Trusted passengers
 

I have heard of a plan for a ID card that would require extensive background checks but would allow passengers to bypass a security checkpoint as a trusted traveler. I think that implanted micro chips would be better.

I would much prefer secondary screening at the main checkpoint and secondary screening at the gate for every single flight.

A centralized government database holding the details of private citizens is a very scary thought. It may be voluntary at first, but eventually the feds will say "gee, this is such a successful program, let's make it mandatory".

This is a terrible idea and should be stopped immediately. All the complaints so far about rights and the Constitution regarding the TSA are baseless compared to this destruction of our liberties.

Just to add insult to injury, this will not be effective. Give terrorists a way to evade security, and they will use it.

Implanted where?

FWIW, I agree with JS

But isn't being hassled by security the biggest complaint here? It wouldn't happen with these measures of identification. What would be the problem of a background check? If you pay taxes or have a drivers license they know more than enough about you. Why not a little more?

Ditto, I agree with JS too and want to know where you think these microchips should be implanted? Surely you aren't suggesting that they should be implanted in an individuals body??? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

TravelBuzz??? Why can't the TSA folks that have shown up follow posting rules???? Before anyone says I am trying to stifle opposing views, please see the following thread where some of us are trying to get a new forum for security issues started:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum73/HTML/000430.html

Now that we have moderators I will leave it to them to enforce the posting rules for this forum (but I still wish people would follow them).

Do a search of the forum for 'trusted traveler' and you will find that this has also been discussed and some of us aren't real keen on that program either. Actually, you could have done a search on the web first and found a nicely related news story to link to making this thread appropriate for this forum.

My biggest complaint isn't being hassled actually. Mine is the waste of time and resources to accomplish zilch while bigger areas of concern are left unchecked. I can tell you though, there is no way in hell anyone is implanting a microchip in my body, most especially the government.

I think that implanting the chip in the body was a given. I read Billikens question as where in the body would the chip be implanted. If you are really trusted, it would go in the upper arm. If you're not trusted all that well, it would be implanted somewhere else http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

"We're going to track everything."

http://naturalhealthline.com/newslet...2/chipping.htm

That said, my cats have both been "chipped", but neither one travels any better than they did before chipping, so I don't know that it would help. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

birdstrike


[This message has been edited by birdstrike (edited 01-21-2003).]

[This message has been edited by birdstrike (edited 01-21-2003).]

This went way over my head. Did I do something bad? I am kinda new at this. Please explain.

Just a small surgical operation and you would be good to good. Special ops soldiers now have them in the event of becoming a POW.

Tsadude, you didn't do anything bad, per se, it's just that the forums on Flyertalk exist to create order out of chaos, as talking about flying can be. You started a thread in the "In The News: ...." forum, but not with a link to a news story, as is customary, but a personal thought about something general related to travel, and the best place for it would be Travelbuzz. We don't all follow the rules so religiously, but people appreciate keeping the forums "clean", thus making following things easier.

As to "a little bit more", no, it's all already gone too far. If "they" "know more than enough about me," then case closed, there isn't even a need to discuss how even more information will be collected, because I won't consent to it, now or ever. Where is the line to be drawn? Is there a line in the sand? This surveillance society we have become is too much, and I can't wait for the era to emerge when the pendulum swings the other way, towards less surveillance and more freedom.

BTW, there are people who do not have driver's licenses, especially in NYC or the bigger places with developed mass transit systems.

As far as I'm concerned, biometrics is disgusting. Pre-9/11, I had a job where the office manager told everyone that a certain biometric procedure was being adopted for, you guessed it, "enhanced security" and that participation would be mandatory.

I refused, point blank. Guess what? They backed down, and never adopted it after all, I presume because there were a number of us who refused.

Next up would be urine testing, blood tests and polygraphs, and who knows what else?

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 01-21-2003).]

My son told me that the best way to control a country is to make its people think they are free. It is suggestions like this that tend to make me agree with him http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Thanks for the clarification on these rules of engagement. I have been investigated so much by the government it is not even funny. As a soldier you relinquish your rights to privacy. I have given up so many blood and urine samples that I lost count. I even have DNA samples stored somewhere. Big brother is watching everywhere.

I find it otherworldly, but tsadude's suggestion sounds interesting.

I don't know that this background check would require any more information than I already give up. The main difference would be the consolidation of of the data into one document.

In order to get frequent flyer miles, my every comming and going is tracked.
In order to avoid a cavity search and IDB, I charge my tickets with a credit card (don't pay cash if you are in a hurry).
In order to board my flight, I need a driver's license (or passport). In my state, that requires a fingerprint.
Hence a lot of my personal information is tracked.

What information, beyond the above, would be required. "They" already know my recent addresses, income, credit history, employment history, travel habits, spending habits, and biological information.

Now, I am against the survelance society we have become, but I don't see how this new ID card is a further step toward Stalanism.

On the plus side, the new card would save me some hassle and possible allow me to check in at the RCC (or other lounge) again.

See Randy Petersen's comments at the end of this thread:

www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/005647.html

I have pointed this out several times in threads begun by new posters who don't seem to have read the following description of this forum:

All I ask is that posters follow the rules and post summaries of news stories (with links) and then discuss them. Mr Petersen seemed to agree in his post (see first link above).

Shouldn't be too hard to follow simple rules, now should it??

As I said before, I will now rely on the moderators to keep this forum on topic. Rules is rules, even if you are new, and even if you say you work for the TSA.

As I said before, I will now rely on the moderators to keep this forum on topic. Rules is rules, even if you are new, and even if you say you work for the TSA.

Gotcha, 10-4 good buddy. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Thank you http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Why Not Implant a Microchip?

Sound crazy? Well, it is. But as a thought experiment, it well illustrates how incremental incursions on liberty can lead to dramatic losses of privacy over time. Consider our experience with Social Security numbers.

People worried when the Social Security Act was passed in 1935 that the Social Security number (SSN) would become an all-purpose identifier--an understandable public response, at the time, to a rather dramatic institutional change. But government officials reassured the public that the SSN would not be used for any such purpose. Equally important, they showed restraint and only gradually expanded the federally mandated uses of the SSN--not mandating its use by other federal agencies until 1943. A step at a time, during the 1960s the SSN became the taxpayer identifier used by the IRS, the identifier for federal civilian and military personnel, the Medicare identifier, and more. In the 1970s Congress passed laws requiring the SSN's use for legally admitted aliens and anyone seeking federal benefits--and also gave the states free rein to use SSNs for identification purposes. A series of federal laws passed in the 1980s required the issuance of SSNs to ever-younger children if their parents wanted to claim them as dependents on federal tax forms--by age 5, age 2, age 1, now at any age. People got used to it.


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 01-21-2003).]

I did the search but I like my link better
http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

That is a great link! I'll have to check out some of the other information in the stories it provides links to later when I get home. This did catch my eye:

Larry Ellison, head of Oracle Corporation, the California based software company, has called for the development of a national identification system and offered to donate the technology to make this possible

Donate my arse!

Absolutely not. No trusted traveler program is needed or desired.

We keep wanting to do something different or new when there really isn't any need to do either!

No credible weapons, no bombs, no problem.

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

I guess what I am missing is - since "they" already know so much about "us", why should we have to pay to get a "Trusted Traveller" status? Wouldn't TSA/Homeland Security save time and effort by just issuing an ID or other clearance mechanism at no additional cost (Please no implants!)? I mean, if we are already paying x-dollars for each segment for security fees - and the agency could save x-dollars per trip by not having to subject TT's to detailed searches...(how much do the screeners make per hour?), why should we have to pay more? Isn't in their interest as well to speed things up?...

IF it were voluntary and IF it were free of charge (ala INSPASS), I would welcome a TTP (Trusted Traveler Program). I would happily supply my Passport number, residency info and proof of my extensive travel for the past five years. Being as though I've already been fingerprinted, even if that were asked for I still wouldn't mind.

But that's just me!

I'm sick of the unwarranted hassle as much as anyone. It's just that it's not going away anytime soon and I'm unwilling to continue to put up with this screening BS if the folks who granted power to the TSA to touch my breasts lest I be denied travel say I can sidestep it. Period.

Hmmm, I just thought of something. Maybe it's not so bad after all.

Since I have a good background, I should have no trouble getting a special "no security check needed" ID card. Then I can buy a gun and take it on every flight.

In the unlikely event of a hijacking, my fellow passengers and I will stand a better chance of surviving since I can shoot the bad guys rather than trying to beat them up.

Another wasteful program trying to solve a problem that we have not even taken the time to identify. Still,if there is a problem and it proves to be a WONDERFULL success and works 99% of the time. This is being rather generous, but follow along.

So, if 15 million people fly a month (I heard that number someplace) and 1% of them slip through this program, that means that 150,000 got through. But, lets assume only 1% of them are bad guys, then we have only 150 bad guys.

So, is this really worth all this effort?

And this assumes that someone "trusted" today is still to be trusted next month?

Unfortunately, this is not all the information that would be gathered. I'll go through the crotch wanding I was recently subjected to before I will allow myself to be 'microchipped'.

Just curious: what else do you think might be asked for? I mention this only because I'm familiar with some policy wonks who've been studying this idea pretty exhaustively for about a year now. (By policy wonks I mean a private think tank with strong a free-market, personal-privacy stance.) They propose to testify before a Congressional transportation committee of some type, hopefully sometime this year.

And as I stated above, "if" the several criteria I mentioned were the only ones required would I agree to a TTP. Anything more would be a deal breaker for me.

JS, just to be perfectly clear, I never suggested that I shouldn't/wouldn't be expected to undergo a pre-9/11 x-ray of my bags as part of the TTP ID.

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 01-21-2003).]

Essxjay, if you still have to walk through the magnenometer and X-ray your bags, what is the point?

My point is about the post-9/11 hassle-factor (secondary screenings regardless of setting-off the magnometers, feel-ups, riduculous list of proscribed items in carry-ons, etc.). A trusted traveler ID should allow one to bypass this particular part of the nonsense.

I know, it sounds like 'too bad for innocent infrequent travelers', but since they're the ones who favor this current set-up let 'em have their cake. Just don't expect me to choke it down without a fight. It's not called elite status for nothing.

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 01-21-2003).]

Trusted traveler? If we can't even trust a pilot (who has had every background check in the book and cleared by USDOT) then why should we trust hoardes of passengers that have some card stating that their "okie dokie"!

http://dailynews.attbi.com/cgi-bin/n...estgundc211717

Maybe because very few (if any - and probably none) of the 280 million American citizens are terrorists? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

That and the fact that your agency is only concerned with sharp and pointy objects (as well as the longtime-outlawed guns and knives) - and is doing nothing to really identify and stop honest to god terrorists.

But what can we expect from an agency that operates on the premise that "everyone is a potential terrorist"? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

It's not the "very few" part that bothers me about your post, it's the "probably none". Need I mention Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kazinski (sp?) ? Domestic or not, it's still terrorism, right?

I think your argument is pretty spurious, tmspa.

Let's define the hoardes you refer to. Approx. 2-4% of the flying population generate somewhere between 25- and 40-percent of commercial airline revenue. This market segment is likely to be the frequent business traveler (or perhaps an avid leisure traveler http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif ). It's highly unlikely their purpose for flying is anything nefarious, so why subject them to the same scrunity as a non-frequent flier on a one-way F or C ticket purchased with someone else's credity card?

Sound like profiling? You bet. And I'm quite in favor of it. This would be one step in the right direction away from the current "everything-including-the-kitchen-sink" approach, which is over-the-top expensive, inefficient and a gigantic time-waster.

Sounds like 'too bad for the innocent infrequent traveler' right? Well, let 'em have their cake since they're the ones who asked for this current screening nonsense, but don't expect me to choke it down without a fight.

And by fight I don't mean being confrontational at the checkpoint just for principle's sake. I think that's a waste of time. There are more appropriate times and ways of taking action to affect change ... stay tuned. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

You got me there.

And exactly what is the TSA doing about the next McVeigh or Unabomber besides scrutinizing their nail clippers and taking away their pointy scissors and small pocketknives?

Just last week I once again had to put up with an idiot screener (MIA - E) who wanted to confiscate my nail clippers because they contain a nail file - that's the fifth time since the TSA took over at the very same checkpoint that I have argued the same point.

She rummaged thru my carryon for about five minutes before settling on the nail clippers. She said I could go quicker if I just "relinquished" my nail clippers.

To hell with her. What a stupid moron. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

I called for a supervisor and demanded that the screeners get some remedial training in what's permitted and what's prohibited. At least the supervisor apologized for the idiocy. And just like every other time, I got to keep the nail clippers.

And I have no doubt that I will have to appeal their confiscation next time thru the same checkpoint. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with your agency.

No amount of Sirs, Ma'ams, Pleases and Thank Yous is going to change that. Politeness isn't what I seek - I want professionals who are as well acquainted with the rules as I am. Is that asking too much??

I watched someone go apesh*t when they pulled aside his 80-year-old grandmother for wanding. On another occasion, I watched a four-year-old get wanded. An advertisement for time put it the best:
(or something like that).

They already have, and the result which we have now is indeed disastrous. Either do it the right way (e.g. Japan, Israel) or don't do it all. You may be fooling some people, but you p*ss off everyone else.

I can't speak for ever airport and won't attempt to. This is clearly a case of a screener who doesn't know what their doing. The team I lead and the two other teams that work at our checkpoint are excellent! They make common sense decisions about what can go through security and what can't. There is a prohibited list and a SOP, but some things don't fall into these categories. I have faith that my folks will make the right decision every time!

There should be NO secondary harassment w/o probable cause - period! No trusted traveler program is needed. Everyone walks thru the magnetometer and puts their stuff through the x-ray. After that, the only people who should be further scrutinized are those who do not pass both of these checks.

We should not have to belong to the trusted traveler club just to put a stop to these insane harassments that should never have begun in the first place!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

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

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

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif It's funny, because you see how this proposal is disingenuous (I just HATE that word... I think I'll start using the word antidisestablishmentarianism in protest). Kind of like saying, "don't like security checks? become a trusted traveler" which is in itself an even MORE instrusive security check, but "you only have to do it once - see how good we are?" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

I completely agree! What really gets me is last time I was pulled aside for additional wanding, my bags were left alone .... very alone http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif. I never set off the metal detector but they felt a need to wand me anyway. This is so friggin' stupid!

essxjay, I was referring to some of the information I found in one of the articles linked to for the microchip. To me that just seems one step away from the government being able to monitor your every movement.

I hope you know that I happen to agree with you completely. But you also are privy to the details of what I went through last week, and if it happens again I won't fly that day -- I'll sue (regardless of the outcome). Thus, my expression of MY willingness to voluntarily be IDed for TTP purposes. I'm sick of haggling just to set foot on a d@mned a/c.

Another way that I look at it is I'm thumbing my nose at you-know-who by playing one bureacracy off another.

Cynical? Yep. If they're going to waste my tax money then I'll just play the system to my best advantage, which means not wasting my time being touched in private places without cause.

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