TSA to Offer Shorter Lines if You Bare it All for them: MF Has a SuggestionJanuary 21st, 2006 by Adamu |
 |
The TSA (Transportation Security Agency or as some people call them “Thugs Standing Around”) has officially announced its Registered Traveler Program:
New travel plan would require in-depth checksBeyond shorter lines for airline passengers, benefits are vague.
WASHINGTON - The government is asking airline travelers to give up potentially a huge amount of personal information for what, at this point at least, could be little more than shorter waits at airport security checkpoints.
The Transportation Security Administration announced details of the Registered Traveler Program on Friday, but officials said the benefits for travelers were still being worked out and might not include an exemption from security searches.
Under the voluntary program, which begins in June, travelers would have to submit fingerprints and allow officials to conduct in-depth background checks, including in some cases providing access to personal and financial histories, to prove they aren’t terrorists.
No incentive, you say? Why not integrate this new background check with the government’s security clearance process? If I could put government clearance on my resume without actually having to work for the government, that would be more than enough reason to give up my personal information.
Thoughts?
January 21st, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Even at the biggest airports, the lines are always so unbarably long. I fly frequently, but not frequently enough to want to do this. Besides, it sounds like it’ll take more effort to apply/be accepted to the program then standing in a line.
January 21st, 2006 at 10:30 pm
As I understand it, this is mostly a thing for people whose names have gotten placed on a watch list (often because their name is the same as one used by a known terrorist.)
Letting people just apply for security clearances? Interesting idea, but I do worry a bit about the implications. Since, as you note, plenty of employers would be interested in seeing the clearance. One would hate to see it become de facto necessary for non-secure work.
January 22nd, 2006 at 6:28 am
The problem with this idea is that the so-called “in depth” TSA check is nothing more than giving them permission to snoop through your criminal history, credit records, and other documents whereas the government security clearance background check is actually serious enough that they actually interview acquaintances, relatives, coworkers, etc. The amount of effort and cost involved is probably several orders of magnitude greater.
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Lame. Plus there’s always the fact that there are people who might not necessarily be terrorists but rather other sorts of criminals, habitual liars, philanderers, or other types of people who wouldn’t make the cut for security clearance but shouldn’t be kept off of airplanes.
Bad idea? Yes, but one can dream.
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:29 pm
You know, the entire concept of the No Fly List is absolute and complete gibberish. If there’s enough evidence to support the assertion that a given person is a terrorist that it becomes a reasonable safety precaution to keep them off of an airplace to prevent it from being hijacked, than logically there should be enough evidence to arrest them on criminal chargers, or at the very least detain them for questioning. There is no logical case in which a middle ground can exist.
The most common case is that someone’s name matches that of a terrorist and they are banned from flying, but nothing else happens! It is often never actually established that this person IS or IS NOT that terrorist. If they are in fact a terrorist, then they should be arrested, and if they aren’t, then they should be allowed to fly. Therefore, the TSA is a: definitely inconveniencing people for no reason whatsoever and b: possibly letting real criminals go, because a no fly list hit does not trigger a real security trick.