Trusted Traveller program studied
 

Gee -- an entirely different reason to oppose this "Trusted" Traveler program!

I oppose this silly "trusted traveler" program because of the "It's OK as long as it doesn't happen to me" attitude it espouses. Perhaps I have a vested interest because I fly enough miles to make top-tier elite frequent-flyer status, but never for business, so I probably would never qualify for one of these cards. However, there are many millions of less frequent travelers who aren't security threats (gasp!) and deserve every bit as much trust as the corporate road warriors. A far better initiative would be to ensure no one is subject to stupid security measures, but this seems beyond the grasp of our mystic elected officials.

What would stop someone from bad intentions of qualifiying for this trusted traveller program....

Nothing

Just as people with top level security clearances have been traitors.

No security ever reaches 100% safe. As I have said before, it is a question of optimal use of resources. One could argue that if someone is trusted with a security clearance for US government secrets, putting his shoes through the x-ray is not a good use of security resource. The people you know nothing about should get the extra attention.

Somehow I doubt that the "trusted" travelers are going to be put through anything near as extensive a background check as folks with a guv-mint security clearance.

It is actually conceivable that a trusted traveler program could worsen air security.

Why? Because you must realize that anyone who is trying to defeat a security measure will repeatedly try and test the various barriers until one seems to work. Approach it from a group of prospective terrorists or troublemakers. If there were no trusted-traveler program in place, then each one of them would be subject to the same scrutiny when passing through the airport.

However, with such a system in place, they could send each of their members through, and see which ones consistently do or do not get flagged for special treatment. Then, with that one person/persons identified, they will use them in the future to carry out their objective -- knowing that they have a lower than usual probability of being stopped. This worsens the security, as you can see.

congress certainly wants it, for them @ dca & iad at least.

I think they shouldn't be allowed on any plane until they finish their job and clean up their act.

They left a whole pile of stuff on the table when they recessed for the year and even passed the Homeland "Security" bill with all sorts of BOGUS pork attached because they were too anxious to get out of town and too lazy to pass the bill the right way the first time around.

Besides -- what makes them think we should trust them? They're politicians!

Are anti-trusted traveler posters the same posters who are against profiling?

It would seem reasonable to have a trusted traveler process to provide information that would be used as one of the inputs to a CAPPS-like system. One of the key features of such a system would be to keep the results of the screening process secret. That is, you would not know whether the screening process had identified you as high risk or low risk. It might also be important to introduce some randomness into the indication at the airport screening area so that even low risk people would occasionally be targeted - both to provide a "randomness safeguard" and to obscure the risk rating of the traveler.

You know, I really wish there were someplace I could make these suggestions to the GAO or TSA.

[This message has been edited by lensman (edited 12-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by lensman (edited 12-05-2002).]

I cant see why people are objecting to a schem that pre-check the passengers. After all, it will speed up the boarding process, rather than for them to do the same thing at the airport again. As for the statement that it is better security that there is no such scheme and everyone should be subject to the same tests as a deterrence to people trying to break the system, I think it is not a good argument. It seems that the logic of that argument is that everyone who ever he is must go through the same tedious test when in fact it is unnecessary. It is like saying that I need to see your ID to verify that it is you when in fact I know you from childhood. Don't make sense to me. For instance, a friend of mine just went to US recently with his family and his wife was stopped at every conceivable place before boarding at every US airport and they were looking at her toilet bag. All because she was holding an Indonesian passport. Ridiculous. Compare that to London heathrow, they went through without a hitch. If there is pre-checking they would know she is a professional in her home country and not in the least a threat.

This is why is it important to have smart and careful people in charge of security -- obviously many people (including those here who fancy themselves experts) are not very good at thinking about how security can be exploited.

If you have a card that lets a traveler pass through security with less scrutiny than other passengers, i.e. any trusted traveler program (and if passing through with less scrutiny is not the point, what is?), then there is immediately a hole created in your security system. Those travelers who qualify can now more easily smuggle weapons etc. on board if they were to desire. It is non-sequitur to say that trusted travelers would not want to do this, the point is that it now can be done, by anyone who qualifies. Most travelers would not want to hijack a plane, but that doesn't stop hijackings does it?

Why is that important? Well, do you think terrorists would not notice a security hole and exploit it? Our security is not perfect, and given a large enough group of terrorists, some of them would qualify for trusted traveler status, or do you doubt that? Recall that they practiced many times on airplanes, airports to see what was most successful. And some of them were frequent fliers.

The only rational method of both detecting and deterring terrorists then, is to conduct completely random searches of people, bags, and equipment so that all travelers face the possibility of being searched. You cannot search everything/everyone, so the best you can do is give everyone the possibilty of being searched. If someone knows that he is unlikely to be searched, because I adopted a profiling method of security, then he is a security risk. as an analogy, if you drive next to a bright red sports car on the highway, do you think the policeman is more likely to pull him over or you, regardless of who was speeding?

I know it goes against your instinct, when old women and children are patted down -- it seems beyond common sense and absolute stupidity. Why harass a handicapped man in a wheelchair? But wouldn't that be an ideal place to hide a weapon? Someone who most people would not think to pat down and search? What if an airline employee had hidden a knife in the seat of that wheelchair for someone on the other side of the checkpoint?

Security cannot be done by common sense. Terrorists are miles ahead of that game, and we will lose if we only operate based on common sense.


[This message has been edited by TA (edited 12-05-2002).]

Just wanted to be pedantic and say that I do not agree that the ONLY rational method is one that is COMPLETELY random. I subscribe that it could be rational to investigate whether security could be increased by having the probability of being subjected to additional scrutiny increased if one exhibits certain risk factors and decreased by exhibiting contra-indicating risk factors.

I would also like to note that you seem to have completely disregarded my assertion of the importance of having one's security score remain secret.

As you might have noticed from my previous post. I do agree that there does have to remain some residual possibility of being subject to additional scrutiny even if you are found to be low risk. I would also note that it would seem logical to subject everyone to some minimal level of screening - say an x-ray of your carry-on bags and walking through a metal detector.

OTOH, perhaps you are responding to others and are not directing your comments at me.

Even if the trusted traveler program is implemented I doubt that anyone will be getting on a plane w/o being subjected to a magnetometer and having hand luggage x-rayed.