.

"Most members in Congress are clueless on these issues because we know so little," said Frost, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Institute.

Joelle Tessler, a journalist for Congressional Quarterly, also attended the conference. She agreed with Sununu's observation that legislation hadn't kept up with the advances in technology.

"Some Fourth Amendment Acts don't have precedence in cyberspace," Tessler said. "The public is often unaware of how little privacy protection they really have."

Tessler said the public generally has a high support for anti-terrorism despite intrusions on privacy. This leaves little incentive for Congress to aggressively attack the issue.

But Peter Swire, a professor of law at Ohio State and former Clinton administration privacy counselor at the Office of Management and Budget, took a more casual approach to the issue. He compared the current privacy concerns to the '60s, when citizens were worried about their bosses using lie detectors.

"I am optimistic, though it (sometimes) seems privacy is on the verge of despair," Swire said of mounting citizen concerns over the issue.