Expansion of PreCheck Announced - Does PreCheck Change Your Mind About TSA Policies?
 

I realize there are numerous points-of-view on the PreCheck trusted traveler program, the expansion of which was announced yesterday.

Admittedly, I'm of two minds. Since I'm listed in both airlines that are participating, I'll probably benefit when flying out of one of the airports in the pilot.

On the other hand, while it lowers the hassle factor for a few, it doesn't really change things for the overwhelming majority of flyers except perhaps to speed things up slightly because the PreCheck people will go through different lines (presuming that a lane was not closed just for PreCheck).

What do you all think?

1% down, 99% to go.

Mike

Yes, right now it only benefits a few passegers as it is still a pilot program. But what about when it is eventually opened to all passengers to apply, and all airlines at all airports?


I know many FT members on the TS/S site contact their Congress person to protest/complain about TSA, but here is what Sen. Boxer thinks of this program.

http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/110911.cfm

Let's just say I'm optimistic :)

Sen Boxer would be the LAST person I'd listen to an opinion of any Federal program. She's a liberal loon.

Unless a program actually eliminates some of the BS screening procedures (NoS, patdown, etc.) - it is useless in my mind. The elite airline FF lines already speed up the process, we just need to eliminate the useless screening that violates the civil rights of all Americans.

The TSA likes to think of themselves as the "last line of defense" for airline safety - but actually, it is the passengers and crew that are the last line, and best at identifying and stopping threats -as proven with the shoe bomber and BVD bomber attempts. The TSA screening didn't identify or stop those individuals - passengers with proper situational awareness identified the suspiocious behavior and assisted the crew in restraining the bad actors until the aircraft could safely land and the perp taken away by real LEOs.

ADA compliant or discriminatory?
 

There is a similar thread discussing the practical points of this program, but just in case there's someone reading this one that has any knowledge of this, I ask again.

I would like to know if pre-check participation changes anything significant for disabled travelers that are unable to use WTMD or other scanners. Will the mandatory pat-down procedures change or be eliminated by any percentage at all for medical opt-out participants?

Can't evaluate it until then. There are too many unknowns at this point. What is involved in "applying"? How much personal information must be released? What fees, if any, must be paid to join the program? Exactly what benefits accrue with being in the program (i.e. which procedures is one exempted from)? The ongoing pilot study may give hints as to the answers --- but if these questions had all been decided upon already, there would be no need for the pilot study.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm guessing this will be A Good Thing. But I'm only guessing at this point --- and so is everyone else.

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.

I have a sneaky feeling that foreigners are never going to be able to apply for this. As a result, when 60% of the flying public is elligible, we will automatically become targets of extra-special super-duper horrible screening tactics for those of us who suspitiously have passports and speak another language.

To put it mildly, I´m not optimistic at all.

No one should have to remove shoes, liquids or laptops at the checkpoint.

My short answer: No.

What he said.

Hmmm, you mean like the whole rest of the world?

Does "all passengers" include people who are not US citizens and/or live in the US? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.

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.

Why should I feel better about a program which treats a very small percentage of travellers the way that the vast majority of airline travellers are currently treated around the world? (Well, frankly there is still the human element, and I don't believe that will improve with this program, so I still think that we will continue to be treated better outside the US, even with the program in place)

As RadioGirl points out, most likely it will continue to exclude a large number of people, including those of us who have clearance higher than most FTers, but who will most likely not qualify for any such program in the US.

Forgive me for being a little cynical, but I just passed through an airport security checkpoint moments ago in the US. It is one of the largest and a major international gateway yet I was singled out for my 'furrinerness' and had a significant delay as a result of not fitting the mold that the security staff were expecting at their checkpoint.

I understand the Animal Farm reference, yet I would like to post a contrary opinion.

80+ times per year I have my name compared to any number of secret lists and each time I am cleared.

80+ times per year I present a valid ID to the TDC and get the magic squiggle.

80+ times per year I voluntarily submit my possessions for an xray inspection and whether it is initially cleared or must undergo additional tests, it always clears.

80+ times a year I submit to a screening of my person that may include WTMD or a scan of my virtually naked body, or a opt out and frisk from the same.

80+ times a year my checked luggage is voluntarily submitted for screening and physical inspection as needed, every time without incident.

Except for the times I use an unrecognized NEXUS, or insist on not being visually separated from my belongings, or add to their work by opting out, my clearing is uneventful.

As a practical matter, my screening could be less intensive than the occasional traveler, not because I am an any way special or better, but simply because I have a history that shows that I have a high likelihood of trustworthiness. It is not to say that the casual traveler is not trustworthy. It only says that they have not had an opportunity based on repeated successful clearings to demonstrate that trustworthiness.

I will say this... Background checks and being trusted is only as good as the information that is available at the moment. Just as soon as this program hits a glich with a person/persons getting through that turns out not to be as trust worthy as TSA thought they were. The TSA will have a different response to passengers than they do for their TSA screeners.

I mean when it comes to TSA Screeners nothing gets complicated for every single one of them when a TSA Screener fails the trust test. However all the passengers are required to jump through alot of unknown hoops when a passenger fails the trust test.

Add to that the fact that I go through immigration checks throughout the world over 20 times a year and we have pretty similar situations. But I do not qualify for this program, despite being globally trustworthy!

Besides, the current differences in screening are specifically the parts of screening which add no security whatsoever.

I have been screened for NEXUS. I did not add that to the list. I see the logic in allowing the experience of people like both you and me, to determine that through historical experience that we constitute a lesser risk than one with an unknown history. It is an imperfect technique for 100% security, as all are, but it may allow an acceptable management of statistical risk. The have chosen their current criteria and it may very well be expanded, maintained or even abandoned.

Really easy to argue when you pick and chose what to argue about, as I clearly wrote "all passengers to apply". If you wish to discuss what I wrote, do so, but don't pick and chose from what I wrote - as that changes the context of what I stated. But perhaps that is the only way you can argue against what I said?

Ok, fine. But my point was she is still a MoC, and seems to support the current policy of TSA. I could care less if she is a liberal loon, a right wing nut, or anything in-between. My point is this: when Congress shows public support for TSA (btw, as some others MoC did recently when Pistole testified before them), how well will they hear the complaints of people from this site who write in to complain about TSA, liberal loon or not?

Key phrase: .

Confidence in the TSA is eroding in Congress as has become quite evident in the past several weeks. What is said in public and what is said in private are two very different things. You and I have no idea what Congress is saying in private to Nappy and Pistole. I believe both are being told to clean up their act.

Can't believe I'm about to say this... but,

"A terrorist would never think of [the above]." Right? or, perhaps "A terrorist would never figure how to use someone that does qualify by [the above]."

Having said that... <runs off to bathroom to shower>... as I personally despise the constitutionally deteriorating methods that TSA uses - and would rather take my chances on an airplane where no passenger screening has occured than to go through the current procedures. ...

While I could agree that you are most likely not a threat to aviation security - it does not mean that I or anyone else is more of a threat just because we fly less than others.

In my opinion, there are all sorts of issues with the program... a government agency forcing people to pay and provide personal information to be allowed to avoid certain procedures, any of which are questionable for constitutionality, just to travel; is wrong on so many levels that I'm at a loss for where to begin.

I guess to start, similar to what others have pointed out, why should the person who flies for the first time in their life to go on a trip with their spouse be considered any more of a threat than a person who flies every single day of the year?

I'll see your Boxer with a Paul, and raise with a McCaskill.



... I know, I know... due to political expediency, I'm sure you can point out more that have publically supported TSA... but, fortunately, more and more are starting to speak out against it - typically after they have experienced it for themselves... and if they don't listen... we work on voting them out and electing people that will listen to our concerns.

What about those who might qualify for PreCheck but because of a physical disability would "flunk" WBI? They are being discriminated against if they have to go through a grope each and every time they fly?

I find PreCheck totally discriminatory as well as opening up an avenue for terrorist activity. The more people who are allowed a free or semi-free pass at security, the greater the chances are that a terrorist will get through, if, indeed, there are actually any out there tyring.

Are PreCheck lanes using WTMD or WBI? Since one can leave one's jacket and shoes on, I would assume the former but, since I haven't gone through such a lane yet (since I haven't flown out of any of the airports with PreCheck yet), I don't know first hand.

Most of the early reports state WTMD in use where there have been pre-check security lines available, but the TSA reserves the right to mix it up at any time. Dunno how pre-check will work for people with wheelchairs, titanium replacement parts flunking the WTMD or those with physical anomalies that alarm the AIT or those simply unable to stand and assume the position. Can a person with medical anomalies or any disability EVER be considered a trusted traveler???

Agree. Reinforced cockpit doors, armed pilots, and complete reversal of the policy requiring passive cooperation with hijackers are good enough for me.

I am prepared to accept some incremental risk resulting from no passenger screening just as I accept many other risks in life, such as drunk drivers.

Not by the execrable screeners who act as if we lost bodily functions just to make them work harder.E.g., the goon at SDF who barked to his accomplice, "You got another one in the cripple lane who says he can't walk."

I am not saying that you are more of a threat than I just because you travel less frequently. I am saying that I have a history, a long one, of not being a threat that statistically implies that less initial screening might be justified under a managed risk approach.

Risk mitigation based on statistical patterns is a difficult subject to discuss as there will always be those whose statistics put them in a less favorable point on the range of values that determines the assumed statistical level of risk.

Yet, if we agree that we should do screening more efficiently, that we should not treat everyone as terrorists, and that some mitigation of risk is in order, that will be the result. Some people will be seen as statistically more favorable than others based on historical patterns.

Boiled down to its fundamentals, there are only three ways of applying security, all can be done with various levels of fervor. One, we assume everyone is nefarious and take steps to assure that they are not (current). Two we assume everyone is safe and take steps to determine those that may be unsafe (What we had in the past). Three, assign various individual levels of risk and response based on historical and statistical patterns (what we are discussing).

I do not see myself as qualifying anytime soon, so it is just a discussion topic for me. My primary carrier (WN) is not part of any of the trials. The primary airport I use and most of my destinations are not major hubs, which also seems to be the focus.

Furthermore, I do not really care. I have adapted to the current regimen and am surviving just fine. I am not asking for changes.

Senator Boxer does not speak for me, furthermore she doesn't represent my state.

I don't believe in providing more info to big brother (or big Sis Napolitano).

I'd be happy if the TSA budget was cut in half and a number of programs (i.e. BDO) eliminated.

Okay, then, let me rephrase the questions to address the issue that it is the passenger who must apply to be in the program:

• 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.

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.

Stating differently, TSA will continue to presume people guilty until proven innocent except that there will be an option to "prove" yourself innocent by becoming a "trusted traveler".

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.

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?

So far, it seems that TT has allowed a few people predetermined to be trust-worthy due to an abundance of repetition routine air-travel and shared personal information to walk through the metal detector wearing shoes and outer clothing through the checkpoint. How intelligent is it if someone who simply cannot walk cannot be trusted no matter how much else is known about them?

I hear you, I really do, and agree with you in principle.

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. :mad:

Many TSA critics, but not all. I believe kids and retirees and everyone else in between should be screened - with a WTMD and a baggage x-ray, and perhaps random ETD; with a HHMD and a gentle (Asia/Europe/Australia-style) patdown to resolve any WTMD alarms. Period.

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?

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"

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.

I, too, am conflicted. Although I would be one of the last to be approved, WN primary airline and BNA as home airport, I would likely make the cut as I have already gotten NEXUS approval.

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.