Expansion of PreCheck Announced - Does PreCheck Change Your Mind About TSA Policies?
#31
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
Does "all passengers" include those who fly one round-trip every third year to visit grandchildren on the other side of the country, on a carefully researched discounted economy fare, for whom a $100 application fee would be too expensive? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.
Does "all passengers" include those who fly rarely, on different airlines, and therefore don't belong to or qualify for an airline's frequent flyer or elite program? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.
Does "all passengers" include a person who has never flown before but suddenly needs to fly across the country at short notice - to see a dying relative or go for a last-minute job interview - and won't have time for an application process? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.
Until the answer to all of the above is "yes", all this program is doing is creating a two-class society at the airport. And despite the fact that I don't belong to any of the groups listed above, I don't think that's acceptable. And as BubbaLoop said, I suspect it will make things even worse for the "have nots" as the entire TSA workfarce can concentrate its efforts on the "suspicious" minority.
- Will non-US citizens (living outside the US or within the US) be allowed to apply for the program and be evaluated on the same basis as US citizens?
- Will people who do not reside in the US (US citizens or non-US citizens) be allowed to apply for the program and be evaluated on the same basis as US citizens residing in the US?
- Will the application fees for the program be low enough that a person who only travels once every few years on a carefully chosen discount ticket can justify the additional cost?
- Will the application process be fast enough that someone who is flying at, say, 24 hours notice can apply and be approved?
You asked the question about whether we would change our minds about this program "when it is eventually opened to all passengers to apply, and all airlines at all airports". I am trying to determine just what "all" means in your question. If it means "all US citizens living in the US who can justify spending $150/year and who can wait 6 weeks to be approved", then that's quite different from "everyone who flies though a US airport at any time."
See, if it reaches the point where 80% or 90% of passengers are "trusted travellers", then by definition the remaining 20% or 10% are "untrusted" or "suspicious" travellers and will get extra scrutiny at the checkpoint. The attitude of TSA is then likely to be "well, it's your own fault that you didn't apply for the PreCheck program." Or worse, "there must be something wrong with you if you didn't apply." But if entire categories of people - non-US citizens/residents, infrequent or last minute flyers - cannot apply, that continues to create a two-class system where these groups are systematically discriminated against by a US government agency.
#32
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
Ah, Senator Paul; I happen to be a constituent of his. Senator Paul is one of the two senators who represent me based on my residency.
As with any elected official, I can't say I see eye to eye with him, but he does have a number of things right when it comes to big government.
As with any elected official, I can't say I see eye to eye with him, but he does have a number of things right when it comes to big government.
#33
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
See, if it reaches the point where 80% or 90% of passengers are "trusted travellers", then by definition the remaining 20% or 10% are "untrusted" or "suspicious" travellers and will get extra scrutiny at the checkpoint. The attitude of TSA is then likely to be "well, it's your own fault that you didn't apply for the PreCheck program." Or worse, "there must be something wrong with you if you didn't apply." But if entire categories of people - non-US citizens/residents, infrequent or last minute flyers - cannot apply, that continues to create a two-class system where these groups are systematically discriminated against by a US government agency.
I imagine at some point everyone who is eligible to do so will hand their privacy over in exchange for a reduced (but not completely eleiminated) probability of being pawed or ogled, which tells me that this whole thing is another social engineering experiment by Big Sis.
#34
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I imagine at some point everyone who is eligible to do so will hand their privacy over in exchange for a reduced (but not completely eleiminated) probability of being pawed or ogled, which tells me that this whole thing is another social engineering experiment by Big Sis.
Trusted Traveler appears, to this completely uninformed bystander, to be getting at that process in a sort of inverse manner: they're using available data to choose whom not to screen intensely, rather than identifying threats. Ok, it's a bit backwards ... but if Trusted Traveler becomes available on a widespread basis (i.e. not just FF elites and GE holders), it might accomplish the same ends.
In short ... TSA is trying to be more intelligent about who it spends time screening. Isn't this basically a good thing?
#35
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: in the sky
Posts: 490
See, I'm of more of a mixed mind about the whole thing. Many TSA critics have called on TSA to quit screening "obvious" non-threats like kids and retirees and focus screening on intelligence-based targets. Well ... how is the TSA supposed to determine what passengers merit additional screening without doing some sort of analysis of the available data?
Trusted Traveler appears, to this completely uninformed bystander, to be getting at that process in a sort of inverse manner: they're using available data to choose whom not to screen intensely, rather than identifying threats. Ok, it's a bit backwards ... but if Trusted Traveler becomes available on a widespread basis (i.e. not just FF elites and GE holders), it might accomplish the same ends.
In short ... TSA is trying to be more intelligent about who it spends time screening. Isn't this basically a good thing?
Trusted Traveler appears, to this completely uninformed bystander, to be getting at that process in a sort of inverse manner: they're using available data to choose whom not to screen intensely, rather than identifying threats. Ok, it's a bit backwards ... but if Trusted Traveler becomes available on a widespread basis (i.e. not just FF elites and GE holders), it might accomplish the same ends.
In short ... TSA is trying to be more intelligent about who it spends time screening. Isn't this basically a good thing?
#36
Used to be Sydneysider
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CPH
Programs: AS MVP/Gold (and 75K aspirant)
Posts: 2,984
No animals should be more equal than others.
Everyone should go through the same screening to access the sterile area, including TSA and airline employees. X-ray of belongings, walk though / hand held metal detector, and Explosive Trace Detection / Explosive Trace Portal. Nothing more, nothing less.
Everyone should go through the same screening to access the sterile area, including TSA and airline employees. X-ray of belongings, walk though / hand held metal detector, and Explosive Trace Detection / Explosive Trace Portal. Nothing more, nothing less.
But honestly, right now I am so disgusted with the level of apathy on this issue that I'll happily take the pass on NoS and patdowns (thank you Global Entry) and let the other 99% get the screening they deserve from their inaction.
#37
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
See, I'm of more of a mixed mind about the whole thing. Many TSA critics have called on TSA to quit screening "obvious" non-threats like kids and retirees and focus screening on intelligence-based targets. Well ... how is the TSA supposed to determine what passengers merit additional screening without doing some sort of analysis of the available data?
Trusted Traveler appears, to this completely uninformed bystander, to be getting at that process in a sort of inverse manner: they're using available data to choose whom not to screen intensely, rather than identifying threats. Ok, it's a bit backwards ... but if Trusted Traveler becomes available on a widespread basis (i.e. not just FF elites and GE holders), it might accomplish the same ends.
In short ... TSA is trying to be more intelligent about who it spends time screening. Isn't this basically a good thing?
Trusted Traveler appears, to this completely uninformed bystander, to be getting at that process in a sort of inverse manner: they're using available data to choose whom not to screen intensely, rather than identifying threats. Ok, it's a bit backwards ... but if Trusted Traveler becomes available on a widespread basis (i.e. not just FF elites and GE holders), it might accomplish the same ends.
In short ... TSA is trying to be more intelligent about who it spends time screening. Isn't this basically a good thing?
6-yr-olds should not have their genitals handled by a TSA screener as part of a "random" search. But then, neither should 16-yr-olds, 26-yr-olds, 36-yr-olds, 46-yr-olds, 56-yr-olds, etc.
Even if TT was in response to the complaints, as you suggest, are there that many toddlers that are FF elites? That many 7-yr-olds who have a good enough credit history to pass the application? Are most GE and Nexus members young children or retirees? IOW, how does the current trial, or the predictable extension, address the problem of screening those who appear to be a non-threat?
It is not (or at least, it should not be) a question of "who will receive lighter screening" but a question of "are the 'regular' screening methods appropriate for anyone". If they are not appropriate, it is a waste of time deciding which subgroup should be exempt from them.
And since we don't yet have answers to my questions above, for the time being we will have to assume that non-US citizens (and possibly US citizens resident abroad) will not be part of the "widespread" application you envision. Which means that French toddlers and Australian retirees and German nuns will still be considered "UnTrusted Travelers." Why exactly should such people "merit additional screening"? How did they become "intelligence-based targets" simply by being ineligible for the TT program?
#38
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
Me too - the AFS types get to "feel safe" and I get to avoid some of the cr@p they think is "keeping us safe"
#39
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
And since we don't yet have answers to my questions above, for the time being we will have to assume that non-US citizens (and possibly US citizens resident abroad) will not be part of the "widespread" application you envision. Which means that French toddlers and Australian retirees and German nuns will still be considered "UnTrusted Travelers." Why exactly should such people "merit additional screening"? How did they become "intelligence-based targets" simply by being ineligible for the TT program?
But I also have no alternative to present, either. So I guess I'll continue to watch the debate ... and see how TT plays out when it moves out of the "pilot" stage to actual implementation.
#40
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Your argument is compelling ... which is why, as I said earlier, I'm of a mixed mind regarding the whole thing. This is one of the problems of using TT to exclude non-threats instead of isolating threats; lots of people like kids and non-US passengers simply have no accessible data trail to investigate, making them more likely to be targeted for additional screening.
But I also have no alternative to present, either. So I guess I'll continue to watch the debate ... and see how TT plays out when it moves out of the "pilot" stage to actual implementation.
But I also have no alternative to present, either. So I guess I'll continue to watch the debate ... and see how TT plays out when it moves out of the "pilot" stage to actual implementation.
In a perfect world we would change from a two tier system of those presumed guilty but easily cleared and those that are highly suspicious and not easily cleared. If the TT program simply pulls away the percentage that can be precleared creating a third easily cleared tier and leaving the rest with no changes, then it will be a net positive. It does not have to be automatically assumed that because one is not a TT that they fall to a level lower than the one at which they currently are.
However, the devil is in the implementation. Two problems are likely, but both can be avoided. The first is obvious. The TSA needs to consider the non TT subset exactly as they do now, but it will be easy to accept the mentality that since one is not TT they must not be trusted. The second is less so. Anecdotal evidence is available that certain TSO's may view elite travelers with a certain level of contempt and treat them differently. If this occurs, it will only increase with a TT program.
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
As a result of this TSA approach, young adults and teenagers, the very old, the unemployed/underemployed, the poor, the foreign-born, the foreign-residing (even US citizens) and ethnic/religious minorities are going to have a greater frequency of being harassed by the TSA than their representation amongst the flying public would otherwise indicate.
Large employers, having had major issues with the government and others over unlawful discrimination in hiring and promotion practices, had their feet held to the fire only because the numbers didn't work in its favor with regard to representation of protected classes of persons on the payroll -- and this was when no explicit employer policy or explicit practice could be identified that stipulated an exclusion of protected classes of persons. I'd rather that approach be used to hold the TSA's feet to the fire when it comes to dealing with passengers of those demographic background elements mentioned in my first paragraph above.
Add in the voodoo "security" of "behavior detection", and it becomes even more clear that the Statue of Liberty is being mocked by DHS/TSA on a daily basis.
Instead of obsessing about personalities, I'd rather that the TSA fix its act and focus upon far greater effectiveness in interdicting contraband weapons, explosives and incendiaries. As it is now, the TSA can't even get that right.
This entire situation has me viewing the "PreCheck" and its expansion as yet another sign of the TSA being broken and probably broken beyond repair in my lifetime.
Large employers, having had major issues with the government and others over unlawful discrimination in hiring and promotion practices, had their feet held to the fire only because the numbers didn't work in its favor with regard to representation of protected classes of persons on the payroll -- and this was when no explicit employer policy or explicit practice could be identified that stipulated an exclusion of protected classes of persons. I'd rather that approach be used to hold the TSA's feet to the fire when it comes to dealing with passengers of those demographic background elements mentioned in my first paragraph above.
Add in the voodoo "security" of "behavior detection", and it becomes even more clear that the Statue of Liberty is being mocked by DHS/TSA on a daily basis.
Instead of obsessing about personalities, I'd rather that the TSA fix its act and focus upon far greater effectiveness in interdicting contraband weapons, explosives and incendiaries. As it is now, the TSA can't even get that right.
This entire situation has me viewing the "PreCheck" and its expansion as yet another sign of the TSA being broken and probably broken beyond repair in my lifetime.
#42
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
As a result of this TSA approach, young adults and teenagers, the very old, the unemployed/underemployed, the poor, the foreign-born, the foreign-residing (even US citizens) and ethnic/religious minorities are going to have a greater frequency of being harassed by the TSA than their representation amongst the flying public would otherwise indicate.
Large employers, having had major issues with the government and others over unlawful discrimination in hiring and promotion practices, had their feet held to the fire only because the numbers didn't work in its favor with regard to representation of protected classes of persons on the payroll -- and this was when no explicit employer policy or explicit practice could be identified that stipulated an exclusion of protected classes of persons. I'd rather that approach be used to hold the TSA's feet to the fire when it comes to dealing with passengers of those demographic background elements mentioned in my first paragraph above.
Add in the voodoo "security" of "behavior detection", and it becomes even more clear that the Statue of Liberty is being mocked by DHS/TSA on a daily basis.
Instead of obsessing about personalities, I'd rather that the TSA fix its act and focus upon far greater effectiveness in interdicting contraband weapons, explosives and incendiaries. As it is now, the TSA can't even get that right.
This entire situation has me viewing the "PreCheck" and its expansion as yet another sign of the TSA being broken and probably broken beyond repair in my lifetime.
Large employers, having had major issues with the government and others over unlawful discrimination in hiring and promotion practices, had their feet held to the fire only because the numbers didn't work in its favor with regard to representation of protected classes of persons on the payroll -- and this was when no explicit employer policy or explicit practice could be identified that stipulated an exclusion of protected classes of persons. I'd rather that approach be used to hold the TSA's feet to the fire when it comes to dealing with passengers of those demographic background elements mentioned in my first paragraph above.
Add in the voodoo "security" of "behavior detection", and it becomes even more clear that the Statue of Liberty is being mocked by DHS/TSA on a daily basis.
Instead of obsessing about personalities, I'd rather that the TSA fix its act and focus upon far greater effectiveness in interdicting contraband weapons, explosives and incendiaries. As it is now, the TSA can't even get that right.
This entire situation has me viewing the "PreCheck" and its expansion as yet another sign of the TSA being broken and probably broken beyond repair in my lifetime.
The TSA should just man up and admit that liquids, shoes, waistbands, crotches and puffy hair are just not all that threatening, and get rid of the stupid procedures FOR EVERYONE.
This program is not about filtering out those who are "easily cleared" so that they can focus on the remaining passengers, it's about getting the frequent flyers and/or business travelers to stop complaining. It worked when they exempted pilots and flight attendants - let them keep their shoes on, give them a pass on the NoS, allow them to take liquids through, and (for the most part), flight crew have stopped complaining about the TSA. They don't care if the passengers get manhandled as long as THEY don't have to.
I'm guessing "FF elites and GE holders" are more likely to be business travelers and FFs than toddlers and the elderly poor. If they can get the FFs to shut up, there's no one left to complain except those shifty foreigners, old people and Auntie Mildred who saved for two years to go see her sister in San Diego. And who gives a d@mn about THEM, as long as the FFs get the short line?
ETA: Some of you are optimistic that Trusted Traveler means "no NoS". Some of you are optimistic that "all passengers" will be able to apply for Trusted Traveler. Yet TSA has announced plans to put 1,800 NoS "covering nearly all lanes by 2014." You do the math.
#43
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
Two problems are likely, but both can be avoided. The first is obvious. The TSA needs to consider the non TT subset exactly as they do now, but it will be easy to accept the mentality that since one is not TT they must not be trusted. The second is less so. Anecdotal evidence is available that certain TSO's may view elite travelers with a certain level of contempt and treat them differently. If this occurs, it will only increase with a TT program.
Similarly, if screeners have a grudge against elite travelers, the Trusted Traveler program isn't going to change their attitude, or their reaction. If a checkpoint is busy and there are lots of TT passengers, they'll probably be too lazy to hassle you, but at someday when you're the only passenger at the checkpoint and you present your TT credentials, someone might decide to show you you're not such a big shot.
Lots of things look like a good idea on paper, but if it hasn't taken basic human nature into account, it's likely doomed to fail.
#44
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
I'm guessing "FF elites and GE holders" are more likely to be business travelers and FFs than toddlers and the elderly poor. If they can get the FFs to shut up, there's no one left to complain except those shifty foreigners, old people and Auntie Mildred who saved for two years to go see her sister in San Diego. And who gives a d@mn about THEM, as long as the FFs get the short line?
#45
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,704
Some of them will resent it, but be reassured by the fact that the rest of the line was those suspicious French and Australian and Brazilian people.
Most of the AFS types have never been further from home than the parking lot at WalMart, which means they've never been to the airport, much less on a plane.