TSA mess and the police

[kaytieeldr]

BTW, I just wanted to add that a program for this is already in place. From what I have read about it, it doesn't seem like it would be all that costly to impliment either -- esp. if Joe Q. Travel is willing to pay for his/her own background check. It is my understanding the pilots will be cleared through security using this program -- or one similar to it. The background check is done prior to travel, and then you need to have matching photo IDs to clear airport security.

http://www.travelagentcentral.com/a...oposes-federal-trusted-traveler-program-25080

That sounds a lot like the currently inactive Clear program that eliza61 mentioned a number of pages back. If it is, it's not being used at the moment due to lack of interest, but there's some thought that frequent fliers would be willing to pay for the service this time around.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I guess I just don't consider digging through the stuff that I consider public domain to be an invasive search.

Me neither. A background check compiles criminal and civil court records, financial records, SSN record, etc. It's all public domain, even the credit check (though you have to pay for that). Employers do it all the time. I don't see this as being contrary to the 4th Amendment.

It's not at all the same thing as enhanced scanning and patdowns.

 

[MiniGirl]

That sounds a lot like the currently inactive Clear program that eliza61 mentioned a number of pages back. If it is, it's not being used at the moment due to lack of interest, but there's some thought that frequent fliers would be willing to pay for the service this time around.

I missed eliza61's post on this, but it could be or a similair one. This is referred to as Trusted Traveller and it seems to be used on roads and at some ports. Basically, it looks to be a system where those who enter and leave the country on a regular basis for business can cross the border more easily. Crew members are also cleared in a similiar fashion. (Again, I'm reluctant to say this particular system is used because I don't know what that system is called and the company paid for it. I do know that I was fingerprinted though after 9/11 and had a fairly extensive background check run on me. It seems like it could be this though. Clearing customs and immigration as a crew member was much quicker and easier than clearing as a passenger.)

It very well could be that frequent flyers had no interest in paying for the service before. There seems to be a call for it now. I know it is a service I would now be willing to pay for (depending on the cost, of course). It is also my understanding that it is not something everyone would HAVE to do. If one has no issue with the current security screening procedures, that person is free to opt out of the background screening.

As I posted earler, I don't think either option is ideal, but this certainly seems like it could be a possible solution. There are still a lot of questions that would need to be addressed, of course, but I hope that it is pursued further by the ptb.

 

[olwyngdh]

Me neither. A background check compiles criminal and civil court records, financial records, SSN record, etc. It's all public domain, even the credit check (though you have to pay for that). Employers do it all the time. I don't see this as being contrary to the 4th Amendment.

It's not at all the same thing as enhanced scanning and patdowns.

For me, the background check is a lot more invasive than the scanner or patdown. It won't stop me from traveling, but the idea makes me very uncomfortable. I know how easy hacking govt computers can be--a friend (security contractor) took a class on it, and the final was to hack a govt computer. I now how often reports get out of govt laptops with all sorts of sensitive information on them get lost or stolen. How many reports don't we hear about? The info for a background check is more than what is needed for identity theft.

For me, the anonymous scans and/or patdowns are irritating, but they don't touch "me," just the shell; the background check is much more of a violation of the self--the who rather than the what.

 

[OceanAnnie]

The enhanced pat down is the same type a person gets for committing a crime.

Not even close.

I think you need to educate Janet Napolitano.
------------------

Napolitano stands firm on airline security needs


..."I think we all understand the concerns Americans have," Napolitano said at the Trenton train station. "It's something new. Most Americans are not used to a real law enforcement pat-down like that....."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/napolitano-stands-firm-on-airline-security-needs-1066635.html

 

[OceanAnnie]

BTW, I just wanted to add that a program for this is already in place. From what I have read about it, it doesn't seem like it would be all that costly to impliment either -- esp. if Joe Q. Travel is willing to pay for his/her own background check. It is my understanding the pilots will be cleared through security using this program -- or one similar to it. The background check is done prior to travel, and then you need to have matching photo IDs to clear airport security.

http://www.travelagentcentral.com/a...oposes-federal-trusted-traveler-program-25080

From what I have read, the proposed new TSA security measures for background checks and cross referencing are very different.

"...The public backlash against the aggressive pat-downs the federal government rolled out this month could put more pressure on the government to introduce security measures previously rejected on privacy grounds, including in-depth interrogations of travelers at airports, government scrutiny of passengers’ airline information, and even creation of a secure, standardized national ID card..."

...“We’re going to gather information about people we’re going to encounter hours before they arrive. We’ll compare names and travel partners to lists of people, not just no-fly lists, but anyone who’s suspect one way or another,” Baker said...."

"...What the polls may reflect is that different individuals value different aspects of privacy.

"...Some don’t like to be touched, but others are troubled by the idea of a security officer in a separate room examining an image of their body. Others don’t mind those intrusions, but draw the line at authorities scrutinizing their travel history, travel partners or interrogating them about where they’re going and why...."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45559_Page3.html

 

[arminnie]

Basically, the TSA does not think that all airports around the world have their standards so they screen you again.

Canada doesn't trust the U.S. I had to go through security again when I transferred in Montreal after originating in Boston - all on Air Canada.

I went through security six times last week (Thanksgiving) - 4 times in U.S and twice in Canada. I never had to wait more than a few minutes except at the Montreal transfer, and it was maybe 10-15 minutes. I never had a pat down and only went through the full scanner thing once. I even forgot a bottle of water from the day before, and the TSA agents could not have been nicer about it.

 

[DMRick]

It very well could be that frequent flyers had no interest in paying for the service before. There seems to be a call for it now. I know it is a service I would now be willing to pay for (depending on the cost, of course). It is also my understanding that it is not something everyone would HAVE to do. If one has no issue with the current security screening procedures, that person is free to opt out of the background screening..

I thought the old freguent flyers program just got them to go ahead in the security line..but they still had to go through the scanner, etc that others had to do. No, yes? I can't remember what that entitled them to.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I thought the old freguent flyers program just got them to go ahead in the security line..but they still had to go through the scanner, etc that others had to do. No, yes? I can't remember what that entitled them to.

Yes. All they got to do was jump in line, right to the scanner.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I thought the old freguent flyers program just got them to go ahead in the security line..but they still had to go through the scanner, etc that others had to do. No, yes? I can't remember what that entitled them to.

It essentially was a fast past. Useful for frequent travelers who didn't want to spend as much time waiting in line.

******

As for background check type stuff--I just prefer it it were an option.

Daily, I protect my modesty. I don't strip down virtually or for real in front of a stranger and I don't let random strangers touch me if they feel the need to.

However, on a regular basis since birth in one form or another, I have had to demonstrate who I am and provide sensitive information if I choose to do specific activities. I wanted to be a child care provider at my church...I submitted fingerprints and enough info for a criminal background check.

My husband in his line of work as already submitted extensive information (including names of people to be interviewed) to get his clearances.

Submitting information is an everyday part of life in this country.

While it isn't comfortable knowing that a computer can be hacked...this is nothing NEW.

Touching my breasts and my crotch or viewing a very accurate silhouette of them is.

The two simply are not comparable.

We are not used to a law enforcement patdown per Janet Napolitano's statement--b/c in this country, that only happens when we are suspected of breaking the law. A cop just can't stop me at random, ask me to exit the vehicle and then proceed to check me for weapons. As I have stated countless times, there is much less scrutiny to get onto an Army base, even in this post 9/11 world.

When A1A in Brevard county was closed for a long while post 9/11 in front of Patrick Air Force Base due to security concerns, I dealt. I didn't have business to be anywhere near the base and as inconvenient as that was, the community dealt. But even folks who could access the base, were not subject to such scrutiny as now is happening in the airline industry.


It may not cross your line--but it should. We should all be allowed to protect our modesty. I can think of countless scenarios of where this is not acceptable.

People are getting violated even if they don't realize it. They don't like it--but they have to get to point B, so they will put up with it.

There are victims out there who felt the same way with their attackers. They don't speak up until they can be convinced it isn't right.

(That is a rehash of my thoughts last night--probably not any better than what I had originally.)

FWIW--my husband doesn't see the big deal. But then again--he is one of those where travel is compulsory to work. Making a stink about it--doesn't do him any good. He already has a full background check anyway, so not sure why that clearance could not transfer. He's been on a nuclear sub for Pete's sake. He wasn't frisked prior to boarding that.

 

[olwyngdh]

It may not cross your line--but it should. We should all be allowed to protect our modesty. I can think of countless scenarios of where this is not acceptable.

And I could say the exact same thing from the other side. All that information gathered into one place, the deep background check, etc, may not cross your line--but it should. We should all be allowed to protect our privacy.

People are getting violated even if they don't realize it. They don't like it--but they have to get to point B, so they will put up with it.

Violation is in the eye of the beholder. You feel that an anonymous view of your body, or a patdown for contraband, is being violated. I feel more government intrusion into my personal life and a papers please big brother mentality is being violated. It is all perspective. Mine is no less valid than yours.

Best case scenario would be to be allowed a choice between them. I am going to travel either way, but I would much prefer the anonymous stripping of the scanner or patdown than the analyzed and stored nakedness of my personal life.

 

[C.Ann]

Submitting information is an everyday part of life in this country.

While it isn't comfortable knowing that a computer can be hacked...this is nothing NEW.

Touching my breasts and my crotch or viewing a very accurate silhouette of them is.

The two simply are not comparable.

We are not used to a law enforcement patdown per Janet Napolitano's statement--b/c in this country, that only happens when we are suspected of breaking the law. A cop just can't stop me at random, ask me to exit the vehicle and then proceed to check me for weapons. As I have stated countless times, there is much less scrutiny to get onto an Army base, even in this post 9/11 world.

When A1A in Brevard county was closed for a long while post 9/11 in front of Patrick Air Force Base due to security concerns, I dealt. I didn't have business to be anywhere near the base and as inconvenient as that was, the community dealt. But even folks who could access the base, were not subject to such scrutiny as now is happening in the airline industry.


It may not cross your line--but it should. We should all be allowed to protect our modesty. I can think of countless scenarios of where this is not acceptable.

People are getting violated even if they don't realize it. They don't like it--but they have to get to point B, so they will put up with it.

There are victims out there who felt the same way with their attackers. They don't speak up until they can be convinced it isn't right..

Very nicely stated..

 

[DMRick]

However, on a regular basis since birth in one form or another, I have had to demonstrate who I am and provide sensitive information if I choose to do specific activities. I wanted to be a child care provider at my church...I submitted fingerprints and enough info for a criminal background check..

I've had background checks as well. It took us several months for our background checks and to get our ID just for what I thought was a simple inside tour of the White House (we had a lot more liberty than the regular tour, thanks to a friend who worked there..we had access to the then president). I doubt this type of check will be like those. I think this will be much more like big brother checking where you have been, with who, and why. They will keep record, I bet, of everywhere you have gone and for how long.
I agree, if you are willing to pay for an extensive background check, which is different from what the government is doing for most people, and is set up for, you should have a choice. (so for your size family, it could be a $1000, for instance).
That said, I'd be very interested in what I imagine will be some people outraged about what will be known about you. I would assume the government will have access to even closed records, if there was ever any criminal activity.
My mom used to say, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

 

[DMRick]

A cop just can't stop me at random, ask me to exit the vehicle and then proceed to check me for weapons.

I did also want to mention that a TSA agent will also not stop you outside of the airport and randomly check you. You have come to the airport, have bought a ticket and with buying that ticket agreed to be patted down/scanned before getting on the plane, or whatever security they have put in place. On another thread, someone likened that to going to a prison to visit someone, being patted down to make sure you aren't sneaking in contraband (happy to say I've never had that experience). You aren't the criminal, but have put yourself in the position to be searched. Those are choices, where a police stop for no reason is not. Just my 2 cents, ymmv.

 

[CPT Tripss]

...ABout the clearences and who gets to be near them, they would have to be done in advance. I am highly doubtful the TSA brigade would be the ones in charge of a National Security issue like background checks. I tend to think the clearances would have to be trusted to people possessing many more qualifications in order to insure the clearances weren't faked. I'd like to think FBI because I happen to hold them in high esteem.

...

The "Clear Traveller" program was a private for profit company that folded about 1 1/2 years ago.. One of the "partners was Lockheed. Once it was fully up and running it was supposed to allow travellers to skip screening after a biometric device verified who they were. It never got beyond "head of line" in actual use.

None of it is a cake walk IMO.

The enhanced pat down is the same type a person gets for committing a crime. Do we really want to be treated as a criminal and a guilty one at that, just for buying a plane ticket? Officers are only allowed to do pat downs for just cause IIRC. So an anonymous pat down isn't such a little thing either.

Franklin rolling in his grave. Indeed.

Not even close.

Actually OA is pretty much correct. LEOs need probable cause in order to perform a search such as is done by TSA at an airport. A police patdown is not nearly as extensive as a TSA search. Here's a good example - from GA.

...
PAT-DOWN SEARCH: A "frisk" or external feeling of the outer garments of an individual.

REASONABLE SUSPICION: Articulable facts that, within the totality of the circumstances, lead an officer to reasonably suspect that criminal activity has been or is about to be committed.

...

A law enforcement officer has the right to perform a pat-down search of the outer garments of a suspect for weapons if he has been legitimately stopped with reasonable suspicion and only when the officer has a reasonable fear for his own or another person's safety.
...

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/research/programs/downloads/law/Chap9-4.html

This procedure is for what police call a patdown or frisk . . . TSA uses the term for something much more invasive.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Very nicely stated.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I slept on it and gave it a day and I'm still pretty much where I was last night. I'm still much more comfortable with an invasion of my very boring life than I am with an invasion of my body. I won't commit to anything but it's where I'm leaning but I'd only do it if it put me back with the old metal detectors, not if it was an additional measure on top of the scans and pat-downs.

I've been rolling this around in my head all day and I did think of a few things that matter to me personally. First off, I will say I would not hand out my info to a private contractor and i have a hard time thinking many people would... that's probably a big reason why the company so many of you mention failed the first time around. So if the choice is clearance by some private business where my data could be bought and sold as a part of a business and my info could end up in the hands of foreign interests or home grown crooks who could steal my identity that's 100% SO NOT GONNA HAPPEN, not with a nod from me anyway. However, if the clearances were to be handled IN HOUSE as part of National Security measures with the strictest oversights available, similar to what now has been implemented with our health info since HIPPA, I would consider it. But only in the hands of a tried and true governmental body like either individual State Police or the FBI mostly because of their collective experience AND the strict restraints already in place on their behavior. No newbies for me, some organizations already have the know-how and infrastructure, all they have to do is hire more Americans right here and for me, that's a bonus win-win, much better than unemployment. Think about all the good well paying jobs that could come of it, especially with all the police lay-offs in the news lately.

I guess it's too soon to know what they are going to put on the table for us but considering this industry is a luxury industry I hope they realize heavy handedness won't work. People like me will just continue to stay home and wait until the wars are over. It's really their move, I'm just waiting to see if a compromise can be reached that is tolerable for everyone who wants to fly. I hope so... I really do... I've got all the time in the world for them to get it right. Til then I'll have my fingers crossed, I'm encouraged by the fact they seem to be listening to people now and realize some people have valid objections to the pat down that have nothing to do with a desire to be evasive, so there is hope.

 

[CPT Tripss]

FWIW I don't want to give my personal information (beyond naame and dob) to anyone, government or private enterprise in order to be able to travel by any mode I choose within the USA.

 

[LuvOrlando]

You shouldn't have to if you don't want to do so. I am a huge advocate for personal freedoms and that means choices for people who have reasons why they want to refrain from one style or another. I just want an alternative, but that doesn't mean I want you to be forced into doing things just because they are ok with me. I won't bail on you

 

[MiniGirl]

I thought the old freguent flyers program just got them to go ahead in the security line..but they still had to go through the scanner, etc that others had to do. No, yes? I can't remember what that entitled them to.

Yes. All they got to do was jump in line, right to the scanner.

It essentially was a fast past. Useful for frequent travelers who didn't want to spend as much time waiting in line.

Okay then. Like I said I did not see the earlier post. The program I am referring to is different. It involves fingerprints and an FBI background check. I know how it works for crewmembers, but don't know if it would work the same way for passengers. It is not a "jump to the front of the line" program though. Will it ever be available to the general public? I have no idea.

Again, I want to re-iterate.... I don't think this would be something anyone should be forced to do. I understand why some would be more uncomfortable with this than the current security measures. I would just like to see it offered as an alternative for those of us who are uncomfortable with the scans and pat downs.