Originally Posted by
JakiChan
You keep missing the idea. The idea isn't that they get your credit history. It's that they get a score.
When you buy a car and get dealership financing (yeech) the finance guy there doesn't look at your full credit report. He looks at the credit score, which the agency generates and hands to him. I think it would be the same way. The feds don't get your credit history, they get a "security risk score". They don't see the raw data.
You are making the
assumption that the TSA/DHS would simply get a credit score from a third party rather than accessing your credit card history directly. That would be one way of doing this, and I agree that it might not be too invasive.
However, the media has reported (
Washington Post, March 16 2011) that:
Even a voluntary trusted-traveler approach would require passengers to provide credit information, tax returns and other personal data to verify that members pose little or no risk.
"Credit information, tax returns and other personal data" is a little more vague than a credit score, and allows for many other options. The statement also implies that the passenger would directly provide this information to DHS/TSA, not that a third party would provide a credit score.
That vagueness, coupled with TSA/DHS paranoia, leads me to believe that it would be more detailed than you are assuming. As I've said, I find it hard to believe that the organization could go, almost overnight, from patting down six-year-olds and war veterans and passengers leaving an Amtrak train "out of an abundance of caution" to "oh, yeah, you've got a good credit score, go on through."
Time will tell whether your assumptions or mine are correct.
Originally Posted by
jtodd
The problem with your idea is that it is nearly impossible for the TSA, as a gov. entity, to do it smarter. It is counter to their existence in the realm of gov. finance. The TSA has to grow and spend more money, or they risk cutbacks due to surplus, so they do things that require more work and/or more money. A private company tends to look for ways to cut back on costs to increase profit or stocks for investors. Providing services or creating wickets efficiently and well is essential for private companies existence.
Just for a few examples. Does the TSA do any of the following well?
1. Hire, train, maintain, and manage the best employees needed for the service.
2. Manage risk, do risk assessment, and compare versus cost for effectiveness.
3. Provide the best tools and materials for the employees to do the job.
4. Provide a quality customer service.
I can't think of one thing that the TSA does well and is cost effective.
+1
Originally Posted by
Global_Hi_Flyer
And how many years will it take? 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more?
There are several types of magic invoked in the checkpoint-of-the-future concept. TSA couldn't get puffers to work with an enclosed booth (although other people manage
) but this involves an open, walk-through puffer. There's a magic x-ray that only images your bag (and your shoes) but doesn't irradiate you, and a magic metal detector that only alerts on scissors but not on laptops. TSA can't manage to implement ATR on the NoS or liquid scanners, despite (a) repeated promises that they're "exploring" these technologies, and (b) the fact that other airports have had them for some time. I'm not holding my breath on the c-o-t-f.
