TSA May Let 'Trusted Travelers' Avoid Being Groped

from the well,-that's-one-idea dept

Thu, May 12th 2011 12:29pm — Mike Masnick

Apparently, the TSA is considering a system to figure out who is a "trusted traveler," and then give them special VIP security lanes that will be less annoying and less intrusive. They may also treat different flights differently, such that "low risk" flights may not require the same level of scrutiny. While there is some wisdom in recognizing higher risk targets and lower risk targets and treating them differently, it does make you wonder if moves like this only make those "low risk" flights more of a target -- and make "trusted travelers" equally targeted. Of course, it also raises questions about what the TSA considers a "trusted" traveler, what data they collect on those flyers and how they guarantee that the info is kept private.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: trusted traveler
Companies: tsa

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 12:44pm

"Of course, it also raises questions about what the TSA considers a "trusted" traveler"

Easy, anyone who pays them X thousand dollars to be put on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly my thought!
  
  -Mrkanders2@gmail.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2011 @ 5:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    and mine
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 12:48pm

...and the people responsible for this bullshit in the first place. One set of laws for us, another for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 12:48pm

Of course, it also raises questions about what the TSA considers a "trusted" traveler, what data they collect on those flyers and how they guarantee that the info is kept private.

Based on their track record, I'd hazard a guess that they use poorly thought out, completely ineffective methods. Since that includes their security, I imagine we'll see a database leak sooner or later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irving, 12 May 2011 @ 12:49pm

"and how they guarantee that the info is kept private"
...
Who told you they had any intention of keeping the info private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 12:54pm

Of course, it also raises questions about what the TSA considers a "trusted" traveler, what data they collect on those flyers and how they guarantee that the info is kept private.

Well, first off they can't be Muslim. They must be born and raised in 'MERICA. To be on the safe side better just say caucasian here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crazzyheart, 12 May 2011 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re:
  I have been flying quite a bit lately and I am as caucasian as it gets and have been GROPED EVERY SINGLE TIME I've flown. So, it is not totally a race thing. I HATE it, I believe it is against our constitutional rights, but we have no say. The TSA has NEVER stopped a highjacking/bombing/911 type even ever and this makes me feel no safer than prior to this invasive screening. Just some perp watching everyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 5:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So refuse to fly. I have since 2008. Enough people speak with their dollars and policy changes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 8:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Gender and proportions?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 8:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Gender and proportions?
    You may look as caucasian as it gets, BUT....
    
    Are you female? Are you curvaceous, statuesque, buxom or even merely "cute"?
    
    Or maybe you just look compliant, like you're in a hurry or mild mannered enough that you won't raise a stink.
    
    I think the TSA has a habit of searching for lost pocketknives where the light is good, not where they lost them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 12 May 2011 @ 9:23pm
  
  Re:
  u forgot rich and ugly
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 12:54pm

what the TSA considers a "trusted" traveler
Lemme guess, DNA sample will have something to do with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 1:12pm

So far all misses
Clearly the reason for this is to enable congressman and there family to skip the line and avoid having their kids groped. Can't really blame them for this - everyone wants it... they just happen to have the authority to pull it off.
Oops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devonavar (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 1:15pm

Low threat flights
There's some wisdom to lighter screenings for low-risk flights. Blowing up a rural domestic flight just doesn't have the same fear effect as a transcontinental 747. There's no way a domestic flight from Cedar Rapids IA to Chicago warrants the same level of security as an inbound flight from the middle east.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michial Thompson, 12 May 2011 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Low threat flights
  Except that the passengers that aren't more stringently screened are free to rome and interact with the passengers on those transcontinental 747 flights.
  
  Even a blind man can see the flaws in this one, Terrorist A buys a ticket from Cedar Rapids To Chicago, carries whatever through less stringent Security, then meets Terrorist B on other side of Security and passes device off.
  
  Not that either Terrorist A or Terrorist B are REAL Threats or even boogymen, but god forbid that Grandma be on her first flight in 90 years, and Terrorist B happens to yell Boo and make her piss her pants....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - known coward, 13 May 2011 @ 6:01am
    
    Re: Re: Low threat flights
    What you describe is pretty much how 9/11 happened.
    
    I am sure Mr. Atta, was a frequent flyer and TSA would have been happy to provide him with a fastpass (afterall he never hijacked a plane before). Providing the TSA had been around then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re: Low threat flights
  Do you honestly think the TSA's selection process is going to be based on any logic whatsoever?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Low threat flights
    (any good logic that is).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 5:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Low threat flights
      No, you were right first time!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnny canada, 12 May 2011 @ 1:17pm

Could this have anything to do with Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against TSA/HS???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicolas (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 1:20pm

Could they possibly meant fellow traveler?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 12 May 2011 @ 1:21pm

Hold on a second
If a 6 month old baby must be gropped and molested for safety, how could someone be identified as trusted????

*IF* this security is necessary for our safety, wouldn't allowing ANYONE past without going through the normal processes also place EVERYONE at risk???

It seems that even the most trusted person could still have a bad day get depressed and decide to carry a weapon through for a terrorist for money, or hell for that matter just to take their own life with a big bang....

Seems the TSA is just trying to appease the select few and make it LOOK like they are doing SOMETHING.. Guess if it works for David Copperfield it should work for the TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 1:33pm

It's more, if you have money, you're trusted and they won't touch you. If you don't then they must make sure that you aren't a danger to those who have money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re:
  Also, corporate employees who are on business trips for their corporations will probably be exempt. The law may not explicitly say it, but the effect will be the same.
  
  I wonder if anyone has done any statistics on what type of people tend to be searched (ie: race, business class vs regular, etc...).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hugh Mann (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 4:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    At LAX right now, in the American Airlines terminal (Terminal 4), the only way to NOT get groped/irradiated is to go through the coach line at security. The lanes for Business/First all have the pornogroper mechanisms in place, while at least some of the lines at the other end of the security area (i.e., coach lines) do not.
    
    To my knowledge, I have never been skipped for any form of searching because of my race or my employer or reason for travel or level of ticket (i.e., Business vs. coach). And, based on how often I have been frisked (and, nowadays, outright groped), I've had at least my fair share of this crap to put up with over the years.
    
    The idea of the trusted traveler is you pay a fee ($100?), and TSA has a background search done. Not sure how deep it goes. Might just be a credit check and FBI search, but might go all the way to checking your employment references, schools, verifying address, employer, etc. Heck, it might be merely that you're willing to submit to it, and then TSA just pockets the money and sends you your super-exclusive membership card.
    
    HM
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 1:41pm

This is pure brilliance. First, implement a program that's really annoying and does nothing. Next, implement a program that allows people to bypass the first program and also does nothing. Finally, implement a program that allows people to bypass the second program as well and call them "Congress."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 1:49pm

Ye know, some people actually had to turn over all of their data to the gov't to do their job.

Some people have already had background checks, financial records checks, etc.

These people may be good candidates for less-stringent screening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  You mean like the army major who shot up fort hood?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well played!
    
    - Mrkanders2@gmail.com
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re:
  "Ye know, some people actually had to turn over all of their data to the gov't to do their job."
  
  You mean like FDA employees.
  
  http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=77028584817&topic=11075&_fb_noscript=1
  
  Besides, all criminals have to start somewhere.
  
  Maybe some criminals don't have a (known) criminal background because they're still too young or have never been caught yet. Or maybe a large part of those who would catch them are (non-caught) criminals. and what constitutes someone who has a terrorist background, someone who has already blown himself up in the past?
  
  You also assume that those doing the background checks aren't corrupt themselves. Who is to watch those watching us?
  
  I think the assumption that the government is somehow less prone to corruption and bad behavior than normal citizens is a bit naive. If anything, the government seems to often be worse than the criminals they seek to catch, it's just that they never seem to get punished for their wrongdoings (even when 'caught' by the public due to things like leaks). Who is to catch those responsible for catching criminals when those responsible for catching criminals are themselves criminals?
  
  I also wonder how effective background checks are at catching terrorists. Clearly the watch/no fly lists aren't all that accurate. Either that or military veterans must be terrorists, the same military veterans who did have background checks done on them.
  
  and do all terrorists necessarily have terrorist backgrounds that can be detected by a background check? and by the time a terrorist does make his way to the TSA it's probably too late because he can simply blow up the people around him in the airport before even reaching the TSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDan (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 2:06pm

So then I just buy two tickets, one for a low risk flight and one for a high risk flight. Really not that hard to do.

Like at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:07pm

Here's the perfect idea for the program.
How about they let me go through a metal detector, pat myself down with their gloves (while they watch) and they can run it through an explosives detector?

And then maybe they'll let me bring my Dasani onto the plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:07pm

How about they just issue guns with Glaser safety slugs to anyone who boards the plane. Should separate the wheat from the chaff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crazzyheart, 12 May 2011 @ 2:21pm

They could stop it all if everyone could carry on a loaded gun. Then any would-be terrorist would be shot about 100 times by all the people on the plane with guns to protect themselves!! HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 12 May 2011 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  ohh, then we could see how many bulletholes it does take to cause rapid depressurization in a passenger plane.
  
  http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/Need-to-Know-Cabin-Pressure.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 4:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Normal weapons cannot cause explosive decompression, except with a ridiculously accurate shot that not only completely penetrates a window, but also penetrates throughout the plane's window casing. Not guaranteed safety, but it might make it safer.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FormerAC (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 3:00pm

Starting the poll now ...
Starting the poll on when the first "trusted traveler" commits a terrorist act...

Will the airlines begin charging more for flights of all "trusted travelers?" Or for safe routes?

How long until the first "trusted traveler" gets put on the no fly list? How long before "trusted traveler" sells their status?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 3:26pm

Let's start with making the pilots "trusted travelers" inasmuch as they don't have to break down the cockpit door to get to the controls, so there is no point in groping them to look for shampoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re:
  On a separate topic,
  
  Anyone know where I can buy a pilot's uniform?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - teka r, 13 May 2011 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Lets see..
    5 seconds of google to find a site, 3 to 5 days for delivery, a week or two to stalk a pilot who lives in your area and matches your physical build, then steal his PROX card (less time if you have an organization behind you)
    
    1 minute to walk through the personnel security gate, past a guard who is only looking for the light on the checkpost to turn green when you vaguely wave your wallet near it.
    
    It's not quite up to the level of Catch Me If You Can, but it is sometimes amazing we are not seeing this daily.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 3:28pm

Isnt the threat that everyone is worried about, the idea of someone taking over a plane? Well how about this, remove the door between the cockpit and the cabin. Done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 4:17pm

I like the way Singapore's airport handles security. There is none until you are going to board the plane then each gate has it's own security pass through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 May 2011 @ 7:58pm
  
  Re: Singapore Airport Security
  I like the way Singapore's airport handles security. There is none until you are going to board the plane then each gate has it's own security pass through.
  
  So a bomb let off in the airport would kill far more people than on any individual flight?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 4:54am
    
    Re: Re: Singapore Airport Security
    IT's exactly the same problem being exacerbated by the TSA in the US. What's good for the goose and all that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 7:09am

Mike, I think you got the department wrong
It is NOT from the "well,-that's-one-idea", department.

It should be from the "attractive people can never be trusted" department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phillip Vector (profile), 13 May 2011 @ 7:26am

Beheadings
I see the temporary mayor that was installed recently is already being beheaded..

Yeah.. Things are progressing exactly like that story I mentioned back in the TSA 6 year old story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]