TSA "Trusted Traveler" program . . . . . wuddaya think?

[Stinky The Clown]

We knew it was coming. Give TSA "some personal information" and TSA will give you a pass at airport check-ins. They'll do some sort of background check. If you pass, you get credentials that allow you to bypass the amateur traveler lines.

TSA just finished their testing of this system at a few airports. They're now ready to widen the program to a bigger number of major airports.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I'm in, also for express checkin and boarding. What's the down side?

Frequent travelers tend to know the routine and process more quickly.

While deep down what I really want is the old days back before TSA, for now I have to be in favor of any thing that speeds things up.

It's not like they're asking for any information they can't already get without asking if they want it.

Not sure there's a down side.

[rhett o rick]

7. We would all love to see things move faster. But I for one, will not go along with

just anything that accomplishes that. For example, profiling would speed things up. Are you in favor of that? How about the "no fly list". I would assume that if you are on the list, you wont get the expedited treatment. How does one get off the list? No one knows. Seems like what you are saying is that you favor a system that speeds it up for you. And the hell with others. The problem with a data base that they will use is that it would be subjective and if anything like the "no fly list" you wont be able to appeal.

Remember TSA is a private corporation with bigger profits as their goal. I am sure they would love to be fair, if it helps their goal. If not, too bad for you.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Me either.

Not willing to go along with just anything.

But where there's a pre-screening that can be done that doesn't involve profiling, etc., then I would be happy to participate and to allow anyone else to participate.

However, as I wrote, I'd prefer the TSA just be eliminated entirely.

[SwampG8r]

17. considering what you have to show now

i cant think of anything further they would ask for
they run your name when you buy tickets for no fly and you have to present ID to board
prescreening cant be much more than that info in a datbase that it will end up in anyways
the only difference is if you prescreen you will likely get a card key sort of a dealie with info already on file
i am all for it too

[rhett o rick]

28. They already do that today. They "screen" people excessively today, not for your

security but for two reasons. 1. The govmnt wants you to feel afraid. You are so much easier to herd if you are afraid. and 2. Some private corporations are making millions off the screening processes. Dont remember the name but the guy that pushed so hard for the radiation screening has money in the radiation machine corporation.

[former9thward]

31. The TSA is a government agency.

They are not a private corporation and they are funded by the taxpayers just like any other agency.

[rhett o rick]

34. You are quit right. I stand corrected. nm

[bbgrunt]

2. I think it further divides

citizens and reduces the pressure to totally reform the farce of the TSA screening procedures.

[snot]

5. Agreed.

[wtmusic]

3. Awesome. But first, a "trusted TSA" program.

When they make their procedures and database public we'll be good.

[snot]

4. I'm against it.

It increases the pressure to yield to quasi-governmental invasions of privacy without the Constitutionally-mandated showing of probable cause.

Even if they don't ask for much info now, I think we can expect they'll ask for more as time goes by.

Our government and its privatized agents are the new Stasi. Their knowledge of your personal details -- e.g., your political activities -- gives them more power over you than you may realize. I'm far more afraid of them than I am of any terrorists.

I.m.h.o., we should all refuse to be scanned; this nonsense would come to a screeching halt. At the minimum, I refuse to make their dirty work any easier for them.

[rhett o rick]

8. Well said. Nothing personal, but I hate your name. nm

[snot]

15. Thanks.

The name was selected for historic/sentimental reasons; not a good choice from a public relations p.o.v. If DU ever offers another chance to change names without losing our account info, I'll probably do it.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Good deal

For the wimps who are so "afraid to give information" probably have something to hide or want drama when they fly like Rand Paul.

[EFerrari]

14. Yes, we should always judge each other based on government lists

because they are always right.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Yes. The ONLY reason why people are relunctant to give up their

Constitutional right to privacy is because they are wimps.

Hahahaha!!!

The actual wimps are those who acquiesce to relinquish those right for a little convenience.

[EFerrari]

9. Because we don't have enough ways to discriminate in this country. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

10. It sucks for those not on the "trusted" list.

I'm looking at you DFW and my 3 hour trip through various lines coming back from Mexico City. If you don't want to give the government even more information, you are relegated to service that was *worse* than the Mexico City airport, which seemed like a magical place like the Emerald City by comparison by the time we finally got through DFW's E-ticket hell-ride and on our connecting flight back to SFO.

[LeftyMom]

11. I can see why frequent travelers would be tempted to do it.

I wouldn't because it only encourages them, my local airport usually has short lines anyhow, and I probably wouldn't pass anyhow because I'm too vocal about my unpopular opinions.

[catnhatnh]

13. I think if I were a terrorist...

...I would start right away seeking either to become a "trusted traveler" or to recruit one for my cell. How about hacking an airport computer and adding the names of some cohorts?

I think this is a sop to the rich and powerful and either degrades security or proves that screening was never necessary to begin with.

[ArcticFox]

21. Agree

Happy to not have to write that up myself. But one bone of contention: it's not either/or; it both proves the current level of security unnecessary and creates a huge and obvious vulnerability.

[Morning Dew]

24. +1

The idea makes me think the security was never necessary.

[backscatter712]

26. Exactly. And it shows that the TSA security theater is bullshit. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Which is why they make no guarantee that "trusted travelers" can have less rigorous screening

They only promise that it MAY expedite the process.

[Fozzledick]

16. I don't trust it!!

[Luminous Animal]

18. Submitting to the state.

[jsmirman]

19. Torn on this - otoh, hard for me to believe TSA won't screw it up

on the other hand, and I understand if this sounds silly, but I am honestly less inclined to travel because it is such a hassle.

I also find it hard to imagine that the government does have whatever information on me they would like to already have.

But I guess the greatest concern is that it seems hard not be concerned about the criteria they will use as a "background check." The people have the right in this country to legally voice their dissent. If that makes someone a travel risk, that's messed up.

I suppose that unless the criteria was transparent enough and their was some form of civilian oversight to their process - I guess on principle I'd have to lean toward saying no, because it's hard not to believe that this will be turned on people with the courage to voice their convictions.

What if H20 Man isn't allowed to be on this list because he has great courage and principles? Unless you can guarantee me that's not going to happen - that would be wrong.

[Snotcicles]

22. As one who holds a trusted traveler card (as a job requirement) it sure speeds things up when

you have to cross the border four times a day.

[Sherman A1]

23. Another reason

to avoid flying.

[backscatter712]

25. Any terrorist worth his salt would stay under the radar and get Trusted Traveler status.

And this kind of thing shows that the whole TSA airport security circus is just that. Security Theater.

It's intended to force humiliations on American citizens, make them used to complying with a police state, by using everything from grope-downs and porno-scanners, to the ridiculous ritual of taking your shoes off and pouring out your drinks. It doesn't enhance security one bit. It's just part of the tyranny machine that conditions people to display their hindquarters in submission to the authoritarians.

And now, you can bypass the entire thing, which proves it's a crock. This mechanism is intended to separate "Good Americans" from "Bad Terrorist Americans". Create two separate classes - one that gets to skip the bullshit, while the other gets cavity-searched.

The fucking TSA, and the entire Dept. of Orwellian Security needs to be disbanded.

[DFW]

27. This is what I think (audio provided:)

[hobbit709]

29. As someone once pointed out

"There are British and American jails and plush Moscow hotels full of people who had the highest security clearances."

[zbdent]

30. How much is in "some personal information"?

Dollar-wise, I mean ...

[Progression]

32. Not sure if this is good or not

Does this program bypass the more intrusive body scans or is it just an extra layer of crap to deal with?

[MineralMan]

33. I only fly a couple of times a year now, so

it's not worth it to me. I'm not all that bothered by the time and hassle of going through current screenings. My wife has an iPad now, so no more laptop to take out of its case, and I wear slip-on shoes to travel. It's just not enough of a problem that I'd pay to join the program.