TSA Wants More Travelers to Register

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- The government wants to expand a program that allows air travelers to avoid extra security inspections at airports by volunteering for background checks.

Transportation Security Administration chief David Stone said Monday that the agency is looking to add new airports -- domestic and international -- to the registered traveler program, now being tested in five cities.

Calling it "one of the most critical programs for TSA," Stone said he's keen to find international partners for it.

Under the test program, people who fly at least once a week give the government their biographical and biometric information, which is checked against databases. Participants who pass muster receive a card that's checked at an airport kiosk, which then lets them into a special security lane. If they don't set off an alarm, they're whisked right through.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-registered-travelers,0,6937024.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Ooooo...a special card! That will stop those nasty terrorists right in their tracks!

They can highjack planes, sneak into the country, and get fake IDs, but another ID card will stop them dead in their tracks! I don't know about all of you, but I'm sure sleeping easier these days knowing that these are the ideas being pushed by this administration to make us safer!

:crazy:

Just so the well-traveled (read: the rich) can get through lines quicker than the rest of us, this administration is willing to put everyone in this county in more danger.

[pnutchuck]

1. and the not so rich business commuter gets big brothered!

It's just another way for them to stick their sticky little paws into our lives. Next it'll be microchipping in our heads or arms.

[saigon68]

2. They can go Fuck themselves

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Don't know if this is so, but

I've talked with people who fly corporate jets. They tell me that they don't go through the major security screening hassles. Of course, one person I know gets on the jet at a jerkwater airport and lands at another jerkwater airport near where they are going just to avoid long lines, etc. But it has gotten me thinking-isn't the corporate jet a loophole in security?

[SheilaT]

5. No, corporate jets are not a loophole.

They aren't big enough, don't contain enough fuel to cause the damage that the 757s and 767s did on Sept 11th.

The "heightened security" assumes that terrorists will try the same stunt again, which isn't very likely.

If I were rich enough I'd be flying a corporate jet everywhere I go. Plus, flying in and out of jerkwater airports can mean you arrive in the actual place you want to be, rather than a big airport miles and miles from your real destination.

Flying commercially these days is simply an airborne Greyhound Bus.

[colonel odis]

7. can't corporate jets fly into major airports? or close enough

to do damage if they chose?

they don't carry enough fuel to bring down a building, a la 9/11. but, god forbid, imagine what would happen if three or four corporate jets were flown into the control towers at three or four major airports at the same time.

i agree that they're a loophole for the wealthy and the corporate class to move about as they choose -- a better class of people than we peasants, they are -- but terrorists could screw up anything in this country just about anytime they wanted to.

[gottaB]

8. Imagine a single corporate jet, and a duffle bag full of explosives

That could be exceedingly destructive.

[gottaB]

6. Security on charter flights was part of the Intelligence Reform Bill

The fact that we've gone so many years without tightening security for charter flights is very telling.

The whole system is riddled with loopholes from a purely security perspective. Perhaps it is functioning well to harden class boundaries and maintain the status quo in other ways.

[Festivito]

4. The 9-11 hijackers flew often, 1st class, and could get a card now!

So, now we will whisk hijackers through the fast check lane. If I thought they would attack again by domestic airline, I'd be more worried about our country's idiot CONservatives.

[sweetheart]

9. Its a good idea

I've no problem with this... frankly i've recommended doing this
repeatedly on various boards, a coupla years back. The fact is, that
frequent travellers, are the ones who pay the most in time, for
this security hubub.

Why not let them submit to checks to get through faster. If you want
a card, then you can submit to the checks as well. Whats so wrong
with that? Of course money is involved. Travelling by air costs
money and its a business.

Geesh, i worry sometimes about people claiming to be progressive
standing in the way of improving practical efficiency. Bottom line,
i've stopped doing as much travelling, as the cost in time and
hastle is too high. This on a larger scale, deters business and
sales, something that our economy really needs, to be frank (not
being deterred).

Face to face is the only way to close serious business, and taking
extra hours of every travelling sales person's work is a massive
economic cost.

I am and will never be a threat when i travel by air. Why not allow
the legal authorities to sort that out, and focus on a smaller set.
Over time, this could lead to less costs in airports screening
the innocent.

That the checks are needed at all, is a sad state of affairs given
the presumption of innocence.... as nowadays, arriving at an airport
is an admission of guilt, and at every checkpoint, innocence must
be re-affirmed. This simply lets those who want to be declared
innocent, to get that declaration, so they can get on with business.

[spinbaby]

10. What security inspections?

The last couple of times I've flown (October and this past weekend), I was really struck by how little security there was. Other than making people remove their jackets and put them through the scanner, I saw no extra security precautions and certainly no bag searches. It was like it was before 9/11.

[0007]

11. They've talked about this bullshit a year or so ago.

This ain't nothing but big brother's net, who's fooling who?