GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: DHS traveler screening system under fire from privacy advocates

• 34532
  

  Are the increases on border security and making travel domestically simply progressions towards control of individual movement like the iron curtain countries had?

  dd Posted October 5, 2007 1:17 PM
• 34500
  

  Wow! Must be alot of paranoid "mountain men" out there. Does anyone really think that they are so important that the US government is tracking THEM? Get a life, and realize that privacy is not an all-inclusive term, it has limitations. Fact: there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place (except in Las Vegas). Are cameras intrusive, yes. Do they prevent crime, no, read the Edinborough study. Are we addicted to quick, feel-good technotoys, unfortunately yes again. Traveling from country to country is a necessity for many, or pleasure for the rest of us, but it isn't a private affair.

  US Customs Senior Inspector (Retired) Posted October 5, 2007 9:18 AM
• 34450
  

  If I have nothing to hide, why should I be afraid of my government knowing where I travel and who I visit? My passport shows all that. I think ATS protects my life and therefore my freedoms. I'm not advocating Big Brother, and if the program is out in the open the citizenry (via elected officials) will keep an eye on it so it is only used for it's intended purposes (national security).

  J Drake Posted October 4, 2007 2:21 PM
• 34089
  

  I've got ATS access and have no privacy issues with what I see. I'm sure my information is in there too. I'm not concerned. This is an overreaction to a supposed worst fear.

  k stevens Posted October 1, 2007 1:16 AM
• 34072
  

  Perhaps only screening those who are entering the US as opposed to screening those leaving the US would provide for better citizen confidence that the program is actually to prevent threats from entering, rather than spying on all citizenry and their private business.

  S Posted September 29, 2007 8:42 PM
• 34055
  

  There is no substitute for inspector's keen sense of observation, sound interviewing techniques and communication skills, and sometimes plain "gut feeling." Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the 9/11 the government decided to invest heavily in ethically questionable, capricious, and often redundant computer technologies instead of their most valuable asset - people.

  All new CBP officers receive decent basic training and those who stay on long enough may receive some intermediate and some advanced training on behavioral analysis and interviewing techniques but it takes years to accumulate the necessary experience to catch a smart terrorist. Unfortunately low morale and lack of career opportunities results in high turnover rate among the most experienced officers. Of course, CBP will readily contradict this statement - there are lots of opportunities at CBP - but the truth is, all border inspectors top out at GS-11 level and then must move into management if they want further advancement. As managers they become too busy attending to administrative tasks and before long they lose their edge.

  It does not help that the DHS management continually relies on and adopts ideas advanced by so called intellectual "think tanks, " such as the Heritage Foundation. At the outset, the DHS received some very bad advice from this "think tank" and decided to separate the traditional, logical links among critical law enforcement components. And so the inspectors and the Border Patrol agents must do their jobs without the investigative resources, while the ICE investigators are cut off from valuable leads initiated during border encounters. At this time, CBP and ICE continue to drift further apart building their own separate, competing intelligence components. Perhaps DHS should finally start listening to their own employees before it's too late.

  DHS Employee Posted September 28, 2007 9:31 PM