Latest news with #SecureFlight
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - ‘Politics' is not a valid reason to abort the TSA's Quiet Skies program
The Trump administration announced on June 5 that it is ending the Transportation Security Administration's Quiet Skies program. Launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Quiet Skies focused on surveilling and tracking people based on their behavior and other information that made them an elevated risk to the air system. Issues cited to support its termination include its costs and purported ineffectiveness in identifying any terrorists. However, the real reason may be that the administration believed it was misused by the Biden administration, targeting former President Joe Biden's adversaries while giving his friends a free pass. Let's put the politics aside. Although the program certainly required long-overdue adjustments, as prior investigations by the Office of the Inspector General recommended, it complete abandonment is not in the interest of securing the nation's air system. The TSA's federal air marshal program and Quiet Skies program are closely intertwined. Air marshals are strategically deployed on the ground (including at airports) to make behavioral observations of passengers, and on flights based on the risk profile of its passenger pool. The federal air marshal program has been under scrutiny for some time. Given that the team of air marshals must be deployed to cover flights that are deemed high risk, scheduling them has made their utilization challenging. Many serve on international flights with origination and destinations around the world, often demanding they work long hours, which makes it difficult to schedule much-needed downtime. Since there have been no reports of federal air marshals apprehending any suspected bad actors on flights based on the Quiet Skies watch list, some may argue that in the interest of saving money (to the tune of $200 million annually), it would be reasonable to end Quiet Skies entirely. That is like saying a community should cut its fire department because it has never put out any fires. It is shortsighted at best. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Quiet Skies and federal air marshal programs may lie in their deterrence benefit — admittedly can be challenging to quantify — and the unpredictability that they inject into aviation security operations. Moreover, since the Transportation Security Administration's aviation security strategy embodies a disparate collection of layers — some of which are highly visible, like the physical screening operations at airport security checkpoints, and some of which are hidden from most travelers, like risk-based security strategies including the Secure Flight program — the law of unintended consequences means that removing any one layer must be done thoughtfully and cautiously. David Pekoske was relieved of his duties as the TSA administrator in January, meaning the organization has been rudderless, without significant changes made, ever since. If strategic or tactical changes are to be made, a new administrator should be in place to ensure that the new protections are appropriate to maintain the security of the air system, while serving the best interests of all travelers. Past assessments of the Quiet Skies program have uncovered many deficiencies. Yet none of the points raised have captured the deterrence benefit of maintaining a Quiet Skies watchlist and deploying federal air marshals on flights based on such information. The issue of concern here is when reasons for its dismantling are based on poorly framed justifications, including politics. In the current divisive climate in Washington, politics has become the backstop reason anytime one party wants to change something that they perceive has had a negative effect on them or a positive benefit for their opposition. Clearly, changes in the federal air marshal and Quiet Skies program have been needed for some time. Sunsetting the Quiet Skies program before the TSA had the opportunity to fully address and vet all such concerns is premature. The agency not having a permanent administrator in place further exacerbates an already tenuous decision. With one fewer security layer now available, the air system may indeed be no more risky, as the secretary of Homeland Security claims. It is, however, difficult to believe that it will be more secure. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
‘Politics' is not a valid reason to abort the TSA's Quiet Skies program
The Trump administration announced on June 5 that it is ending the Transportation Security Administration's Quiet Skies program. Launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Quiet Skies focused on surveilling and tracking people based on their behavior and other information that made them an elevated risk to the air system. Issues cited to support its termination include its costs and purported ineffectiveness in identifying any terrorists. However, the real reason may be that the administration believed it was misused by the Biden administration, targeting former President Joe Biden's adversaries while giving his friends a free pass. Let's put the politics aside. Although the program certainly required long-overdue adjustments, as prior investigations by the Office of the Inspector General recommended, it complete abandonment is not in the interest of securing the nation's air system. The TSA's federal air marshal program and Quiet Skies program are closely intertwined. Air marshals are strategically deployed on the ground (including at airports) to make behavioral observations of passengers, and on flights based on the risk profile of its passenger pool. The federal air marshal program has been under scrutiny for some time. Given that the team of air marshals must be deployed to cover flights that are deemed high risk, scheduling them has made their utilization challenging. Many serve on international flights with origination and destinations around the world, often demanding they work long hours, which makes it difficult to schedule much-needed downtime. Since there have been no reports of federal air marshals apprehending any suspected bad actors on flights based on the Quiet Skies watch list, some may argue that in the interest of saving money (to the tune of $200 million annually), it would be reasonable to end Quiet Skies entirely. That is like saying a community should cut its fire department because it has never put out any fires. It is shortsighted at best. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Quiet Skies and federal air marshal programs may lie in their deterrence benefit — admittedly can be challenging to quantify — and the unpredictability that they inject into aviation security operations. Moreover, since the Transportation Security Administration's aviation security strategy embodies a disparate collection of layers — some of which are highly visible, like the physical screening operations at airport security checkpoints, and some of which are hidden from most travelers, like risk-based security strategies including the Secure Flight program — the law of unintended consequences means that removing any one layer must be done thoughtfully and cautiously. David Pekoske was relieved of his duties as the TSA administrator in January, meaning the organization has been rudderless, without significant changes made, ever since. If strategic or tactical changes are to be made, a new administrator should be in place to ensure that the new protections are appropriate to maintain the security of the air system, while serving the best interests of all travelers. Past assessments of the Quiet Skies program have uncovered many deficiencies. Yet none of the points raised have captured the deterrence benefit of maintaining a Quiet Skies watchlist and deploying federal air marshals on flights based on such information. The issue of concern here is when reasons for its dismantling are based on poorly framed justifications, including politics. In the current divisive climate in Washington, politics has become the backstop reason anytime one party wants to change something that they perceive has had a negative effect on them or a positive benefit for their opposition. Clearly, changes in the federal air marshal and Quiet Skies program have been needed for some time. Sunsetting the Quiet Skies program before the TSA had the opportunity to fully address and vet all such concerns is premature. The agency not having a permanent administrator in place further exacerbates an already tenuous decision. With one fewer security layer now available, the air system may indeed be no more risky, as the secretary of Homeland Security claims. It is, however, difficult to believe that it will be more secure. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy.
Washington Post
01-05-2025
- Washington Post
We asked: What's this SSSS on my boarding pass?
Traveling has always come with complications. Our By The Way Concierge column will take your travel dilemmas to the experts to help you navigate the unexpected. Want to see your question answered? Submit it here. Ahead of my recent return flight from Central America, I wasn't able to check in online for my trip, while my husband could. That meant arriving even earlier for our 6 a.m. departure so I could report to the airline customer service counter. After handing over my passport, the agent returned it with my boarding pass. At the bottom of the paper ticket: SSSS. The agent said I'd have to do an extra security screening before boarding. What was the acronym, and why did I get it while my husband was spared? My heart skipped a beat when I saw SSSS on my boarding pass. I couldn't remember what it meant, but I did remember seeing the internet call it the 'dreaded' 'kiss of death' and something 'you never want to see' on your boarding pass. A quick Google search decoded the abbreviation as Secondary Security Screening Selection and showed that the Transportation Security Administration does not disclose the full criteria of who gets it. Before I could find out more, I had to catch my flight. I went through the first security checkpoint like every other passenger; once it was time to board, my flight's gate agent asked me to step aside from the jet bridge entrance into a special area for another security checkpoint. Staff looked through my carry-on bag and swabbed my electronics and parts of my body for testing by a machine that detects traces of explosives. Five minutes later, I was on the plane and ready for takeoff. Had I been marked because I was flying from El Salvador to D.C.? Or maybe because I was a journalist? More pressing to me: Was this a one-off or the first of many SSSS flags to come? Back in Washington, a spokesperson for the TSA told me the 'Quad S' is a standard part of the agency's layered and 'unpredictable security measures, both seen and unseen,' to keep air travel safe. 'In some cases, passengers are randomly selected for enhanced screening,' the agency said in an email. In other cases, travelers may be flagged because of information gleaned by the intelligence and law enforcement communities. When you sign up for a flight, you're opting in to the TSA's Secure Flight program, which cross-checks your personal information including the name, date of birth and gender attached to your itinerary to assess whether you're a high-risk or low-risk traveler. Are you on a no-fly list or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Do Not Board list? You may be getting flagged for an extra screening based on that cross-check. 'There are certain people who do get flagged all the time,' said John Rose, chief risk and security officer of the travel agency Altour. 'One of main reasons that happens is because their name is very similar or the same as someone on the Do Not Fly list.' 'It's happened to people in Congress,' Rose added, referring to Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California), who said he ended up on the No Fly List because he was mistaken for an Irish Republican Army activist. While there's no published list of criteria, Rose said people can also get flagged because of their travel history or for having an unusual itinerary, like flying on a one-way ticket, flying with multiple airlines on one trip or using split passports. In an unscientific survey on my Instagram account, I heard from lots of people with Quad S experience. Some said they have gotten it once and never again. Some get it regularly on certain routes, like the travel editor who said they get it every time they fly from Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport to the United States. A travel writer said that for them it's every trip from Iceland to the U.S. Some people are flagged for years at a time, then it has stopped. More often than not, it's not a big deal. 'This happens to anyone,' said Rose, who's gotten the Quad S. 'It doesn't mean they're going to mess with you or throw you in a room for hours; it just means you're getting a secondary screening.' But if you are stopped more than once on the same trip or over a short period of time, that could indicate that you're on a watch list, says Eric Napoli, chief legal officer at the claims-management company AirHelp. Napoli says TSA is also not obligated to provide a reason when requesting additional screening of a passenger. But if it's happening to you all the time and you don't have a background that warrants the extra screenings, Rose says you should apply for the Travel Redress Program, which can sort issues with travel-related screening or inspections. Once you're approved, you'll input a travel redress number into your reservation (like you would your PreCheck membership or airline loyalty program number), and 'that will help alleviate routine searches, but not the random ones,' Rose said. But on one-offs, don't panic. Napoli says you can refuse the SSSS screening, but you'd probably not be allowed to board your flight. So instead, 'the best thing you can do is to remain calm and cooperate with the TSA agents,' Napoli told me by email. The TSA said most enhanced search scenarios will go like mine, not derailing your entire trip, just adding 10 more minutes before you board. It's a good reminder to get to the airport with plenty of time to spare.
