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?

We should all be trusted travelers
 

You can't have a valid trusted traveler program which is based on zero data. Since there have been zero suicide bombers flying from any US airport EVER, there is no statistical basis for excluding anybody from any flight. Therefore, the TSA would simply have to go away. They can't have that. That would be getting soft on pretend terrorism.
Profiling would be super duper if there was any scientific basis for any of it. But there isn't and there never will be.
Having said that, the walk through metal detectors and x-ray machines have proven to be 100% effective security measures. This is before and after shoes/liquids/panties/printer cartridges/insulated mugs. It's time to get back to basics.

I wouldn't provide MORE information, but it seems to me if a person can provide info that satisfies the government that they don't need to do all this activity motivated by the "everyone is a suspect" perspective, then people should do it. But if the only way to get that is disclosure that negates all privacy, then the status achieves no purpose.

It was dumbed down (instead of bypassing security you got to skip to the front of the line where you got the same treatment as everyone else), then it went out of business, now it's back at a few airports. Apparently you have to provide heaps of personal information in exchange for the "not waiting in line with the plebs" part. :confused::confused:

I expect this will be much the same thing; you give away your life history and credit record, and in return they have to call you "Sir" or "Ma'am" while they grope 'n' scope you. :td:

I would think that those with Gobal Entry should be ready to go and at the top of the list. Background checks have be done and no other checks should be needed.

+1

even better when they ask me for a credit card as proof of id over a Nexus! :rolleyes:

I have multiple credit cards and I am not in debt up to my eyeballs (or any other part of my body).

Having said that I do wholeheartedly agree that my credit background/standing has very little to do with my potential danger, or lack thereof, to airlines and those that fly. A through background check such as the one that has to be completed for a position of public trust with the US Government might be more relevant. However, I think that is still too much to have to know about a person just to let them fly on a plane or take a bus or ride a train.

I also agree that a voluntary "trusted traveller" program will eventually become a mandatory one. I further believe that given that trajectory that the US will become like several third world countries where you can't even enter the airport unless you are a ticketed traveller traveling on that day. And when that fails to stop people from crashing or hijacking planes not only will the traveling public have to put up with giving all the "trusted traveller" information but they will also have to put up with the same kind of searches we see in place today.

The problem we face is not easy to solve. It is impossible for a public servant or politician to publicly state that there will always be risk in flying unless one is willing to resort to very draconian measures to eliminate that risk and still keep their job and/or standing. The public does not seem willing to accept that there will be deaths when flying, but do not balk nearly as much about the much greater number of deaths while driving. Too many seem willing to trade "freedom" for the illusion of "safety".

I'm not too certain about that statement. Perhaps it's my Pollyanna side showing again, but I think the public would welcome some honesty from the government on this issue - as well as many others.

A well-crafted message and PR campaign could go a long way to making the public understand the risks.

Sadly, I don't see that happening because of DHS's continuing love of fear-mongering.

this is the worst idea ever. Once they establish a 'two-tier' security system, in which they can legally differentiate between docile and assertive members of the public, they will be able to just keep ratcheting up the hurdle you will have to cross to get into the 'trusted' traveller status, surrendering more and more of your privacy every year, until the point where every phone call, every web site visit, every swipe of your credit card is logged. Other travellers, who attempt to retain their right to privacy, will be subjected to ever-increasing harassment, eventually strip searches and cavity searches, or not being able to fly at all. This is nothing but a very thinly disguised effort to "divide and conquer"

I agree with Polonius that this is the worst idea ever. It turns liberty on it's head. Rather than only taking freedoms away for cause, and through a sound and transparent process, it by default takes liberty away from all and only restores it to those the government deems "good".

That's not what this country was ever about. More than that, it is antithetical to the core beliefs upon which the nation was founded.

Yep. We can't allow our government to be in charge of deciding who is "good". They're lousy at it. Every time they've tried they've fouled up big time.

Trusted Traveler is just a euphemism for Papers Please.

I am sure that the front line TSOs are all in favor of this program. After all it facilitates their overwhelming deviant urges to see naked children and molest them. After all, what 3 year old has a stack of credit reports and tax returns? They are, almost by definition, not to be trusted since they can't prove trustworthiness. And in the eyes of these pervert TSOs, the words normal and child are mutually exclusive. All children must be as they were as children - sub-human mutants spawned either by rape or incest - and therefore, not to be trusted.

wow! ... I mean ... uummm ... really??

That is so very true that it saddens some that our country has followed such an ignoble path of enemies defeated and disappeared.

I suggest that "trusted traveler" be part of getting a visa. Why should we hand out visas to people without demanding their background? As far as I'm concerned, people born here are almost entirely trusted traveler by definition. I may have missed somewhere some attempt by a native citizen of the USA, but it still is a minute risk compared to these people from Muslim countries who get visas and then drift into radical groups while here.

Such approach already is, but that is no guarantee of anything.

We have no less than 15 million US persons with roots in "muslim majority" countries who have a history of traveling within the US, and the numbers of them convicted for going after US aviation targets in or from the US doesn't even reach .0005% of said group. Does that mean the the US approach to visas has a long history of being a big success or not? To get a US visa is quite ordinarily a headache of sorts and for those who would be religious minorities in the US and come from non-OECD countries, it's even more of a headache.

Checks to issue a visa really is no guarantee of anything, which is part of why these domestically applied "trusted traveler" concepts ought not to inspire any confidence in accomplishing anything useful unless the idea of useful is to create a country with a near-permanent underclass that will create more and more massive turmoil than is the case currently.

All true.

But not only that, (go back and read the WaPo article carefully) the benefit being proposed for "trusted travelers" is that you can leave your shoes and coat on. That's it. That's all. You still have to get scanned (by the mysteriously labeled "explosives-detection device"). Your bag will still be x-rayed. There's no hint that you will be allowed water or coffee or yogurt in quantities greater than 3.4 ounces. They can still grope inside your pants with their grubby blue gloves, and then dig into your carry-on looking for loose $100 bills.

You get to keep your shoes on in the Nude-o-Scope. That's it.

Here's the similar vision put forward by Stewart Baker, him as made an appearance at the TSA hearing this week:
Got that? He believes that the most aggravating procedures are having your Kippie checked or ("perhaps" :rolleyes:) taking your shoes off. He has completely missed (or willfully chooses to ignore) the rising tide of anger about groping, x-ray exposure, 4th amendment infringements, and the rest. :td::td::td:

But you can keep your shoes on. :mad:

Explain why that is necessary. The tendency is to look at the status quo as if it is divinely determined. I don't think any number of anybody moving around my country is "necessary". Happens to be a gift. Letting anybody not a citizen is a gift the USA gives to humanity. I don't see why we need feel any guilt in reducing the gift in some measure to achieve greater safety for the inhabitants of the country. That's merely doing the job for which a government is created.

If some measure to achieve statistically significant greater safety for the inhabitants of the US was your objective, banning driving of automobiles domestically may achieve that which your wildest dreams involving travel restrictions on "people from Muslim countries" may not.

I thought the right of travel (as a constitutional issue) applies to anyone
legally in the US, not just citizens. I don't think the US should go down the
route where some are 'more equal' than others, citizens or otherwise.

What you're suggesting is depriving legal citiziens of rights and privileges. I'm not suggesting any such thing. The country will never be perfectly safe. But risks attached to foreigners is not something that there is some need to protect. Maybe a few among us are actually making money from their movement within our borders, but maximizing that opportunity by minimizing safety isn't what I'd call a rational policy. I'd say a rational person would look at balancing the good and the bad. And I don't think there's any balancing at all right now. Somehow or other, free travel for foreigners is treated as a sacrosanct thing. Like its somehow uniquely "American".

I say lets eliminate some of these bogus "sacred cows". The Declaration of Independence may be sacrosanct. But the tourism industry is not. American freedom is NOT about foreigners experiencing greater freedom here. It is about fighting against attempts to circumscribe the freedom of citizens. If it is necessary for foreigners to have less freedom for citizens to have the most, the choice isn't hard for me.

Right now, our "security" protocol is based on taking freedom away from Americans in order to protect freedom for visitors. That turns the American government into an enemy.

GUWonder made the point that Muslims are no more likely to commit criminal acts than anyone else. Why on earth would you want to curtail the rights of Muslims to travel freely?

And the point is only more pointed when focused on travel, as the targeted population (subject to growing bigotry being granted expanded cover) is less likely to commit a crime that endangers lives of those traveling than the average American is to commit a crime that endangers lives of those traveling.

The ignorance of everyone on this count is absolutely astounding. By everyone I mean...

1. Politicians, who frequently throw the Muslim population under the bus in the name of politics.
2. The media, who has cemented the impression of Muslims being more violent than other Americans (an absolutely incorrect analysis).
3. Law Enforcement leadership, who regularly contract with known anti-Muslim groups who advocate the curtailment of Muslim rights, to teach their officers about Muslims and how to deal with them.
4. Civic Leaders, who often support anti-Muslim bigots who attempt to prevent any kind of service, commercial or otherwise that benefits Muslims (watch what happens if a grocery store starts selling Halal products, or a restaurant starts serving Halal food).
5. People like our very own Luvairfrance, who have essentially written on these fora that Muslims should be treated differently to everyone else, and much worse.

Were any of these people around in mid-1930's Germany, you can well imagine what their positions might have been re/ the German, nay global population of Jewry.

Oh, it's much worse than that now. LuvAirFrance is suggesting that all non-US citizens ("foreigners") be restricted in their ability to travel. Australian students, German back-packers, a retired couple from Scotland, Japanese businessmen, visiting foreign Heads of State: they all need to jump through extra hoops and accept "restrictions" so that LuvAirFrance can feel safer in HIS country.

Emphasis mine: