Do we need a national “trusted traveler” program for airline passengers?

Topic “A” this morning is the U.S. tourism industry’s surprising call for a national “trusted traveler” program for airline passengers.

“There is a shared sense of a better, smarter way to make the air travel security system more secure and efficient for travelers,” said Roger Dow, president of the U.S. Travel Association. “We believe a trusted traveler program should be the centerpiece of an enhanced air travel security process.”

Would air travelers be willing to give up their fingerprints, eye-scans and other personal information information in exchange for a shortcut through the security line? And just how much grief would we avoid by becoming part of a “trusted traveler” program? The body scans and pat downs, but not the magnetometers (like flight attendants) or the whole thing (like senior government officials). Here’s a list of current exemptions.

In a prepared statement, US Travel described the proposed program as one comprised of travelers who voluntarily share biometric and biographical information, pass robust background checks to confirm their “low-risk” nature and are verified by TSA at the time of travel. Under the proposal, they would be allowed to pass through an “alternative” security process.

“Such a program would enable the shift of security resources from a large pool of ‘low-risk’ travelers to allow a more sustained focus on a smaller pool of travelers who are not pre-screened to determine their level of risk,” it says.

Adds Dow,

The vast majority of the traveling public poses little threat to our nation’s security, yet the current approach subjects every passenger to the same security procedures. A trusted traveler program would allow us to focus more security where it is most needed, while reducing unnecessary hassles for the majority of low risk travelers. Surely the United States can find a way to implement such a common-sense approach.

But wait. Isn’t there already a “trusted traveler” program?

Well, yes.

The TSA conducted its own two-year pilot program a few years ago. The most high-profile trusted traveler program, Clear, is currently in two airports — Orlando and Denver. (The previous incarnation of the company shut down in 2009 and the data collected from the old Clear apparently wasn’t destroyed in accordance with federal law, but that’s another story.)

The current verified identity programs are widely viewed as too expensive, and they offer too few benefits. Clear, for example, promises travelers they can “speed” through the security, but as far as I can tell, they just get to use a designated line. They must still get screened.

Is there a better way?

US Travel says a new system should screen passengers for security risks prior to checkpoints, and even before they get to the airport. This risk assessment, it says, would reduce bottlenecks at the airport and allow security resources to be diverted from the vast majority of passengers who are extremely low-risk.

That, in turn, would allow TSA to “refocus” its screening procedures towards a smaller pool of passengers whose backgrounds and travel habits are less known. It would increase public confidence in security procedures and ensure the most effective use of TSA resources, US Travel argues.

A trusted traveler program, it says, would guard Americans’ privacy and civil liberties by eliminating many physical security measures for passengers who opt in to a trusted traveler program.

“This will strengthen public trust that the federal government is working to balance privacy, civil liberties, efficiency and security of air travelers who are verified as being low-risk,” it says.

There are some questions that must be asked before we go any further. US Traveler refers to this program as a “trusted traveler” initiative, but what it really means — for now, at least — is “air” traveler. But why not expand a verified traveler to some kind of national ID that must be scanned at malls, subway stations, bus terminals and government buildings?

It could be a slippery slope.

The other issue is funding. Verified traveler programs are expensive. Who pays? Would legislators really spring for the $179 it costs for a program like Clear?

And never mind the many, many privacy questions that having a verified air traveler program raises.

What do you think? Is it time for a “trusted” air traveler program for the rest of us?

A quick poll of 250 readers says “yes.” (68 percent liked the idea, 32 percent didn’t.)

  • http://www.all-about-guatemala.com/bc Benjamin Barnett

    I think this is a good alternative. Unfortunately, this overzealous attitude toward security has infected many foreign airports that fly into the USA. I travel several times a year from Guatemala City (GUA) to various airports in the US, and they are even more vigilant than US airports and in general, lack the critical thinking skills to make exceptions, not that the TSA is known for its brain power either. I wonder how long it will take expats to reap the benefits of this type of program when security measures are a reaction to regs in the States.

  • EllenB

    I’m a participant in the Nexus card program for the US-Canada land crossings, and it was well worth the cost and time investment to join. If we can do something similar on a national airport level, it would be excellent.

  • Thomas

    TSA already has in place a program they could simply expand, it’s call TWIC! (Transportation Workers Identification Card) I had to acquire one for my work. Full fingerprints, photo, etc.. FBI background check. It cost me $132 and it’s good for 5 years. How many of us wouldn’t want one and spend the $$ if it’ll get us through security without being groped?

  • Jonathan

    I travel quite frequently (Silver status with US) and have frequently thought that “SURELY there must be a way for ME to get through. After all, I’ve got no criminal record, a sparkling clean credit record, and am a frequent traveler who knows how to go through the security barriers in a quick manner” (sorry – my inner voice sometimes comes across a bit arrogant!). The reason I voted “no” for this, though, is that I’m quite concerned that what is a special situation right now (i.e. people volunteering this information) would become the norm in five to ten years from now. Just imagine if another 9/11-type event occurred and TSA (or whatever it is re-vamped into in a sudden Federal Government effort to look like they’re doing something) realizes that if EVERYONE had been giving up all the information discussed above, this fictitious event SURELY would never have happened. Next thing you know, everyone who wants to enter the air transportation network in the US has to provide this info (and just imagine what it would be like for legitimate foreigners trying to come in for tourism or business!). Definitely don’t do it! Although I could very easily see this scenario happening!

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    Even if there was a “trusted traveler” program, the person still have to go through security. The only thing that I see is that they won’t have to go through the x-ray machine and/or receive a pat-down.

    In regards to the x-ray machines and/or pat-downs, I didn’t see any pat-downs at the airports that we used during the Thanksgiving holiday nor did we went through those ‘naked’ x-ray machines. Both airports are listed on the list of having these x-ray machines. Both of these airports are among the busiest airports in the US.

    My only issue or concern with a “trusted traveler” program is the government going to monitor these travelers? The terrorists could get individuals with a ‘clean’ background to become trusted travelers. What will prevent this scenario? Please remember that the first attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993…eight years before 9/11. Unless the government monitors these individuals, what will prevent a ‘trusted traveler’ becoming an underwear bomber, being recruited by the terrorists, etc?

  • cjr

    Such programs are useless unless they’re implemented nationwide.

    Why would I pay hundreds of dollars for a program like CLEAR, only to find out its used at only a handful of airports? That it was shut down, and now getting restarted again?

    I got a passport several years ago, which I assume means I’ve received *some* kind of check to make sure I’m wasn’t on a watch list. Passenger lists are also supposed to be checked against a watch list.

    And yet, those measures seem to fail – the underwear bomber was on such a list and yet was still allowed to board a plane.

    We can’t even get the basics of security right, yet a lot of people seem willing to fork over cash for just another program that may not work, whether it’s the government paying for TSA’s ‘enhanced’ screenings, or a program like CLEAR. It’s back arsewards.

  • Datanerd

    I voted no, one for a security reason and one for a practical one.

    1. How long will it take for terrorists to recruit a person with a clean record? Remember Jihad Jane? Or a non-Muslim terrorist like a decorated war vet, Timothy McVeigh?

    2. Practically speaking, it won’t be worth the money to travelers. While it might keep you from the full-body scanner, you’d still have to do the magnetometer, remove your belt and shoes routine. And then if you set off the magnetometer, you’d still get patted down.

  • Jennifer

    It’s my understanding that the clear program didn’t work well enough to warrant the cost of the program. The probem seems to be that there are so many regular business travelers that such a program wouldn’t really speed up the process. My husband is one such traveler and he has had a knee replaced which means he gets patted down every single time he goes through the scanner. I’d hate to calculate the amount of time that wastes given that he travels 75000 miles a year. Anything to speed that process up would be more than welcome.

  • Jonathan

    I ask this question in all earnest – how many of you who read this are frequent travelers (either HAVE some status with an airline or make at least five trips by air a year) and have serious concerns about going through the full-body scanners (obviously, if you have medical reasons to prevent you, this isn’t addressed to you). EVERY person I’ve spoken to who travels with at least some regularity isn’t opposed to going through it. Would be interested in reading concerns from those who fly regularly.

  • Kathy

    I voted no, even thought the Feds already have multiple copies of my fingerprints since I was a permanent resident and am now a naturalized citizen. This is getting more and more 1984 and I see no reason for it.

    What we need is good intelligence and fewer theatrics at the airport. Plus, an acceptance that there is no such thing as risk-free travel, or life, for that matter. You’re at more risk in your own bathroom than on a plane.

  • Roberto

    I voted “no” because programs like these actually reduce security.

    A background check can’t really predict a person’s future actions. John Walker Lindh (The American Taliban) was basically a normal kid in 1999, as far as any background check would reveal. By 2001, he was captured attacking US Forces in Afghanistan.

    Would we really want to let a guy like that board a plane with reduced physical inspections? I’m not excited about that idea, personally.

  • Leslie

    I voted “no” because I can’t imagine the government implementing such a program. When you consider how much time, manpower and infrastructure is needed to get it up and running, it would be a logistical nightmare.

    I’m also concerned how my personal information would be handled. I’ve had my identity stolen before and would never want to go through it again. What if someone was able to hack into the system? Or an employee stole it and sold it to someone?

    I also agree with Roberto’s statement that a background check can’t predict future actions. There’s no guarantee that someone wouldn’t be recruited by a terrorist group to manipulate the system. You only need one person who doesn’t fit a profile to go through security, get on a plane and create a disaster.

  • Steve

    I say no because either the program would reduce safety, or if it didn’t reduce safety it would be useless. As other commenters have already pointed out, a background check shows that you haven’t done anything in the past – it doesn’t prove that you won’t do something in the future. So if this program was used to exempt people from security screenings, that would be a bad idea.

    OTOH, if the program simply created an expedited line for participants to go through security, then what’s really the point? I’ve never waited more than 15 minutes in a security line; maybe I’ve just been lucky, but in general waiting to be screened isn’t a big deal. I know I wouldn’t pay anything just for a special line.

  • Walt Blackadar

    @ Jonathan

    I have serious issues with TSA security today and I’ve flown 50k miles with over 100 hotel nights this year. I’m not keen on trading in my Constitutional rights for the mere appearances of security. This includes both the full body scanners and the pat downs simply because I believe that both meet the definition of an unreasonable search. Knee-jerk reactions shouldn’t rule airline security, we shouldn’t let irrational fears subvert our Constitution and if there were an airline that skipped these procedures I’d gladly give them my money. That being said, this isn’t the time or place for that discussion.

    Back to the question at hand, I don’t believe that a trusted traveler program is in anyone’s best interest. I’m not a fan of having “special” people bypass certain checks while the unwashed masses get groped. Either it applies to all or it should apply to none.

  • http://everything-everywhere.com Gary Arndt

    No.

    I’m innocent. Why should I have to hand over biometric data like a common criminal?

    I will vote for any politician of any party who campaigns on a platform of dissolving the TSA.

  • CNickyD

    I would sign up in a heartbeat. This is the kind of logical thinking the TSA is lacking right now.

  • http://www.nerdseyeview.com/blog pam || @nerdseyeview

    No. No. No.

    As if what we need is an additional layer of paperwork between us and our cramped coach seat. No.

    Furthermore, the idea that there’s something like a trusted traveler means that there’s someone who’s NOT a trusted traveler. And that person could be, oh, my old dad, who never flies anywhere anymore. Maybe he’s decided just this once to come visit me by plane. And he’s the guy they decide gets scatter blasted and specially screened at random and…

    He’s not “trusted” by a broken system. But he’s my old dad, he’s not a freaking terrorist. He just had no incentive to become “trusted”.

    This whole guilty until proven innocent approach to air travelers is infuriating. I’m not a paranoid person by nature, but the whole thing reeks of creeping fascism. “Let me see your papers, miss.” “$#%@ you, I’m flying to Tucson. Why do I need PAPERS?”

    A-hem.

  • http://careerbreaksecrets.com Jeff

    I’m a member of the US Customs’ Global Entry Program which is the international equivalent of what you are describing. I am really happy with the program and am a big advocate of it. I don’t know if TSA could effectively implement something similar. But, anything to help get frequent travelers through the checks would be welcome in my mind.

  • Aaron

    After much deliberating, I voted no. I fly frequently, I am not a terrorist or a criminal, and a program like this would address my concerns. But I’m uneasy about something that just helps me and leaves less-frequent travelers to be irradiated, seen naked and groped by the TSA. Just because I don’t have to deal with the problem, doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.

    TSA loves to talk about the scary image of “planes being blown out of the sky,” but that could just as easily be done from the ground. TSA needs new management, people who can find a whole new approach to security that *really* keeps us safe without making a trip to the airport feel like a trip to the penitentiary.

    @Jonathan: I am a fairly frequent business traveler (50 – 65,000 miles per year) and I am concerned. I’m not a prude and I’m not homophobic; I just think that a machine with questionable heath risks that shows me naked, and a process that involves touching bits that I tell my children not to let people touch, is a violation of our civil and constitutional rights. I might be okay with those searches if I didn’t think there was a better way, but I’m sure there is.

    Aaron

  • Will

    We don’t need yet another program, if they want a trusted traveller program it should be through Nexus cards. People already give biometric data and get a background check through it why should yet another agency do the same thing?
    Plus the enrollment centers and staff already exist.

  • Sarah

    I’m one of those frequent travelers – over 40 flights a couple years back, fewer last year, still fewer this year, and I’m busily trying to avoid any flights that I can from this point forward. (I have three Amtrak trips booked.)

    I would go through a millimeter-wave (RF) scanner, but not backscatter radiation. UCSF scientists are seriously concerned about its safety, and I’m concerned about the ethics (or lack thereof) of how Chertoff ended up selling those to the government. Unfortunately, it’s next to impossible to determine which airports use which technology.

    I will go through patdowns if absolutely necessary, but do NOT want my young adolescent son to go through that, or through radiation. I’d pay for “trusted traveler” access for myself and for him. He’s traveled internationally as well, and it’s not lost on him that coming back to the US is a really unpleasant experience.

  • Denice

    @Jonathan – to answer your question – do have preferred status with United and I am greatly opposed to the body scanners and pat downs. Not only does it violate my constitutional rights, but it does not may anyone any safer.

    But to the point of Air Traveler Program, once again I believe there are too many loop holes as mentioned above and it is not a solution either. It didn’t work the first time, not sure why giving up personal information again would work now. Again, why do I have to have a thorough background check just to travel? And to @Jonathan’s first point, I can as well see it becoming the “norm” in 5-10 years.

  • Lyn

    The whole TSA thing is really just getting stupid now. Americans have a much higher threat to their safety just getting into any vehicle than it has on a plane with an assumed potential threat on an airplane. Get realistic here, people! I voted no simply because this is saying the same thing as everyone is a possible threat whether low or high now. Whatever happened to NO-risk fliers? Low-risk American travelers is NOT the same as NO-risk. Being you are trying to predict a future, it is impossible and there forgoes any rights any American traveler may have. So, isn’t this all too assumptive and the same as saying all American’s NOW are GUILTY of only an ‘assumed threat’? This isn’t the America that I was born into and raised in and sounds totally paranoid as well as an insane idea. Americans are much smarter than these kinds of measures, which impose on everyone, which is wrong in this country. Why does everyone have to suffer consequences by the actions of only a very few people? This is wrong & never happened to be such a thing in America before, so why now? Why cover up the fact that TSA did not do their job that allowed threatening fliers they knew of in advance on the plane of Christmas would be bomber passengers thwarted last year? This has very little if nothing to do with the safety of the public, it has more to do with the government scrambling to find ways to justify why they haven’t done their job since the US State Department refused to revoke, his visa, the Christmas Day attempted bomber, Abdulmutallab, and allowed him to board Delta Flight 253, “with the aid of a well-dressed Indian man who convinced airline officials to let Abdulmutalla on the Christmas Day flight!” (“Despite appearing to back down on hugely unpopular pat down measures, Pistole confirmed that every single passenger who flies in American skies is now checked against a government watch list before they are allowed to board a plane, meaning that every US citizen now requires de facto government permission to travel.“ Paul Joseph Watson) Measures such as is not how America became a great nation and proceeding to follow those measures definitely will be the beginning of the end of the great nation we call America that is still is today.

  • LadySiren

    I’m of a mixed mind on this one. On one hand, I like the idea of being able to be vetted as a safe traveler, thus sparing myself from some of the indignities of enhanced security screening (I do think even if you’re vetted that you should have to have screening of some sort).

    But on the other, there are a myriad of reasons that this is a bad idea – it’d be easy to recruit a “clean” traveler, and it seems like it would be a short leap from being identified as a non-threat to hearing “Vhere are your papers?!” anytime we want to travel somewhere.

    So in short, I don’t know.

  • Erika

    @Jonathan – I travel 60-70% of my time and – due to my location – this is nearly 100% via air. I am adamantly opposed to the full body scanners. Radiation does not just go away. How long will it be before a frequent flier comes down with cancer because of all the exposure? Furthermore, I believe there is a line between added security and preserving the freedoms that we are supposedly protecting. The full body scanners and “enhanced pat downs” cross that line.

    As for the question posed by Chris, I’m on the fence. I think maybe yes – but with some caveats to ensure data protection. And I agree that it is entirely possible for somebody hell bent on causing mischief to recruit a “clean” traveler. But I suspect that no matter what we do there will always be a way for somebody with enough time and creativity to circumvent the system. Just ask any prison guard.

  • Fred

    Why would anyone think that a so-called “trusted traveler” would be free to go through without screening? Preposterous.

  • Amelia

    Sounds similar the old INSPass program. I was part of that in the late 1990s early 2000s, and it certainly did speed things along when going through Passport Control. I would love to see something like that re-instated.

  • http://gkbrunelle@sbcglobal.net Gayle K. Brunelle

    First of all, I have lived in a country with a national identity card (France) for several years and frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is with having one. If you have a driver’s license, credit cards, a mortgage, and/or a social security care or a passport, trust me, there is very little about you that cannot be found in minutes, literally, on the internet anyway. So the idea that somehow or other having a national identity card with stronger security is somehow going to feed into the “system” a bunch of information about you not already easily accessible is hokum. And I’d much rather given information out from a national identity card than have to give out my social security number all the time, as we do now in order to get a loan, fill out a W-9 for contract work, or on many other occasions.

    As for a “trusted traveler” system – you betcha! I’d love it! The bottom line is, I’d rather be fingerprinted or eye-scanned, once, and answer a lot of questions offering information that the government, not to mention cyber-criminals, can get anyway, again once, or, alternately, as in a passport, once every decade or so, than have to be x-rayed and displayed “nekkid” for some TSA worker who may be a wonderful person, but how would I know, and/or be patted down, every single time I want to board a plane. If you only fly infrequently, going through beefed up security every time you get on a plane probably isn’t a big deal. But for those of us who have to fly several times a year or more, it’s a royal pain in the hinderquarters. It’s also a massive waste of time and energy since most of us are not a danger. So yes, please, establish a “trusted flier program” and let those of us willing to go through the intensive screening to join do so. People who are fearful of their privacy would not have to.

  • Brooklyn

    @ Jonathan – I fly frequently and yes, I’m opposed to the scanners, the groping, the whole thing, to the point that I’m actively pursuing a job search in Europe in the hope of opting out of all United States travel for the foreseeable future. Is that good enough for you?

    But as for this program, I’m against it. It will make life hell for anyone who doesn’t travel often enough, or who doesn’t visit the US often enough, or who doesn’t have enough spare cash, to become a trusted traveller. I see it already when I enter the EU – it takes _forever_ to get through security unless you’re an EU citizen. This program would give the government carte blanche to inflict every possible indignity on a smaller number of people who are unlikely to be able to complain. The answer is to scrap the TSA and agree on reasonable, worldwide screening standards with an independent body to review complaints against the screeners and impose penalties.

  • Carrie Charney

    The only way to fix this is to demand that no one be exempt. Once our elected officials are forced to endure the scanning and groping, the TSA nonsense would be terminated in a heartbeat.

  • John

    @Brooklyn – I hate to tell you this but fleeing to the EU won’t necessarily help. A number of the countries in the EU use the same procedures and, to a certain extent, the same machines as the US. I have actually been groped more times in Europe than I have in the US.

  • LILLIAN

    I think what we really need is an airline ‘LEMON LAW’
    similar to car dealerships-as travel websites are becoming as
    bad as car dealers. We should have a 24 hour time period to fix mistakes, ours or theirs, and make any necessary changes.
    Yes, confirmations should be checked immediately, but it just
    does not always happen, they don’t always get thru cyber space that quickly and the public should not be penalized.
    THANK YOU,

  • Mike in NC

    I have a problem with this.

    Why should I have government permission to fly within my own country?

    That’s what a “trusted traveler” program really is – Government sanction to travel without hinderance. And that’s against everything the US was founded on, and smacks of Soviet Style restrictions.

    And yes, I’m against the scanners and pat-downs as well. They do nothing to secure the airways.

  • frostysnowman

    I don’t really care for the idea of a trusted traveler program for many of the reasons other posters have already stated.

    @johnathan – I averaged 2-3 trips per month this year and am vehemently opposed to the naked X-ray/enhanced pat down procedure. I feel both are unecessary searches that invade my privacy and step on my 4th amendment rights. After reading other posts in response to your question, it seems not EVERYONE thinks they are no big deal after all.

  • Ernest

    The whole trusted traveler prescreening program is a joke. I should not have to pay an excessive amount of money to use one or two ‘special’ airports. While we are talking about ‘trusted’ Americans, let us remember that one of our most serious breeches of national security was by a professional FBI agent. The US military has had senior sergeants with mega clearances give information to foreign agents.

    As a military retiree with a lot of years maintaining a very high clearance, I think I have proved my loyality to my country. How can you tell the difference between myself as a loyal American and those other Americans that betrayed our country? You can not. People change, ideaologies changes. I could be safe today and in a year or so, I might convert to a ‘belief’ that my country needs a radical change.

    I do believe that the TSA is inefficient and is only reactive in their actions. They need to profile people and stop the actions before they become an incident, much the same way that the Israelies do.

    I travel quite a lot for pleasure and I have mostly had very positive experiences with the TSA screeners. I have opted out of the scanners, not to make a statement but because I don’t trust them or our governments word that they are safe. I don’t trust them for the same reasons that our government once said tht radioactive fallout from the Nevada tests were safe, DDT was safe, agent orange was safe.

    I don’t think we can trust TSA to do what is needed to protect us, we can not trust our government to do what is right for the common people. Who can we trust? Me and thee and I’m not sure about thee.

    There is no easy answer and the trusted traveler program would end up a passage way for those who are willing to spend a lot of money to have the status. We can not trust our politicians to impliment it in a professioal way.

    There is no easy realist answer.

  • Wendy

    I think what would be more useful would be a medical equipment registry, because the vast majority of screening time is spent on people with metallic medical equipment. There is such a vast array of possibility that even hiring MD’s would not get someone that was familiar with all of them (trust me, I know this to be totally true). So if there was a medical equipment registry then 86-year-old granny might actually be able to get through security without a grope. I’ve been hassled by this farce forever (I wear an artificial leg and was a frequent traveler) and until you solve the medical equipment issue you will not relieve the system. I personally have given up entirely… to Hell with the TSA and their procedures. They got it right — I choose not to fly. I am driving 4,000 round trip over Christmas instead. Now THAT’s putting my money where my mouth is.

  • Jim

    The terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood Shooter) was in the Army and held a security clearance. Screening doesn’t prevent terrorism.

    If a so-called “trusted traveler” gets a short line, so should I. There’s no difference in the threat presented by a pre-screened passenger and anyone else.

  • kenish

    Screening and detecting terrorists at the airport is, in a sense, too late. And how many would-be hijackers or bombers have been caught at airport security screening? If one ever has been caught, the TSA would launch a PR blitz. Hmmm, strangely silent…

    So, millions of people need to be risk-assessed for an upcoming flight based on past travel and behavior patterns. Guess what- credit reporting bureaus do that every day. Not a technological or logistical nightmare at all- if you want to see a nightmare in place today, go to the airport instead!

  • Chris

    The so called trusted travfeller program run by the TSA or accepted by the TSA would be a waste of time. I have a Nexus card and had to go through all the hoops to get it. I wave it at Canadian and US Customs at the border and they waive me through. All the Clear program does is get you to the front of the line. You do not get waived through. You still have to go through the rest of the TSA comedy show.

  • Barry Graham

    This, and profiling, are great ideas. I would hope that such a great scheme would include eliminating the need to remove shoes, hats, jackets, PCs and belts.