×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

TSA Announces Pilot of Trusted Traveler Program

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the another-day-at-the-theater dept.

Privacy 388

Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN reports that the TSA has announced the pilot of their trusted traveler program. This is the program where an individual gives up additional information to the government and then gets expedited security. The pilot program will only be available to certain frequent fliers on Delta passengers flying out of Atlanta and Detroit, and to American Airlines passengers flying out of Miami and Dallas. Plans are in the work to expand this to other airports and other airlines as well."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I have TSA in my pants (1, Funny)

slashpot (11017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776774)

I have a TSA Trusted Traveler in my pants!

Re:I have TSA in my pants (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777080)

I'm sure the enhanced patdown will be able to find it.

Re:I have TSA in my pants (3, Funny)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777322)

I'm sure the enhanced patdown will be able to find it.

in the parent thread's case, I doubt it.

From Detroit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776790)

Obviously I wouldn't put Detroit at the top of the "trusted travelers" list.

Oh well, government in action.

Re:From Detroit? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777098)

That's hardly fair. Detroit is the largest airport in Michigan, I live a few hours away and still travel out of there.

Re:From Detroit? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777192)

Detroit are fagets

you probably suck dick in airport bathroom haha

airport faget.

Re:From Detroit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777164)

Strange it is not for passengers flying into Detroit

Re:From Detroit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777326)

Obviously I wouldn't put Detroit at the top of the "trusted travelers" list.

Oh well, government in action.

Even for a stereotyping hate comment, that's pretty stupid. Given the entire issue here is Detroit-Wayne County Airport (better known as Detroit Metro), this implies the "untrusted" savages you seem to be implying are in Detroit have a way to travel out of the jungle quite quickly to find people who make dumb jokes like this. In fact, one of them is RIGHT BEHIND YOU NOW! RUN! Nah, I'm kidding. This time.

Well, okay, there's also the fact that DTW is way the hell outside of the stereotypically crime-riddled downtown Detroit, but still.

Implying (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776796)

All other travelers presumed guilty.

Re:Implying (2)

MichaelKristopeit411 (2018832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777138)

America 2.0. your rights have moved to the cloud.

Re:Implying (3, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777152)

Have you flown anytime in the previous decade? That assumption has been there for a long time already.

So I can buy my way out of airport security? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776798)

Awesome.

Re:So I can buy my way out of airport security? (3, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777074)

Capitalism solves everything!

Re:So I can buy my way out of airport security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777228)

Well, and in many airports you usually buy your way through lines. Business class for many airlines gets you in front of the line most of the times.

Lovely (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776800)

This is a perfect solution that balances the public wish for appearance of freedom, with the government and corporate wish for the appearance of security.

Re:Lovely (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776876)

And raises lots of money for the government too!

Re:Lovely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777148)

So, first they take your freedom away, and then they allow you to buy back your freedom?????
SHREK: I, WANT, MY, SWAMP, BACK.
(and signed copy proving that my swamp is mine)

Re:Lovely (5, Insightful)

gearsmithy (1869466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776928)

Now that's what I call freedumb!

Re:Lovely (1, Insightful)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777220)

This is a perfect solution that balances the public wish for appearance of freedom

Only for the rich.

Re:Lovely (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777266)

Nay, for the rich, or for those willing to give up every piece of privacy they have.

First Flight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776804)

Must've been trusted

Bad idea (5, Insightful)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776820)

We all know how this will go. Fewer lines will be allocated to normal lines, pushing people to give up tons of personal information in order to return to the speeds they previously had (as everyone will want the faster lines), instead of the skyrocketing time of the normal lines. It's the carrot approach to getting people to give up all their rights and personal information.

Re:Bad idea (5, Insightful)

Lust (14189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776874)

And there is no guarantee the system will not be revoked in future - personal information cannot suddenly become private again.

Re:Bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776914)

Exactly! We need a 'Fly with steel underwear'-Day every other week as a protest measure.
A few hundred of those each day with refundable tickets and no desire to actually fly, would do wonders to the lines.

I Am Trusted Traveler (5, Insightful)

lordDallan (685707) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776824)

Until I am PROVEN GUILTY of not being one. I don't have to "opt in" for what should be my no-questions-asked constitutional rights.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776958)

Except that there is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane. If you don't like their rules, don't fly.

Argument over.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (5, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777100)

Except that there is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane. If you don't like their rules, don't fly.

Argument over.

Except the whole point of the US Constitution is that lists the rights of the government, not the rights of the people. And prohibiting people from traveling in private transport is not one of them.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777146)

They just dance around this by having the airlines be the ones that want security.

If you can afford to charter a plane, you can have whatever security measures you want in place, including none.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777282)

Tell that to Steve Jobs and his throwing stars!

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777200)

Protecting the public safety from threats foreign or domestic is an established right of the government, for better or for worse.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777334)

So you give them the right to "protect us from threats" and the right to define what is and isn't a "threat"?

Good luck with that.

Commerce among the states (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777214)

Except the whole point of the US Constitution is that lists the rights of the government, not the rights of the people. And prohibiting people from traveling in private transport is not one of them.

Does a plane take off in one state and land in another? If so, it's "commerce among the states" that the Congress has always been allowed to regulate.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (1)

MichaelKristopeit415 (2018852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777248)

Except that there is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane. If you don't like their rules, don't fly.

Argument over.

Except the whole point of the US Constitution is that lists the rights of the government, not the rights of the people. And prohibiting people from traveling in private transport is not one of them.

where in the constitution does it say that the government has the right to prohibit convicted child molesters from visiting public and private parks where children play?

you're an idiot. your idiocy is the whole point of my reply.

Jesus Christ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777134)

Except that there is no constitutional right to fly in an airplane. If you don't like their rules, don't fly.

Argument over.

I'm not much for flaming but you fucking deserve it.

No Constitutional Right to fly?!? That is such an idiotic statement that I don't know where to fucking begin. There's no Constitutional Right for you to breath either. Show me in the Constitution where it gives us the explicit right to breath! Show us!, please!

Yeah, that's right you can't.

With people like you, no wonder our Civil Liberties are being chipped away - you know the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution - that's right "pinko liberal Civil Liberties" are in the Constitution.And that's right, our right to bear arms is also a pinko liberal Civil Liberty!

Jesus Mother Fucking Christ!

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (2)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777154)

Yup. I fly as little as possible, partially because of privacy issues, partially because of the new scope-and-grope process, and partially because the overall experience has just become so very unpleasant. Long lines, cramped flights, last-minute cancellations; who wants to deal with this.

So I don't go to some of the places that I used to have on my destination list, and where I do go, I try to drive. In the last two years, I've flown only for business, and once for a funeral for which we couldn't plan ahead long enough to make the drive.

Of course, when driving, I still use my credit card, so my privacy is not necessarily complete. I'm sure someone can tell where I fuel up, eat and stay. Hell, they could probably even guess what kind of car I drive based on fuel utilization signatures combined with dealer maintenance histories.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (4, Informative)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777178)

Um, Freedom of Movement *is* a constitutional right in the US -- and there is no exception for movement via airplanes.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (5, Informative)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777194)

Reference 49 USC S40103(a)(2): "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/usc_sec_49_00040103----000-.html

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777298)

There is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane, true. However, the airlines are PRIVATE companies and as such should be free to require as much or as little screening of their passengers as they feel is necessary. The idea being that if you don't like one airline, you take your business elsewhere.

This is the government intruding into private businesses to invade our 4th amendment right to be free from unlawful searches.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776970)

Until I am PROVEN GUILTY of not being one. I don't have to "opt in" for what should be my no-questions-asked constitutional rights.

Haven't flown much recently, then?

I'm aware you're describing the ideal. No need to educate me on my rights, or erosion thereof. Having traveled internationally recently, I'll add that the TSA's policies are consistent with those of the People's Republic of China. And that should tell you all you need to know.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777222)

I'm aware you're describing the ideal. No need to educate me on my rights, or erosion thereof. Having traveled internationally recently, I'll add that the TSA's policies are consistent with those of the People's Republic of China. And that should tell you all you need to know.

That the PRC is also a "land of the free, and home of the brave"?

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (1)

Prikolist (1260608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777002)

Innocent until proven guilty? Hahaha, what a medieval concept, go back to 1200's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Lemoine#Works) if you want to talk about it. We live in a civilized time, way past such barbaric ideas.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777048)

Until I am PROVEN GUILTY of not being one. I don't have to "opt in" for what should be my no-questions-asked constitutional rights.

Now that you've swept away TSA with a two sentence assertion on an internet forum, can we all go directly to the gate at the airport without any security checks?

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (1)

lordDallan (685707) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777114)

Wow. You totally nailed my intent there!! Good job!!

Or maybe I was just blowing off some steam in a public forum about an issue that frustrates me. See the difference??

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777052)

Citizen, you are in error and clearly in need of retraining. Air travel is a privilege, not a right. The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to notify the government, several days in advance, of your intention to travel between different parts of the country; and to submit to physical searches, document checks and property seizures at the various government checkpoints while in transit.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (2)

gorzek (647352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777070)

As Ronald Reagan and similar idiots would likely say: "Trust... but verify."

(Note: does not actually involve trust.)

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777226)

Way to take a quote out of context, he was talking about trusting the information people gave him. He was saying trust what they say but always verify, seems like a good policy that bush should have don't before blabbering about WMDs

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777236)

Innocent, but not trusted. You breath, you live, you could be a terrorist. Unless you join this program only available to profitable customers to a series of corporations and hand over information to the government so they can crowdsource their spying of their own citizens.

Re:I Am Trusted Traveler (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777268)

Then blame white people for airport security.

Oh, did you forget why we started having security at airports. DB Cooper. A white guy. Who threaten an airliner with a bomb. After that incident we started the whole security thing.

For all of you who say we should be profiling for extremists. They come in all nationalities and colors, and there are more causes than just being Muslim that someone would want to get a bomb onto a plane.

Also, flying isn't a right, its a privilege that you pay for with money. A rights are free, and we all know flying isn't free.

No standing (2)

SideshowBob (82333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777332)

Unfortunately it isn't you whose rights are being violated because you don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to fly on Delta's or American's planes. It is they whose rights are being abridged by the government making it mandatory on them to require that their passengers be screened by the TSA. And they aren't likely to sue to defend their rights. What we need is some airline to step up and refuse the TSA and then challenge it all the way up when they get shut down for it.

Security Theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776836)

Prove your innocence in order to fly -- so that's what American society has come to. Pfeh!

Multi-Step Approach (5, Insightful)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776848)

Step 1: Create new "elite program" requesting additional privacy invasion
Step 2: Initially limit ability into "elite program" to create artificial demand
Step 3: Make it more painful for those not in "elite program" to travel
Step 4: Create new "platinum elite program" requesting even more privacy information
....
Step n: All your base are belong to us

In all seriousness, this is the slippery slope everyone talks about.

Re:Multi-Step Approach (2)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776944)

Give them free miles for every privacy item they give up and nobody will ever care.

Re:Multi-Step Approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777112)

Wait! Somebody set up us the bomb!

Re:Multi-Step Approach (3, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777286)

The slippery slope was a looooong ways back. Like maybe RICO or the "war" on drugs. After 9/11, Bush and Ashcroft cheerfully pushed us off the cliff into this ever-expanding police state.

Re:Multi-Step Approach (1)

pwileyii (106242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777312)

You don't think they already have that information? The point is to verify the information you give them aligns with the information they have about you.

This sounds like a bad idea (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776854)

Swallow first one poison in the name of security.
Now we're offered more poison in the name of a cure from the effects of the first.

Reverse the Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776888)

This program is a way to force people through the full-body scanners because only people who reveal additional information will be allowed to use the hand wand.

Be polite... (5, Funny)

Lord Grey (463613) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776890)

When my doorbell rings and the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons are on the doorstop, I tell them "No, thanks."

When the TSA offers to restore a small bit of the freedom I used to have anyway, but only after forcing me to give up something else, I say, "No, thanks, you intrusive motherfucking bastards."

Mom did try to raise a polite child, you know.

Re:Be polite... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777056)

I prefer to garrote them and dump the body behind a dumpster. It's slow going, but has the additional advantage of raising the average IQ of the herd. Now if we could only get a movement started...

Self pat-down (5, Funny)

gomiam (587421) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776900)

Are trusted travelers to pat themselves down or supposed to do a striptease? :)

Re:Self pat-down (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776920)

That will get you put on another list.

Re:Self pat-down (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777324)

A very sexy, very trusted list.

Re:Self pat-down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777006)

I don't mind groping my crotch as long as somebody else is doing the striptease for me to watch...

Re:Self pat-down (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777262)

I don't mind groping my crotch as long as somebody else is doing the striptease for me to watch...

DO NOT WANT! Have you seen the people that TSA hires? Ewww!

In other news (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776904)

Terrorists and other ne'er-do-wells begin active surveillance and recruitment of people who have previously gained "trusted traveler" status.

Translation: go find someone who's already got their "get out of grope" card, and arrange for *them* to carry the Happy Boom Blox.

Re:In other news (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777186)

That's a good point. After voluntarily submitting to these types of intrusions, the trusted recruits should have ample body cavity capacity for implanted boom blox, if you know what I mean. Giggidy.

Queue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776908)

Queue next terror attack on plane being perpetrated by one of these "trusted" travelers. Then the whole thing comes crashing down again.

This is worse than the current system (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776916)

Any terrorist with half a brain trying to plan an attack on an airplane now knows exactly how to do it: Forge an identity or recruit a new terrorist that can meet the Trusted Traveler requirements. Then use the Trusted Traveler identity to bypass the security that might catch your terrorist plot. Bruce Schneier writes a great deal about this: If you create an easier-than-standard path through security constraints, the bad guys, just like the good guys, will take the easier route, every single time.

Re:This is worse than the current system (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777320)

Wrong. You can make a system that is harder to get in to than the effort to get through a single instance. Your error is to not realize that the system is only easier over multiple trips. The background check and other requirements are harder to accomplish. Someone that can get trusted traveler would be unlikely to be recruit-able and would certainly be risky to try and recruit. Forging shouldn't be a possibility as the records should be electronic and include a photo. The effort to get in to the system would be far harder than a single trip, but over multiple trips, the savings would outweigh the duplicated effort of the normal approach.

Already tried and shut down (4, Informative)

IP_Troll (1097511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776926)

This is nothing new. They had a program in 2009 called Clear to speed you through screening and it was abruptly shutdown without explanation. http://daggle.com/clear-airport-security-program-closes-707 [daggle.com]

It was then started again, but more limited. http://daggle.com/clear-airport-security-with-all-downsides-2179 [daggle.com]

So... how long will this incarnation last?

Re:Already tried and shut down (1)

Calsar (1166209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777252)

It wasn't shut down for no reason. Someone stole a laptop out of one of their airport offices with their entire customer list including all of their customer's private security information that the system required. Needless to say this resulted in a big privacy scandal and the company got smacked by the government and disappeared.

What is this supposed to do, exactly? (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776930)

All that terrorists will do is bide their time a bit more, and do all the work necessary to get themselves into these trusted traveller programs, and then ultimately spring whatever trap they were planning... possibly many years later.

Justify more spending (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777068)

Did you honestly think it was any more complicated than that? History has proven over and over again that the people who run the business of government are primiarily concerned with one thing: expanding their budget (or expanding their powers, which in turn will be leveraged to expand the budget).

It's not rocket science: the more money you control, the better positioned you are to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. After 200 years of this I would have thought it was obvious.

you know (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776938)

The fastest I ever got through security (well, second fastest after a commuter shuttle flight) was when I forgot my driver's license, was taken to the side, given a quick pat down, and sent through.

Re:you know (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777078)

The regs say "a state issued photo id".

A buddy of mine uses his concealed carry permit... seems to me that would work great for the trusted traveler program. Most states already have a process for obtaining one (realistic or not), and after fingerprinting and both state and FBI background checks, well... you prolly aren't a terrorist.

Doesn't this defy the goal of securing the flights (1)

pesho (843750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776950)

Doesn't trust open security whole? Who is going to guarantee that a person vetted today will not be compromised tomorrow? On the other hand, considering TSA is mostly theater, this program is probably not much of a concern.

Reserving Judgment (3, Interesting)

V-similitude (2186590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776954)

It sounds interesting, but given their history I'm highly skeptical. I could see it improving things, but it all depends on two things.

a) How much and what information they're actually collecting (they didn't say):

The amount and nature of the information that will be sought was not disclosed.

I could easily imagine them requiring absurd amounts of information, such as full disclosure of banking accounts, family background information, etc., etc. Given that I'm sure they won't be trustworthy enough to store it safely, this could be a deal breaker for many (and have disastrous consequences when their database is hacked).

And b) What exactly this means:

Security experts have long expressed concern about so-called "clean skins" -- potential terrorists who enroll in "trusted traveler" programs to avoid scrutiny during a terror mission. But the TSA says it will continue to incorporate random and unpredictable security measures to address such concerns.

Random and unpredictable security measures even for "trusted travelers" sounds like it could make it not worth the effort. Furthermore, I can't imagine this program will last any longer than the first "close call" terrorist event where someone sneaks through using this program. So yeah . . . judgment reserved.

I don't trust the TSA (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776956)

no, i do trust them to be incompetent and ineffective.

Meaning (0)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776986)

White people.

Re:Meaning (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777058)

That's "white list" to you. :(

Re:Meaning (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777140)

If, by "white people", you mean "Republican fat cats", then yes.

WTF? (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777012)

It's like watching all of the scariest bits of 1984 and Brave New World all coming together.

A world in which citizens have no liberties, and think that's how it should be. The state controls everything and tells you what to think. McCarthyism meets the Keystone Kops.

If the Americans are voluntarily giving up all of their liberties for this farce of security ... then the rest of the world us screwed. Because governments which have slightly less compunction about running roughshod over their citizens will be quite willing to do this as well ... in fact, they'll be required to in order to allow a flight into the US. Give it time, and the US will require these like the other heightened security measures.

So, the great bastion of personal liberties is essentially leading the charge to stripping them away from themselves and dragging everybody else along with them. All in the name of protecting those very liberties they're giving up.

I grieve for what America used to stand for. I also grieve for how it bodes for the rest of us.

Can I finally use my damn TWIC card for something? (3, Funny)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777016)

I've had this stupid Transport Worker Identification Credential smart card thing in my wallet for years now. I had to pass a background check and everything. If I can't use that DHS/TSA issued credential to skip security on flights under this trusted travel program, well, I guess what else should we expect form the government, efficiency?

How will this work if I have other clearances? (3, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777028)

I still think the TSA should be abolished and that no one should be subject to screening before any form of travel by the government.

Will this system be separate or does it allow for equivalences? I have friends in security with actual government clearances and deep background checks. I have a concealed carry permit which subjects me to a mild background check and regular automated checks for arrests, convictions, restraining orders, and other such naughty behaviours.

Of course lets not forget that I shouldn't have to dork around with any of this anyway. If I buy a ticket I should be allowed on the damn plane without a metal detector and without a screening unless that is part of the terms of the sale.

Oh, this'll end well... (3, Interesting)

TrumpetPower! (190615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777034)

Were I a nefarious evildoer, I'd figure out who's on this list -- easy to do by observing who goes through the line -- then kidnap said person's family and threaten to do horrible things to them unless they took this package on board.

I mean, really. Does the TSA really think we're stupid enough not to see this for the security theater it so shamelessly is? Or do they simply not care any more?

b&

Re:Oh, this'll end well... (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777270)

If I were a nefarious evildoer, I would simply join the trusted traveler scheme myself.

Why not? If "do you intend to become a suicide bomber" is one of the questions, I can simply answer "no". How would anyone know that I was lying?

Re:Oh, this'll end well... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777314)

Or do they simply not care any more?

They only care about the money we let them spend.

Really? (1)

Serpent 33 (689695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777088)

I say it's only a matter of time till the "terroists" get into this program so they don't have to go through all the same stuff us "normal" citizens do. They already know how to get past the stuff we go though anyway...

Already in Canada (1)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777102)

We've had this for a little while in Canada, and it works quite well. What they've done is re-purpose the Nexus Card [cbsa-asfc.gc.ca] for security lines.
 
Nexus is a joint Canada-US initiative whereby applicants get pre-screened by both countries. If you are approved you can use self-declarations plus iris scanning (air) or RFID card (land) when entering Canada from anywhere or entering the US from Canada. The program is kludgy but it keeps getting improved. It costs $50 for five years and is absolutely indispensable for anyone who travels more than occasionally (saves about an hour every time you cross the border).

For airport security, what they've done in most major airports is create a special line for Nexus holders. Not only do you skip lining up with the great unwashed, but you also pass on the "dance dance revolution" pad that randomly selects passengers for the "you're going to miss you flight so that we can fondle your junk" line. Nexus lines are set up for domestic, transborder and international flights so you don't need to be entering the US.

It's not a perfect setup, since the use of a border-crossing card for domestic flights is a bit confusing. However, it's CATSA's first outbreak of common sense in years so overall it's a big step forward.

No Conspiracy Here (1)

_0rm_ (1638559) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777128)

Every single one of us who are American Citizens are already in the system, so the feds can find out what they want about us regardless of whether we give our info to them through this program or not.

Like getting a secret clearance (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777130)

If you've ever worked for a company that is involved with certain government contracts you might have had to apply for a 'secret clearance'. There are of course many levels of this, but it does involve making all sorts of information available to the government to prove you are who you say you are. I would imagine that the level of clearance they are talking about for the trusted flier program is a few notches below that of a top secret clearance. My nephew recently got a job with a government agency requiring such a clearance that took several months to process (we don't know which agency, he isn't allowed to talk about that, but I assume one of the 'spooks' such as the CIA doing cryptology work).

i like this websit,find my favourite (1)

infashion2011 (2332952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777136)

http//:www.enjoycheap.com, i like this websit,find my favourite

Why not ask El Al?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777158)

Israel's El Al airline has the best safety record in the world, despite Israel, itself, being THE TARGET of MOST terrorists' absolute hatred. Obviously, the TSA needs to REALLY sit down with the people who run that airline's security, and LEARN SOMETHING!

Nexus pass? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777182)

They do this at border crossings already, don't they? Via the Nexus pass...

Land of the free? (1)

kill -9 $$ (131324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777184)

I saw this yesterday on CNN and all I could think it sounds an awful like we're headed down the road to:

"Papers please..."

Bad idea. (1)

Xoltri (1052470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777190)

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

Remember who this is coming from (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777206)

http://www.infowars.com/calls-for-tsa-chiefs-head-as-agency-now-denies-it-forced-removal-of-adult-diaper/ [infowars.com]
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/07/tsa-undermining/ [wired.com]

etc...

It's just time for the TSA to go, next wannabe bomber to pull a razor blade on a US airplane will probably get thrown out the emergency door.

Will it allow snowglobes? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777294)

'Cause my 8 year old just got denied at a TSA screening for having a snow globe in her carry on. I'm still trying to figure out the specific logic. It's not a blunt weapon, since you can take on all sorts of similar sized objects which could be used as blunt weapons. I'm not sure if it's glass, but if it is it would be no less of a weapon when broken than the mirror in my overnight bag if broken. It might be the liquid, but a globe is sealed and can't be opened without tools - which they won't let you carry on, so it can't be part of a binary (or higher) explosive to be combined int he air. (N.B.: it fit in a quart bag, though I'm sure there was more than 3oz of liquid in it) Of course, that would mean that it would have to be primary explosive...but they let us just check the bag, so they've let us put the explosive on the plane.

DHS spends $50B a year; Half a Trillion dollars since the WTC/Pentagon incident. I want my fucking money back.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?