I would like to pose this question to all the other frequent travelers out there. I do not think these programs are need or even wise. If the goal of these programs is to get people moving through airports quicker, why not use more scanners and people. While I agree there will be a cost associated with these programs will it be any greater then inventing all new programs ? For example I fly in and out of Philadelphia multiple times each week. The past few weeks I have been leaving in the early evening (between 17:00 and 18:00) through Terminals B or C (Busiest terminals at the airport). In every case there have only been 2 scanners operating at each entry point. One was being used for secondary screening the other for everyone else. This leads to very long lines while the other for scanners at each location are not in use. (I am not placing blame on any personnel).

It is my idea that instead of spending the money to create a new program we spend it to hire enough people to man all the available scanners at the busy times. And in the case of the airports that need more scanners go out and get them. That I think would be money better spent.

Just my thoughts looking forward to reading yours.

Congress are the ones who make these decisions.

I understand that is is congress making these new programs up. I think these new programs will be nothing more then a huge waste of money that could be better spent. I think we need more screeners and scanners and that can reduce the lines more effectively then these programs. All I am saying is use the money wisely.
What I am wondering is what do other people think ?

I believe in working smarter, not harder. To some degree, there's some good behind a registered traveler program. However, there are some pitfalls, too. Technology is a wonderful thing until it breaks down or experiences "glitches" and "hiccups." Having to wait until your webpage downloads on your computer is a minor inconvenience. Letting someone inside the sterile area without realizing that there was a software glitch in the eye scanner or some other technological whizz-bang wonder toy is a disaster in the making. I'm not opposed to technology. I'm opposed to relying on technology without working out all the bugs and without having some sort of human follow-up or check-and-balance.

I'm curious how many folks in here will defend this technical alternative to regular screening. I'm willing to be that many are motivated by convenience, real or imagined, that it promises rather than any sound or logical concept of security.

But alas, I have just peed in the pool with that last comment.

Give me your best shot.

Even with the Registered traveller program, the reg'd travellers still have to go through the WTMD and luggage scan x-ray. They just don't get the SSSSpecial treatment.

I'm against it on principle; but in practice -- the gov't already has so much on me giving an iris scan to EDS won't hurt too much. It may get me through the lines quicker...

Definitely not!!!

I've heard two different versions about the registered traveler program. In one, they get a "free pass" and the other is like you said: it guarantees they will not be selectees. We're not one of the test airports, so I don't know. If it's only the latter, then I really have no problem with it.

True. And I respect your view about how much personal information we should give to the government. My biggest criticism against privacy advocates, though, is how they say almost nothing about how much personal information is given to non-government enterprises. The threat of identification theft is more likely from mailing lists and other seemingly innocent information collection "customer marketing" practices than from what is given to the government. To clarify, I do advocate keeping the government out of my personal affairs as much as practical, but let's not ignore what in my opinion is a greater danger resulting from everyday common marketing practices.

Where do you get that idea? If you say, go to Electronic Privacy Information Center's home page at http://www.epic.org/, you will find news about their efforts to improve privacy both within government and private spheres.

In the private sphere they seem to concentrate on financial institutions due to the importance of keeping financial information private, but you can see they also have a lawsuit against Northwest Airlines and are filing amicus briefs in a case against the Record Industry Association of America.

Just pointing out that there's just as much personal information out there, if not more, that is used for unwanted solicitations by private enterprises, which to me IS a violation of my privacy, than the fears most people in here have about the government gaining personal information. The likelihood of identity theft is more likely from the efforts of private enterprises than those of government, although each is vulnerable.

You said that privacy advocates say "almost nothing about how much personal information is given to non-government enterprises." That is not true. I thought you meant professional privacy advocates/organizations, and they certainly are concerned about privacy. As far as this forum goes, it's about Travel Safety/Security, not private organization privacy, so of course that's going to be the focus!

However, in the U.S., there is a reluctance (at least amongst those in power) to legislate how non-governmental institutions have to keep information private, so those trying to increase privacy in the private sphere focus on areas like finance and health, where it is an easier political sale.

I agree, but I'm worried about more than identity theft.

Government has greater power over us than do private enterprises. Yes, a business can send me spam emails, but the government can imprison me. A business can refuse to give me a mortgage, but the government can refuse to allow me to travel in my own country. What's annoying in the private sphere is singularly terrifying in the hands of the government. Higher standard, and all that.

That said, I consistently refuse to give private businesses my email, phone number, SSN, zip code, et cetera unless these are absolutely necessary to receive the service requested. I've walked out of stores and refused to make a purchase after the clerk wouldn't give up asking me for my zip code. I also routinely give false addresses, phone numbers, and the like when it's clear the business has no need to know. Avis rent-a-car is not going to imprison me for purposely transposing digits of my phone number, but in this era of travel security hysteria the government just might.

I usually give them "20500."

Re: transposing digits--good one! But personally I would give Avis my phone number--they might try to contact me before putting a bogus charge on my credit card and I'd want to know about it in advance.

I refuse to give information to stores when they ask, and when they tell me it is required, I just still say NO. I have been told many times it is for my protection and then I ask they to explain how. I have even had my grocery store card revoked once they realized that my address of:
1 Any Street
EveryTown USA, 12345

Phone 555-1212
Were not real they revoked my card. I in turn stopped shopping there completely.

In summary I do not see how this program is going to make me safer or the lines shorter and even though I am in Airports multiple times per week I am not going to participate.

All for now keep your comments coming.

Giving one's information to the government involves much higher stakes than giving it to a private business. As people have written on this thread, there is no personal risk and, at times, lots of common sense involved in giving bogus information to a business. The individual patron accepts complete responsibility for their actions and for the potential response of the business. Yes, there's the identity theft issue, and most rational people are very careful what they give out and to whom.

The government, however is a completely different story. They can fine you, arrest you, detain you, etc. A government employee requesting/demanding this information is under no obligation and is not the least bit accountable for the accuracy or even the legality of their request/demand.

I've been investigated and reinvestigated for special access clearances since the 1970s and have taken several polygraphs. In each instance, I knew exactly what I was getting into and had the right to stop the process at any time. Privacy Act and grievance/appeal processes were clearly explained in writing. Virtually none of this exists at an airport checkpoint. "...just because we have to have your address and phone number for this form" or "Don't worry, we just file these things away and never look at them again." as explanations given by a uniformed agent of the government just doesn't cut it, ought to be an embarassment to the TSA, and is downright insulting to the taxpayers.

OK, now for the fun stuff. Some things I've done for giving our personal information for businesses you sort of care about (hotels, rental cars, etc):

1. When phone numbers are requested, such as "home & business", I give them a couple of our office fax machine numbers. Some have different prefixes, which give the impression they're not located together.

2. I use my work address as a home. We often have two -- one for official mail and one for FedEx. They are two separate places, so it generally works just like the phone numbers.

For unsolicited stuff or the clearly intrusive stuff, my cat is far more trusting than me. She already has responded to a couple of computerized telephone surveys, has registered on numerous newspaper web sites, and has registered as a Republican. She has a "human" name (Sydney) and I just convert her "cat years" to "people years." She's now 27. She also has a subscription to "Cat Fancy" and enjoys the centerfolds every month.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, any government official who requests personal information must be able to explain how that information is going to be used or why it is necessary to obtain that information. I agree with you that not all TSA supervisors are capable of clearly explaining this to passengers. I see this at my checkpoint as well and cringe whenver a supervisor gives a weak explanation to a passenger.