lencarv

Finally got to use the pre lane in ATL today. It was quite busy at the normal south checkpoint, probably 30 to 40 minute wait. Walked up to the first guy and he checked me in (elite lane was backed up as well) walked up to the tsa guy and he checked me through with no issues. Left shoes on, left pc, ipad and fluids in backpack and walked through. Took less than 3 minutes. My travel partner showed up to the gate 40 minutes later. Very sweet!

pbiflyer

I got to use it at CLT today. I have no idea why I was chosen. Is it random? I went to the premium passenger line and when they scanned my BP they directed me to the pre line.
Way cool. I have not applied for any trusted traveler program. Would love to be able to use it more often.

mg10461

Depends on where you fly to and what your return home airport is. JFK and LGA it is worth it on return through immigration.

mg10461

I am not a big fan of giving more info to any government (and who knows who else) than I need to, but just to play devil's advocate, here is a thought. Reducing the sheer numbers of people who have to be screened is not a bad idea. It is not about you saving a few min by not having to have your laptop screened, it is about reducing the number of laptops that have to be screened every day.

Your passport already ties into to a lot of info about you - not to mention that google and amazon probably already know more about you than the TSA. The trusted traveler program just allows them to do some of the vetting ahead of time. Theoretically, this could permit them to reduce the high volume and to employ valuable algorithms for screening (I am not saying it will, things being what they are, but it could).

Your average TSA screener is looking at luggage -what - 8 hrs a day , 5 days a week ? They are hardly likely to be saying, oh goody, here comes another. Reducing the "noise" could potentially allow them to focus on the rest of the ones they do see and also permit development of a reasonable set of features that is more indicative of trouble. Just for example, suicide bombers are actually highly unlikely to be with a child of their own. That by itself doesn't narrow the field much, but there are some statistical predictions that are more accurate than either random or total screening. Right now every traveler and every piece of luggage is screened the same way. Anything that reduces the volume in a fairly safe way could be a good idea.

Most of the information I provided to the TSA in order to get my "trusted" GE pass shows up in an ordinary google search.

RadioGirl

This would be a compelling argument if the TSA was screening for something that occurred, say, 5% of the time. If you were looking for 1 person in 20, and could exclude half the population by some pre-screening, then you can scrutinize the remaining 10 people more closely. If you could exclude 90% of the population, there's only 2 people you need to scrutinize, and on average one of them would be the bad guy you're looking for. So the benefit of the pre-screening would be clear, and your successes would be obvious.

But TSA, in trying to find* someone who wants to blow up an airplane. That's not a 1 in 20 chance, but more like 1 in a billion. Even if you could exclude 90% of the population by some pre-screening, now you've got a 1 in 100 million chance of finding the bad guy you're looking for. When the probability is that low to start with, a 50% or 90% reduction doesn't help. TSA could (and should) allow the "trusted traveler" level of screening for EVERYONE; it would be just as safe, and far faster, than the Pre-check system for a few.

There's also the problem of coming up with, as you described it, "a reasonable set of features that is more indicative of trouble." This either ends up as racist ("screen all the brown people") or arbitrary ("screen all the people without children") or extortionate ("screen all the people who didn't pay for Pre-Check").

While you might start with the formula: "Passengers who are ____________ are highly unlikely to be terrorists," the actual number of terrorists is so small that you can fill in the blank with nearly anything (except "Passengers who are terrorists" ) and get a true statement. Of course passengers who travel with children are highly unlikely to be terrorists. So are passengers who travel without children, passengers who travel alone, passengers who travel in groups, passengers who are black, passengers who are white, passengers who are any shade of brown, passengers who are nervous, passengers who are calm, passengers who are rude, passengers who are polite, ....

So by this argument, I again arrive at the conclusion that passengers with or without children, passengers who are white, black, brown or any other color, passengers who are nervous or calm or rude or polite, indeed, every passenger who shows up at the checkpoint, should be given the "trusted traveler" level of screening. @:-)

*Actually, they're not supposed to be finding terrorists. They're supposed to be keeping WEI off airplanes. "Finding terrorists" is the job of the CIA, FBI and all those other TLAs.

Janus

At the end of the day, all government trusted travel programs (regardless of which country it is) are about saving money without lowering the security. Not dissimilar to making a larger down payment on a house/car; by incurring the cost of the program and background checks upfront, the long-term costs can (presumably) be reduced significantly.

Obviously there’s a debate around what exactly is the “correct” level of security. But presuming the current security level is needed, trusted traveler programs make lots of financial sense to most any government.

The other big concern, is having a program that is equitable. At the end of the day, any program that differentiates people based on any criteria will never be fully equitable. As long as there is the “cool kids’ lane” and the “huddled masses” lane, it will never be truly equal.

That being said, I much prefer any system that is based on the frequency of travel. For example, flight crews and airport employees should have the most streamlined process; since they are (by far) the most frequent persons passing through a check-point (thereby the most disenfranchised by government mandated security procedures). Next should be the frequent flyers. I’d like to see better mechanisms for selecting frequent flyers (i.e. using trips flown on all airlines, vs. a particular status on one airline). While I dislike the idea that programs like GE and NEXUS have fees associated with them (i.e. they disenfranchise persons with lower income) their benefit can’t be overlooked.

The GE/NEXUS fees help offset the upfront costs for the government (thereby increasing ROI). But more importantly, for programs like PreCheck, they help build the “critical mass” needed to make the programs viable. For example, when PreCheck first rolled out, most of the PreCheck lanes had to be fully staffed, but often had few people in them. If that trend would have continued, it would have likely resulted in the cancelation of the PreCheck program.

My $0.02

RadioGirl

That's one possibility. But TSA has never shown an interest in saving money before - look at how they bought 200 or 300 puffers without testing them in an airport environment, then gave up on them, with over half the units still in the packaging in a warehouse somewhere. Look at how they just spent $50 million on new uniforms. These guys spend like there's no tomorrow, then go to Congress and ask for more.

And there are (at least) two other reasons for a gov't trusted traveler program:
A gov't trusted traveler program may be an opportunity for the gov't to collect more personal information about its citizens by offering them a small reward.
A gov't trusted traveler program, particularly one that rewards frequent flyers, silences complaints about airport security from those who travel most often. And in allowing airlines to retain high value customers who might otherwise drive or reduce air travel, it also reduces complains from the airlines.

While not discounting the first, I'm inclined to think that Pre-Check is motivated by the second.

I take it you're a frequent flyer, then.

Basing trusted traveler on frequency of travel has the advantage of placating the most vocal critics of the current policies, but I'm not sure it has any direct relationship to threat. Is the once-a-year-to-visit-Grandma family more dangerous than an airport employee or pilot who's been bribed to take something through the checkpoint? Is the I've-saved-for-years-to-go-to-NYC kid from Nebraska more of a threat than the businessman who flies LAX-BKK six times a year? There are numerous examples of airport employees and flight crew caught smuggling drugs or cash or weapons. Yes, they have to go through security frequently, which gives them more opportunities for nefarious activities, and makes them a high-profile candidate for threats or bribery. And sure, most airport employees and flight crew are honest and upstanding citizens, but so are most once-a-decade flyers. Again, the number of actual terrorists is so small that saying one (large) group is more or less a threat than another group is pointless.

InkUnderNails

I do not know if the subtle change happened with 9/11, the TSA, or some other event. It may have just been coincidence. It may have been a solution already planned looking for a problem. Whatever the source and whatever the time, the change happened.

In the United States, at one time we went to the airport having secured a contract with a big company with a big airplane to move us long distances very quickly. It was also understood that there might be people that wish to do harm to those of us traveling. Security was established based on the premise that most likely everyone was fine, but that they would attempt to find the ones that were not. We showed up at the airport innocent. The purpose of security was to find reason that we could not fly.

Now, we go to the airport and must prove our innocence to a government actor that can deny our ability to carry out our contract for no other reason than we have not shown sufficient evidence that we are not a risk.

It is a subtle difference with wide and significant implications.

Trusted traveler programs are simply returns to that previous system for a limited percentage of the traveling population paid for by the surrender of even more privacy and liberty. It is nice to return to the old way. The cost stinks.

Janus

The idea that any government has unlimited funds is simply false. While I fully agree the US Government should do a better job reducing waste, the uniform example doesn’t tell the full story. Unlike other goods (for example, furniture); uniforms aren’t a single fixed cost. They are a recurring yearly expense. With daily use, the materials simply wear out and need to be replaced. My point, a sizable chunk of the $50 mil would have had to been spent; even if they didn’t change the design.

As to the puffers, I agree, there should have been a slower roll out of the devices to better understand how well (or not well) they worked in an airport environment.

Someone else made this point, but it’s worth restating. Google already has the majority of information the GOES app asks for. The IRS alone, knows exactly where you’ve lived and where you’ve worked (i.e. it’s on your tax return). And all criminal and fingerprint data is already centrally stored. The GOES application doesn’t ask for anything that the government doesn’t already know.

Couple of things. Flight crews and airport employees have to undergo background checks as part of the hiring process. Just like a trusted traveler; a background check does not guarantee someone is honest. All a clean background says is someone is less likely to do something illegal. And mathematically speaking; there’s a very strong correlation that a clean background is an indicator that someone won’t commit a crime in the future. Obviously there are exceptions, but like shark attacks and lighting strikes, they just don’t happen that frequently.

As to my preference toward frequent flyers; I had a slightly different point. The once-a-year-to-visit-Grandma family only has to incur ~2 hours of screening per year. The average crew member, spends more time in the screening line in just one week. So my point is, so finding ways to speed the up the process for the most disenfranchised persons is a reasonable request.

This is also why I don’t like that PreCheck is tied to airline status. It should be based on a different metric. For example, how often a person passes through a TSA checkpoint on a yearly basis (regardless of which airlines is flown).

entropy

I don't care that they have a fee... $100/5 years is nothing if you travel frequently, and if you travel frequently (esp internationally) then you're paying a few orders of magnitude more for tickets.

They need to continue to 'sift' out the low risk travelers. PEople (including me) will gladly pay reasonable fees to avoid the PITA of standing in lines... or taking off shoes, etc. For the government, why should they waste their time with a low-risk traveler?

they have access to all sorts of great data, they can see I'm working, that I pay taxes, and that I'm traveling every couple of weeks and have done so for many years. With a valid name and DOB they should be able to exclude 90% of travelers from any sort of the usual TSA nonsense.

In addition, due to all the FTA's if you look at the lists of duty, most 'allied' countries there's no duty on even alcohol above the limit. If they raised the reporting requirements , they'd save even more time. The CBP officers who I report to when I bring back 4-6 bottles of wine roll their eyes when I declare that sort of stuff, but obviously if they were in the mood to catch you, you'd be out of the program.

saulblum

So you're claiming that close to 200,000 high-risk passengers present themselves daily at airport checkpoints?

RichardKenner

Yes, but there's a difference, though subtle. Sure, almost all of the information on a GOES application is something I've already put on my tax returns (among other documents). However, with GOES, I have to prove that the data is correct and it gets verified. I don't see the difference between having verified and unverified data as that much of a privacy issue.

jnojr

I just got my Global Entry card.

The government already knows all of this information. Especially for me... I am in so many databases and on so many lists at this point, I have zero expectation that there's anything about any of this data that's "private" from the government. That's a choice I made in my career, so there's no point in trying to hold back now. I look forward to at least being able to zip through "security" without wasting a lot of time while being treated like a criminal. I routinely refuse the scanners, and had a chucklehead at IAD tell me, "You know, it's just radio waves." I said I don't care, I'm not going through. He says, "Well, I guess I just wasted my time then, didn't I?" I said yes, and you're continuing to do so. Hopefully, there won't be many more occasions where I have to deal with those poorly-trained, puffed-up monkeys.

chollie

This.

Until things are clarified, I declare what I was told to declare: 'anything that can be consumed'.

I've had an agent ask why I was 'wasting' his time with small stuff. Um...because that may be how he feels about it, but next time someone else might be on duty. If it's truly 'small stuff', then review the requirements and make any necessary changes.

InkUnderNails

Same here. I declare my Tim Horton's doughnut and coffee when drive over the border out of Canada.