THE Transportation Security Administration plans to widen the pool of travelers who qualify for PreCheck, its 14-month-old expedited security program that allows selected passengers to pass through special checkpoints without having to remove laptops from bags or take off their shoes, belts or outer coats.
That’s a welcome prospect for the roughly 40 percent whom the agency considers frequent fliers out of the annual 640 million domestic passengers — people who are screened “time and time again” at airports, according to John S. Pistole, the agency’s administrator. As such, these frequent travelers are presumably “known and trusted” fliers who make up a pool of potential members of so-called known-traveler security programs like PreCheck, he said.
A traveler qualifies for PreCheck only after passing a background check, and only the highest-frequency travelers are invited to take part by the five airlines currently participating.
But as the T.S.A. expands the program into the general population, some questions arise. For example, the agency is considering inviting private companies to help conduct those background checks, which would be done only on people who volunteer their information in order to enroll.
In a year-end report to agency employees, Mr. Pistole suggested that the checks could be conducted by companies “that we would contract with that would vet to our criteria and assess the exact things that we want to know about a person.”
Last week, the agency took a step in that direction, issuing a request for proposals from companies that might want to do the background checks to identify passengers who “present a low risk to the aviation transportation system” and who could enroll in an expanded PreCheck.
Every traveler I know who has participated in PreCheck likes the program enormously, even though there is no guarantee that a member is able to use a dedicated PreCheck lane on any given trip. That is because the T.S.A. has built in randomness as a security measure. PreCheck is now available at 35 airports, and the agency plans to expand the number of participating airports and airlines this year.
The potential for such programs to increase the possibility of racial profiling is well known. But another question concerns overall privacy. Assuming private businesses become involved, the security of passengers’ private data will be an issue — especially considering that the collected information may have commercial value beyond security purposes.
Another question is whether the government wants to create a class system for treating citizens differently at airport security. For example, I occasionally complain here about the way the airlines have instituted stark contrasts between the haves and have-nots in air travel, devising ever more complex ranks of privilege and status on the plane or at the boarding gate.
At the security checkpoint, it arguably makes sense to de-emphasize what Mr. Pistole calls the “one size fits all” approach and rely more on intelligence-based risk assessment. But what about the have-nots, the majority of travelers who pose no risk but who are not “known” well enough to qualify for special treatment?
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed reservations about the T.S.A.’s idea of “allowing private companies to carry out risk analysis” to determine which Americans might qualify as trusted travelers.
Jay Stanley, an A.C.L.U senior policy analyst, described concerns about a system that would rely on a commercial “data broker” to collect background information and essentially assign a passing score to qualified participants. Aside from the implications for those who may fail a background check for any reason, what about the majority of air travelers, who simply don’t apply, or who don’t travel enough to qualify for consideration?
Mr. Stanley said that he has no serious issue with the current PreCheck program because its scope is limited. But as it expands more into the general population, he said, “I’m uncomfortable with the logic of this kind of program, and where it will take us in the end,” as government and possibly private businesses share more and more data on travelers.
In its request for proposals, the T.S.A. enumerates strict standards for privacy protections in “safeguarding the personal information from loss or disclosure.”
Incidentally, here’s a disclosure of my own. I recently enrolled in another known-traveler program, Global Entry, which is run by the Customs and Border Protection agency and provides expedited re-entry into the country for members who have passed a background check, submitted to a personal interview and fingerprinting and paid $100 for five years. Global Entry also automatically bumps its members into the PreCheck program — and that was a prime incentive for me to join.
Which makes me one of the “haves” in security, I suppose. My hubris is tempered, however, by my decidedly have-not status elsewhere, as I wait at the gate with my fellow humble have-nots and watch the privileged board ahead of us, rank by elite rank.
So are we indirectly creating a security underclass as we filter out trusted travelers for special treatment at the checkpoints?
“The notion that our own government is going to either directly or via an arms-length corporate relationship sort through the population and stamp some people with a trusted label and others with an untrusted label — that makes me uneasy,” Mr. Stanley said.
Me too, actually.
