What they say about having nothing to do with it is acutually true. As far as I know, those registered traveler programs are/were operated by for-profit companies.
Seems fair enough.
This brings up my questions, though, since the TSA gets a "vetting fee"-- what exactly do they do? They don't give any special security treatment to RT's, so why are they even vetted?
This brings up my questions, though, since the TSA gets a "vetting fee"-- what exactly do they do? They don't give any special security treatment to RT's, so why are they even vetted?
They stopped the vetting fee after the first year.
I certainly agree that the quote Radiogirl first put up from Bob's post contradicted some of what we have seen from Clear, from their independent Privacy Ombudsman, and quotes from the Airports Council International and the International Association of Airport Executives and reported on in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.
But when I went to Bob's blog this AM to actually read it I got this bit of information...
" ***Update. This post was edited on 7/2/09 at 1300 to reflect additional information that was provided after it went live. *** "
...and the quote given above in this thread has been removed? To boil down Bob's post now, it says that you should go to Clear for information. (And Clear has an updated website and updated e-mail information for its members that is on point.) The blog does not say that you are "on your own." The statement that "TSA had/has no responsibility" is also gone. For that statement to be true, it would contradict the printed privacy statement from Clear (raising an issue of fraud) and several statements from others involved in the matter.
I do admit it is alarming that "Bob" can make comments like he does and then essentially reverse them; after all, we do need TSA to do what they are supposed to do with the RT program. And the tone of the comments section below his post on Clear was also very odd -- it seemed like a group of TSA line employees (Bob himself in one spot) mocking the public commenters in a running battle about TSA's mission/purpose and in which the Clear demise is just another skirmish.
How does TSA tolerate this blog? And how do they have a policy about respecting TSA employees in the comments section when the employees that post make such inflammatory statements themselves?? But now I am off topic...
I certainly agree that the quote Radiogirl first put up from Bob's post contradicted some of what we have seen from Clear, from their independent Privacy Ombudsman, and quotes from the Airports Council International and the International Association of Airport Executives and reported on in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.
But when I went to Bob's blog this AM to actually read it I got this bit of information...
" ***Update. This post was edited on 7/2/09 at 1300 to reflect additional information that was provided after it went live. *** "
...and the quote give above in this thread has been removed? To boil down Bob's post now, it says that you should go to Clear for information. (And Clear has an updated website and updated e-mail information for its members that is on point.) The blog does not say that you are "on your own." The statement that "TSA had/has no responsibility" is also gone. For that statement to be true, it would contradict the printed privacy statement from Clear (raising an issue of fraud) and several statements from others involved in the matter.
I do admit it is alarming that "Bob" can make comments like he does and then essentially reverse them; after all, we do need TSA to do what they are supposed to do with the RT program. And the tone of the comments section below his post on Clear was also very odd -- it seemed like a group of TSA line employees (Bob himself in one spot) mocking the public commenters in a running battle about TSA's mission/purpose and in which the Clear demise is just another skirmish.
How does TSA tolerate this blog? And how do they have a policy about respecting TSA employees in the comments section when the employees that post make such inflammatory statements themselves?? But now I am off topic...
The blog I think your referring to, "TSA Blog", is not Bob's.
The blog belongs to the TSA and Bob is just the moderator.
What started out to be a blog with the following stated goal has devolved into a very poor effort at PR by the TSA.
"This blog is sponsored by the Transportation Security Administration to facilitate an ongoing dialogue on innovations in security, technology and the checkpoint screening process." has devolved into a poor effort at PR by the TSA."
If I was in TSA HQ I would try to live up to the Blogs purpose but that would take some work with a real PR effort.
Programs: UA 2MM, DL 500k, SW CP, GP 1M, HH Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 3,921
Is this "Fool me once...?"
Ironically, I hadn't thought about what this must look like to the TSA as I was trying to encourage the sides to unite and direct their efforts at making it work. But I wonder what this must look like from TSA's perspective, I mean at the senior management level. As they try to scope out the possible endgame scenarios - say, another one like this, for example - why would they want to do this again? Why would they want to get in bed with another possibly shaky organization with a beautiful facade? No matter how much the other party - we - rant about how we want to keep dancing with the first pretty face that came along.
...A further reason why I suggest that all the ranting here goes nowhere, and now, if actually heard, seems ironically to be driving the stake deeper into the concept. And why the better - maybe the only - solution is to pressure congress and DHS to make the TSA better.
I received a voicemail yesterday from American Express. They had completed their dispute investigation and I would be receiving a credit for $1060 on my next statement for my subscription to CLEAR ($1060 was the pro-rated amount for what I had used or the renewal and wha I had requested).
This morning the credit appeared on my account.
I'm glad you got your money back.
Taking my bias towards Clear aside, forking over $1000 for a company and service that has been on shaky ground for awhile is not the way I would have spent that money.
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
I received a voicemail yesterday from American Express. They had completed their dispute investigation and I would be receiving a credit for $1060 on my next statement for my subscription to CLEAR ($1060 was the pro-rated amount for what I had used or the renewal and wha I had requested).
This morning the credit appeared on my account.
My sense was that I would eventually get the money out of AmEx, but had expected more of a struggle out of them due to it being well over 60 days. I was pleasantly surprised that they gave in on the first time around. FWIW for those waiting to hear, I opened the dispute on the day that CLEAR announced it was ceasing operations.
I wonder if AmEx will ever get any money out of them. Guess it's not my problem anymore.
That's good news for you and those who also end up seeing something back too. Perhaps Amex can afford more of this and also paying out bonuses when it's being funded by the US taxpayers too.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
If someone can supply the Post Numbers, either here or via PM, that they want split away form the rest, I'll be glad to do so.
Here's my suggestion for a new topic "Recovering prepaid membership fees from CLEAR". Apologies in advance if I've omitted one or two from the large volume.
![Clear ceases operations [merged threads]](/forum/iconimages/travel-safety-security/clear-ceases-operations-merged-threads_ltr.gif)
