Let's see here:

Voluntarily supplying the number to my (already-issued) passport, my (already-on-file) thumbprint; my (already-issued) state driver's license info; and info from my FF program VS. having my breasts felt by a stranger?

No contest there on the "which is more invasive" count.

I don't. List or no list, the last thing the list says (on the TSA site) is that the screeners can confiscate things if they feel like it, even if its on the "okay to carry on" list....which is how my corkscrew (corkscrews are on the "okay" list) wound up in the Big Pile Of Confiscated Stuff at JFK. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

I could give a sh*t about the corkscrew--after looking it up on the TSA site, I figured I should still take one I didn't mind losing--but why *have* the list if it is useless?

What is to prevent the *same* thing from happening with the "Trusted Traveler" program (uh...except the Travelers wouldn't get confiscated, I presume...) Undoubtedly, there will be a caveat where the TSA dewds on duty get to f*ck with you anyway, b/c you look "suspicious", or b/c they are having a bad day, or it's time for a Make Up Call for the PC Crowd.

Watch it happen.

Regards,

O/H

I understand you're still angry, essxjay, about your incident. I hope that when time has passed and you can reflect on the issue with a more jaundiced eye, you can recognize a couple things:

1. Some flyers don't have passports (in fact, isn't it like 90% of Americans do not have them?);
2. Some flyers don't have thumbprints on file (I don't - why would I?);
3. Some flyers don't have driver's licenses;
4. Some flyers don't participate in FF programs (I don't participate in every program); and
5. Being molested without your consent by the TSA is illegal, and you can call the police (see the thread about Penn's experience at Las Vegas).

Finally, the choice is not between giving all four of those pieces of information OR being physically molested. It's a choice about traveling unhindered by government authorities, which people like Spiff believe is an American citizen's fundamental right, and burdening them with providing additional information other than a paid ticket in exchange for travel without hassle is an arrogant overstepping of their Constitutional powers. I don't necessarily agree with him about that, especially because there is still a risk from terrorist attacks, but in "normal" times, his point is 100% valid, it seems to me.

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 01-22-2003).]

How will we know when "normal times" have returned? Won't we always be at risk of more terrorist attacks? You don't really think that Mr Ridge will someday announce that "Terrorist Threats are a thing of the past," do you?

anonplz,

I've stressed the point six ways from Sunday:

I would _voluntarily_ do what I mentioned in previous posts b/c I can and want to. It's just the extent of what I would be willling to do for a proposed TTP.

If others choose not to get a passport, fine. If others choose not to get a driver's license or their state's ID card, that is certainly their perogative. And, frankly, fingerprinting is more common than you might think. It's required for anyone working at a bank (teller or CEO, regardless), when taking the Bar exam (and LSAT for that matter http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif ) and for hundreds of other reasons. You'd be surpised in how many contexts it's required.

I'm under no illusions any more about my privacy so I guess that's why I have no qualms about applying for TTP status despite the fact that it should be necessary in the first place.

(Going a little OMNI here ...) As many on FT know, I worked for a newspaper for over 16 years, until just last May. You'd be amazed at how much info is available on y'alls. We subscribed to DMV databases, property tax databases, criminal records databases, SSI info, telephone data (incl. supposedly unlisted numbers), you name it. And it's not terribly expensive to acquire this data. And it was available to _anyone_ in our newsroom as part of the utility menu under the PC's START menu, copyaide to Executive editor.

Chilling, eh? I could found out volumes about a prospective date if had wanted to. (Never did, BTW, as I felt it was not ethical to do so for non-news purposes.)

</omni>

It's not so much that I'm angry any more; I'm galvanized to make change. As I stated before, I would never deem it appropriate to vent my anger at the person doing the wanding, though you can bet my displeasure is broadcast rather lucidly by my body langauge and facial expression.

Okay, so we eventually go through with it and do this trusted traveler thing giving you a "pass" to prance through the gates of h@ll. If you set all the arguments about privacy, which is easier for traveling, etc aside, then think about the end result.

I am sure it might have some expiration date, but how do they know if "the trusted traveler" hase decided to become a bad buy, who now has this "pass" and is trusted? Or maybe you are a "trusted traveler" but now decide you should carry weapons for your own safety. From a security standpoint this does not make sense. It only makes sense if we want to give special treatment to a select group, while at the same time knowing we have just created a large security risk.

But then again, if you are not trying to find terrorists and only have window dressing to make the average layman "feel safe", then go for it1

This program was proposed at about the same time the TSA was created. As much as I dislike the TSA, I don't think that there is anything underhanded going on here.

Yes, I think that secondary harassment should go away. Heck, I think the TSA should go away.

But, like Ess, my fingerprints are already on file and I have been in enough government buildings that all my other numbers are already on file too. If the government will allow me to VOLUNTARILY submit to a background check to avoid hassles, then I am going for it.

This program, if instituted, would be VOLUNTARY. You don't want to be checked out, don't apply.

Substitute "screener"for the words "trusted traveler". Who can you really trust?

As I told the head case supervisor, and then her supervisor on Monday, I trust nobody.

I guess that is why I have had such great success in the Security Industry.

One of my concerns about the program is at what point will it then become mandatory rather than voluntary? That point will surely follow.

Never say Never, but how could it become mandatory?

Look at seat belts. Initially, they were just there, and you didn't have to use them. Then, what, around 1986 or so, they became mandatory, but not the type of offense for which a police officer could pull you over. Today, you don't even have that, even if you are Ma Kettle, living in the middle of nowhere, and use your car just to go to the grocery store.

I know that's a lame analogy, but my thinking is that the trusted traveler program would be too tempting a program not to impose it on everyone who flies, after it becomes so popular with a flying public which detests the lines and searches, as Spiff and others do. It makes the government, by extension, popular in turn.

Look at another example of where the government takes a "temporary" program and makes it permanent: toll booths. None of them were supposed to last, it was only until this was paid for, or that was paid for, but the money was just too good, so they broke their promises. Now, they have EZ Pass, which can make toll booths obsolete, and give us back our freedom to drive without them, but you are still paying the toll tax!

Edit: as I look at this post, I know I could do better, but I'm kind of tired - sorry!

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 01-23-2003).]

But, EZ-Pass is voluntary.

If the Government tried to institute a mandatory trusted Traveller program, it ould kill the Travel Industry.

CG, please see the first page of this thread where I quoted information from this link:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-07-02.html

Anyone who thinks the 'Trusted Traveler' program won't evolve into something much more intrusive, need only look at the history of social security numbers. Technology is far more advanced now than it was then. I think we have much to worry about with this program.

Leave it to the politicians to create a problem and then try to make themselves into heroes by proposing a solution (which, of course, never eliminates the problem, and always has a "gotcha"). Here the problem is an unusable security system which has been foisted upon us by our good friends in Congress, with widespread public support. The proposed "trusted traveler" solution not only fails to take care of the problem - countless millions who are just as trustworthy as anyone else will still be subject to an unusable system for not being card-carrying Friends of Big Brother - but will cause our collective privacy to be eroded that much more in the process. Of course, one could argue that the magnitude of the erosion wouldn't be that great, because every passenger already gets a pre-flight background check courtesy of CAPPS...

I hang my head in sadness at the prospect of applying for government authorization to travel without hindrance in my own country (and to think my schoolteachers used to tell me this was one of the things that made the Soviet Union a Bad Place to Live). Like other posters on this thread I have zero trust that the government would limit the program to its original intended purpose. (When has that ever happened?) Forget the "trusted traveler" program - a smoke-and-mirrors answer to smoke-and-mirrors "security." Make the system usable like it was before and everyone benefits.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Factotum:
Leave it to the politicians to create a problem and then try to make themselves into heroes by proposing a solution (which, of course, never eliminates the problem, and always has a "gotcha"). Here the problem is an unusable security system which has been foisted upon us by our good friends in Congress, with widespread public support. The proposed "trusted traveler" solution not only fails to take care of the problem - countless millions who are just as trustworthy as anyone else will still be subject to an unusable system for not being card-carrying Friends of Big Brother - but will cause our collective privacy to be eroded that much more in the process. Of course, one could argue that the magnitude of the erosion wouldn't be that great, because every passenger already gets a pre-flight background check courtesy of CAPPS...

I hang my head in sadness at the prospect of applying for government authorization to travel without hindrance in my own country (and to think my schoolteachers used to tell me this was one of the things that made the Soviet Union a Bad Place to Live). Like other posters on this thread I have zero trust that the government would limit the program to its original intended purpose. (When has that ever happened?) Forget the "trusted traveler" program - a smoke-and-mirrors answer to smoke-and-mirrors "security." Make the system usable like it was before and everyone benefits.

I will have to disagree on one point. That old usable system cost the lives of thousands. Why it did not happen prior to 911 who knows because most security experts have been talking about how lax it was for years. If you do not want to be screened because you feel violated there are many other means of travel. I do not think some of you are thinking realistically. The world is shrinking with technology. That's a fact. You will probably be dead by the time Big Brother has a serious grip. Other countries are far off worse.

The old system did not cause those people to lose their lives unless you mean because boxcutters were allowed on the planes. The new system is a joke. The big holes in security still exist because over a year as been spent on searching for harmless metal objects rather than doing something about those areas.

The only people thinking unrealistically are the bozos in charge of this mess and the screeners they have brainwashed to think it is good. Please don't tell me I can travel by other means. I'll continue to fly and I'll put up with this BS as much as I need to and I'll continue to write letters and voice my concerns.

So you are trying to tell me that the old security rules were just fine? better check out these documents and look at the dates. http://www.gao.gov/airptsec.html


[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 01-24-2003).]

[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 01-24-2003).]

The government is already working on this. I've posted some of the news articles talking about the system and John Poindexter, who is in charge of it, in OMNI and In The News. Basically the goal that has been set is to track every piece of information about every person, from bank and telephone statements to where you travel. It's a pretty big undertaking.

d

It could be something uglier though,
http://www.thepowerhour.com/docs/fm3-19-40.pdf

WHAAAAAAA. They wanted my nail clippers.
Dude, we want scissors, nothing but scissors.

More of Daschle's professionalism.

BTW, it is against the TOS of FlyerTalk to post under more than one name.

OOPS, my bad.

Sounds to me that FWAAA is just pig headed. What on earth do you need nail clippers for on a flight. Are you telling me your nails grow so fast that they need cutting every two hours ??? Dont you realise that you are simply being an A**e when you act like this.

I made a mistake a few weeks ago and in my hand luggage, something had fallen behind the liner. This was actually a leatherman knife The staff took their time, systematically emptied the bag and found it. They very kindly advised me on how to go back through security and check in the offending item, which the NW desk clerk packed in a box and labelled up for me.

Second time through they were just as efficent and very polite.

These people are not here for the fun of it or to make nutters like you a source of entertainment.

If you dont like the rules, which will only get tougher, then I suggest you go by train. I am sure yu could find plenty to complain about there.

IP logged

Why do you need anything on a flight?

Can't you go 2 hours without reading? Without using your computer? Without taking your medication?

The reason people are upset about the ban on knives, nail clippers, pool cues, hockey sticks etc. is not because we desperately need these items on the plane. We are incensed because the ban of these objects contributes nothing to safety and wastes everyone's time and money as we are harassed by screeners suring the Great Pointy Object Search while taking away focus on real, credible threats to aircraft.

Two US airlines are in bankruptcy and a third or fourth is quite possible. These airlines are in this mess because of their own mismanagement, but the horse@#$% "security" provided by the TSA at travelers' and taxpayers' expense is doing nothing to help them out of this mess and is keeping lots of business travelers away.

So, NO, we will not get used to it and NO, we will not take the train. We will continue to lobby our elected representatives to stop this idiocy and will continue to show contempt to those who are pawns of Normie the Clown in exchange for a paycheck each time they randomly harass us.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

"pig headed"??

The TSA published guidance on this issue has for several months now specifically allowed nail clippers in carryon bags. Since I had no checked luggage, I was not going to "relinquish" my nail clippers to satisfy this moron who didn't want to play by the rules.

Each time I was a connecting pax from the UK or SA, where my nail clippers passed unquestioned. Ditto for LAX, where I originated.

If objecting to government sponsored theft of my carryon items makes me an ..., then I'm an ....

I couldn't care less how much they smile and say "please" and "thank you" if they aren't going to consistently follow THEIR OWN PUBLISHED RULES.

If that makes me an ..., then so be it.

[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 02-04-2003).]

But since our alleged TSA posters can't even read and follow the rules of FlyerTalk with any consistency, how can we expect them to follow the TSA's own rules concerning permitted and prohibited items?? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif

Why shouldn't we be able to bring nail clippers on a flight when they have been on the approved list for months now? It isn't that you necessarily need them on the flight but perhaps you may need them during your trip. So you go to the airport assuming you are following all the rules and find some idiot screener who wants to flex their muscles and take them away. IT's BS.



------------------
"Those who would trade some of their liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Try to see the bigger picture. Just because I need something when I get there, doesn't mean I need it on the flight. If you are on a multi-city trip for a week, or two, a nailclipper becomes a necessity. I don't feel that I should have to go out in every city I stop and try to buy a new clipper and then throw it away. It is not pigheaded on my part, but maybe it was on TSA's part. The rules have changed now, so the point is moot.

And, please tell me where I board the train from Los Angeles to London. I would love to take it.

Just a thought, but did anyone mention that some nail clippers have knife blades, which btw are prohibited ??

Are you going to keep posting with the second handle? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

My nail clippers had no knife blade, the moron screener knew it, yet still wanted me to "relinquish" them. I don't know her motivation for demanding I throw away a "permitted item," and in talking to the supervisor I demanded that she (and anyone else working at MIA who is unclear of the rules) receive remedial training on the "prohibited item" and "permitted item" lists.

I kept the clippers (just like the four previous times thru the very same checkpoint since the TSA took over).

So sorry, but this is my "new" handle. You like ?? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif