If I get some sort of benefit to an iris scan as part of a trusted traveler program then that's fine. It's just another form of biometric auth to me and depending on how it's implemented it seems fine. I've used iris scanners for datacenter access before.

Like you, I don't mind the iris scan part. If my employer replaced my mag strip ID badge with an iris scan, that would be fine. (Great, actually; no more digging in my bag for the badge, no more phone-a-friend if I forget it at home. )

But as Ink said in post #2 above, it's the background check that's controversial. How much information is the gov't going to want in order to decide that you are "trusted"? What are they going to do with the information - how widely within gov't (or outside!) will it be available? How safely will they store it? Pistole has mentioned getting "credit card histories, tax returns..." Those might show whether I'm a good risk for a home loan, but not necessarily whether I'm a security risk. (Do terrorists pay their bills on time?)

And then as you point out, what's the benefit? Pistole has hinted at "being able to keep your shoes on" while you go through the nude-o-scope and/or get patted down. And has also hinted that there would be exceptions - on some flights/days/airports, "trusted" travelers would not get any benefit.

So - unspecified (but potentially large) amounts of personal data in exchange for unspecified (but potentially small and variable) reduction in screening. I'm not sold.

I also object because I think such a program (further) alienates foreign visitors to the US; they are often one-time or infrequent visitors who may not wish (or may not qualify) to join the program, so will face the full checkpoint experience while watching US citizens go through the short line. Not a good look for international tourism or indeed for the general perception of the US by the rest of the world.

Aw, now guys, I'm blushing Thanks to you and goalie for recognizing my astounding magnificence. It is appreciated. (I really hope your know I'm kidding - not about the thank you part, the magnificence part )

Again, more risk-based screening is coming, Pistole, your favorite person to bash (besides Bart and TSORon and me) is pushing risked-based screening. And do NOT misunderstand me: there will still be screening that is one-size-fits-all, and again, I do NOT know when this will start to happen, nor which policies it will change.

Appreciate this and any other info you're able to share with us. ^

Based on my experience as a foreigner in US airports, I am pessimistic to the point of believing that we simply will never qualify for the "special treatment" security (in other words, security as it should be, without shoes nonsense or pointless whole body imaging).

I wouldn't assume that. The risked-based screening, whenever it is implemented and to whatever extent, may not be something you "apply" for, and it may be something people of different nations receive. We will have to wait and see.

That's tricky, though. The two most-discussed approaches are to have a high default for the level of screening and a voluntary opt-in program for less screening or have a default low-level and have a mechanism to designate people for the higher screening. But the latter, almost by definition, has to involve some form of profiling.

As to the issue of credit reports, my guess would be that the standard used would be quite different from that of somebody giving credit: I suspect that what's looked for there is the extent of the credit history, specifically how long it goes back. The dollar figures don't seem relevant.

So I'm wondering if the idea here is simply to see if one can determine that the passenger is somebody who has "stability". In other words looking at things like how far back their credit history goes, if they're employed, how long they've been at their current address, how often they fly, etc.

Robert Hanssen wasn't a KGB plant in the FBI - he offered his services to the KGB, which they gladly accepted. For 22 years, the FBI never detected his treachery.

All it will take for this latest TSA buffoonery to be overcome is for an educated individual to take the time to set up a potential martyr as a suicide bomber. Nothing technologically elaborate, no extensive tradecraft required - just an average person with no flags in his or her background.

That's not what the article talks about at all. But I would really not have too much of a problem with the system, given that I've already had multiple background checks, was on the UK IRIS system & Clear, and currently have Global Entry. That's in addition to stuff for employer and whatever our clients require.

This could be done fairly expeditiously & substantially lower the burden for low-risk folks.

Once again the ACLU has it wrong. If only they would oppose the strip-search machines & invasive pat-downs as they do for this.

Ditto to both.

And it's no different than Global Entry. GE is well worth it, and plenty of folks sing it's praise. But it does have the chance for random selection for an invasive search.

As long as TSA implements it properly and doesn't do "random" selections at the whim of screeners (e.g. used as some kind of retaliation or just because a woman is "pretty"), then I don't see much difference between such a proposal and GE. Frankly, the bigger concern to me is that it's done administratively instead of Congress legislating that it be done.

Then the TSA should be able to provide documented studies and evidence that checking credit histories indicate who and who is not a trusted traveler. It is unacceptable to peer into the lives of people on that level based on "conventional wisdom" or "It would seem likely that people with bad credit..."

My company toyed with the idea of doing credit checks on new applicants and I convinced our CEO to require documentation that people with bad credit means they present risk to the company. No one was able to provide a study that demonstrated that applicants with bad credit either 1) present additional risk to the company or 2) they were not as good employees as those with good credit. In fact, one of our HR gurus found a study from about five years ago (IIRC) that indicated just the opposite; that credit made no difference in work habits or productivity. And with that, the CEO prohibited credit checks on applicants.

Considering the fact that we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and the collapse of the real estate market, the number of people who have lost their homes or jobs and defaulted to creditors is at record highs. I find it hard to believe that a family from Topeka that lost the family home, credit cards, jobs and ended up filing bankruptcy is at some higher risk of being susceptible to Al Qaeda recruitment

That's interesting. So it seems like the first time I go through it, since I'm not on the whitelist yet, I'd need to get my irises scanned and go through the more intensive screening. But then once I do, and I'm okay'd, I'd go through the less invasive screening after that.

To me, it's still guilty until proven innocent, since I'm still subjected to more intensive screening at least once.

Why irises, rather than fingerprints? What if someone if wearing contact lenses? I'm curious to hear your personal thoughts on irises versus fingerprints.

Correct. Like most threads here, the topic has veered off-course - this time because of me, I might add

I was simply pointing out that as far as I understand and know, TSA will be moving toward a more risk based screening process. However, I should state that I do not think the iris scanners will be part of that. I was simply bringing up the concept of change that is coming.

I think you make some incorrect assumptions. I do not believe irises will be scanned. More than likely it will involve fingerprints, besides other things.

And why do you think you will be screened with the "more intensive screening" to get on the "whitelist"? If people are vetted, I do not think it will happen at a checkpoint. Will most likely be a program people apply to be in (may even involve a fee!).

As you well know though, security is not about 100% prevention, but about balancing risks. Yes, somebody who has a "typical" profile could decide to become a suicide bomber, but the chances of that are low. And, in my opinion, acceptably low.

What I know is that TSA could, without engaging in the creation of yet another government-controlled database, today take a more risk balancing approach than they currently do, yet they continue to engage in security theater all set forth to create the illusion of 100% security when we all know it isn't possible.