Report says proposed passenger-screening system flawed and invasive

Though Transportation Security Administration officials continue to assure critics that its proposed airline passenger-screening system is not invasive, a report released Thursday claims the system will unnecessarily infringe on privacy rights.

Under the current Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-screening (CAPP) program, information flags passenger behavior associated with terrorists, such as paying cash, buying a one-way ticket, and making reservations at the last minute. CAPPS II, the program's second phase, would make the information more widely available to airport security personnel, and use data-mining techniques to probe a variety of private and government databases to produce information about people who pose potential security threats. Critics of the planned system argue that gathering and sharing information about passengers is an invasion of privacy rights and civil liberties.

In a study released by the Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a think tank, researchers Robert Poole Jr. and George Passantino contend that the proposed CAPPS system should be scrapped. "TSA's proposed CAPPS-II would create a massive, intrusive database on the personal and financial details of air travelers," the report said. "The current CAPPS is inadequate, but the currently proposed CAPPS II attempts to do too much, raising serious privacy concerns by probing the details of passengers' lives and circumstances.

But Nuala O'Connor Kelly, the Homeland Security Department's chief privacy officer, defended the system earlier this month during an interview with National Journal. "CAPPS II is not the creation of a vast database of personally identifiable material. It is actually a system, not a database at all," she said. The passenger-screening system verifies information on travelers, including name, address and phone number, by culling data from private and government databases.

"The best thing and the worst thing I can say about this system is that it is not a database, and so the potential for misuse is almost nil," Kelly told National Journal. "I can't imagine, if [personal data] doesn't last more than five seconds, what the risks are." She said that the final model for CAPPS II is still under discussion.

The report from the Reason Institute recommended that officials seek a risk-based solution to air security concerns, separating passengers and their luggage into three categories: low-, medium- and high-risk. Using this framework, airport screeners could focus their attention on medium- and high-risk passengers and luggage, eliminate the "hassle factor" for other passengers and cut security costs for the government and the airline industry.

"Minutes spent scrutinizing the lowest-risk passengers are minutes that could be applied to higher risk passengers, to greater effect," the report said.

To be classified as a "low-risk passenger" travelers would agree to extensive background checks and join a registered traveler program. These travelers would then be allowed to access security checkpoints more quickly.

"Such a system raises no privacy concerns, because it is voluntary," the report said. "It could be operated as an adjunct to individual airlines' frequent flyer programs."

Poole and Passantino urged lawmakers and government leaders to use caution in developing and implementing aviation security plans. According to the report, "increased investment in intelligence and law enforcement would be significantly more cost-effective than the many billions now being devoted just to the commercial air passenger sector."