Panel Urges TSA to Implement Trusted Travelers Program
 

OK, team, what do you make of this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...txa_story.html

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

In other words, shouldn't we all be trusted?

Doubleplusbad idea, comrade
 

From the Post article

You didn't pay a library fine or a parking ticket so you're a terrorist? Recall this is an agency that can't keep its data secure. And if you don't want to turn all this over to the agency, that will become an excuse to treat you even worse. Plus, all the fools in creation will say "she wouldn't have been groped if she had just given TSA her tax returns and credit reports."

TSA also has a habit of making a "voluntary" program into a mandatory one.

Oh, and guess how cheaply we are selling our freedom:

great. my wife can keep her hat on, but you'll need to see her labia, breasts, and butt crack.


TSA is nothing but a collection of sexual deviants.

Is living within one's means considered "suspicious"?
 

OK, call me old-fashioned, but I don't use credit. I've never had a credit card and don't want one. I live within my means and simply don't buy what I can't afford. I have no debt. What does credit information (or lack thereof) have to do with risk? Am I a bad American simply because I'm not in debt up to my eyeballs? :confused:

and yeah... it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around :rolleyes:

This will never fly in the US for two key reasons that rarely get mentioned:

1) Any personal-history-based or credit-based background check will disproportionately flag more racial minorities, ethnic minorities, (legal) immigrants, and poor people. Not because there is anything inherently racist or discriminatory in the reports (which do not include race/ethnic/economic information explicitly--it's completely possible for someone in extreme poverty to have a very high credit score if they have some credit and pay on time), but because of population demographics and socioeconomic status. Left-leaning politicians and lawyers would (rightly) make a strong effort to stomp this out as discriminatory.

2) For "trusted traveler" to be successful and embraced by business travelers, DHS/TSA would have to exempt trusted travelers from all but the most cursory screening (i.e., WTMD and carry-on x-ray but no shoes off, no jacket off, no strip search or grope, no war-on-water, and hopefully even no small-pointy-object ban). DHS/TSA is loathe to do that because their paradigm is strongly rooted in treating everyone like a potential terrorist, in part due to irrational paranoia and in part to avoid allegations of racism (see #1) and Norm Mineta's efforts to make the early TSA treat all passengers equally (poorly). All they have granted "trusted travelers" to date is access to the head of the line. That won't fly.

I've had security clearances of one sort or another since 1976. I have volunteered all sorts of personal information, fingerprints, have had several random drug tests, and have been polygraphed on a few occasions. I have had a background investigation every five years. For that matter, my current clearances are on file at DHS HQ.

There is absolutely NO WAY that I will provide one iota of information to the TSA nor will I EVER allow them to conduct a background investigation on me.

This reeks of the Soviet Union, where the party granted "privileges" for a price -- read: extortion. Only the wealthy upper class, who was most likely in a position to make or break government and party leaders, could afford such privileges.

But, you know the Sheeple will crawl over each other to be first in line with their credit cards in hand to sign up.

Let's analyze this disgusting set of recommendations by the Third Reich Travel Association...


Translation: Nice mainstream looking Americans should not have to wait in long queue's like Muslim and Black passengers. Muslims and other Black and Brown passengers, who really should be taking the bus in the first place should be scrutinized carefully before being allowed anywhere near my pure as snow daughter and my God fearing, baby producing wife.


Translation: White people need not worry about having to go through ridiculous contortions at the airport, and we'll allow a few token Muslims and other Black and Brown people through so that we can say, "Look, we's aint racist - we let this good black doctor and Muslim lawyer through the White passenger lane.


Translation: It really is voluntary, but if you are Muslim or Black, we have thought of ways to make sure you will never qualify for the program.


Translation:

Two lines:
Elite Line: White and token Muslims/Blacks
High Risk Passenger Line: Muslims, Blacks, Gypsies, etc

I already am a "trusted traveler," I have both NEXUS and Global Entry which is a program under DHS. I have been approved in person by BOTH US AND Canadian immigration officials.

What do I get at TSA checkpoints when I show my NEXUS card? "This ID ain't acceptable, you got drivers license?"

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

bolding mne. Many say "copy the successful Israeli security model." Which is a risk-based system. And the pax are classfied into risk groups by ultra massive profiling from beginning to end. That is how they do it.

"Risk-based" = "Profiling"

Now regardless of your personal opinion of the niceties or legalities of profiling under the US Constitution, or what is left of it in the "Revised and Revoked Post Patriot Act Post 9/11™ World Edition" DHS has substituted for the old version in the National Archives, perhaps Pistole should check with his boss before opening his mouth.

From the MIT paper rearding Nappys talk there on Monday: "During the question-and-answer period, Napolitano fielded a question about racial profiling, saying its use in security is illegal, unconstitutional, and ineffective."

Personal side note and free $0.02 worth of advice to Mr. Pistole: Using the fave old TSA buzz word "evolution" in front of the ruling party in this House is NOT a way to win friends and influence votes for bigger budgets. ;) Suggest next time try "We need more funding due to Global Warming." :D

Its really a question of what "risks" they are trying to protect against.

Its commonly understood that It wouldn't be possible to hijack an aircraft like they did on Sept. 11 again due only to the increased cockpit security and the new "attitude" about hijackers (previously it was: comply with the demands and everything will be all right). The risk that commercial airliners will be used as weapons of mass destruction has been successfully mitigated.

What are we left with? The plane and the people on it. What are the major risks? Explosives and someone with a firearm. These risks are present everywhere there is a large group of people in a relatively small space.

I'm not going to sign-up for any TSA wanted and approved extortion program that opens yet another revolving door for DHS management and its flunkies to make some more money at my expense during their post-DHS years.

This group has one item that doesn't seem to have gotten much focus: forcing airlines to grant all passengers at least one free checked bag so as to reduce the volume of items screened at the primary passenger screening checkpoints. The airlines are going to fight that tooth and nail.

Even then, let us assume that they can with 100% certainty, remove any and all weapons and explosives from the passengers entering the airport(regardless of the time, cost, manpower and abuse this would take). We are then still left with the fact that a tewowist can access the terminal or aircraft with whatever weapon/explosive he/she wanted, as one of any variety of employees, to provide to an accomplice who came through security, with valid id and boarding pass.

As I said yesterday in another thread somewhere: Yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong with this. Let's take a look, shall we?
Okay, one free checked bag sounds good. (Yeah, in the dim dark past - three years ago - we took that for granted, but..., yeah, okay.) And how bad could a "trusted travelers" program be, right?
Oh. :( Tax returns? Really???
That sounds good, doesn't it? Zip! Wheeeee! Wait for it, waaaait for it...
"Bypass." Cool. Yeah, still with you (except for all that "personal information" stuff). But wait, what's this?
So, uhh, not having to take off my shoes (or coat, IF I had one, or hat (??)) is "bypassing the security line"? Really? What exactly is your magic "explosives-detection device"? Why aren't you using it now? Or, [*creepy organ music*] is it just a NoS by another name?
I'm sure he's happy to get as much personal data as he can. And look, now either the passenger volunteers it OR Congress simply authorizes TSA to, uh, "access it." Great. :mad:
Since when is being able to wear shoes and a cardigan through the NoS considered "waltzing"??

Yeah, nothing to worry about here... :(

Didn't they have Clear but then it got yanked?