Arguing against CAPPS II in its current form, the Association of Corporate Travel Executives and the Business Travel Coalition--in conjunction with three Europe-based associations--this week offer testimony to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee subcommittee on aviation on how the computer assisted passenger prescreening system will infringe upon privacy and burden the business travel industry with costs. While the associations agree on the necessity of an air traveler security system, they said the second-generation CAPPS plan needs an overhaul.
ACTE executive director Nancy Holtzman yesterday sent testimony to the subcommittee stressing that the system could cost the industry $2 billion, "a highly conservative estimate that gives CAPPS II the benefit of the doubt," ACTE stated. "This approach is unacceptable to corporate America, which will undoubtedly bear the brunt and expense of the charges and ultimately the costs of lost business and productivity," Holtzman said in the statement.
According to Holtzman, CAPPS II should "not be submitted for consideration" until all related costs are analyzed. She asked the subcommittee to take pressure off the airlines to supply passenger name records to the government "until an exact process--that complies with security requirements, corporate privacy policies and resolution issues--is developed." ACTE yesterday also suggested the involvement of "major stakeholders" in the system's development process.
Meanwhile, Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, on Wednesday will present to the subcommittee joint testimony with U.K-based Institute of Travel Management, The Business Travel Association of Germany and the Guild of Business Travel Agents, highlighting privacy and efficiency concerns.
Mitchell offered BTN a preview of his speech, in which he will state that the Transportation Security Administration is seeking exemptions from the Privacy Act for the program "without providing sufficient rationale. CAPPS II places the riskiest aspect of the program, the determination of risk and the construction of rules for conducting background checks, into the purview of secretive intelligence and law enforcement programs and databases. This operating platform reinforces suspicion and concern that CAPPS II would be beyond reasonable public review and oversight."
In addition to privacy and cost concerns, Mitchell and Holtzman address what they consider to be technical shortcomings of CAPPS II and are questioning the system's effectiveness. "BTC research since 2001 has demonstrated that business travelers are willing to give up some privacy for security if it can be proven that they would really be more secure," according to Mitchell. "This important burden of proof should be on the government."
In his testimony, Mitchell questions the value of ID checks, the possible over-reliance on technology and the danger of instituting a system that replaces random checks, which Mitchell considers a deterrent to terrorism.
Mitchell's statements also raise questions on how to correct mistaken profiles and false positives: "Who would pay for the false-positives related travel disruptions when a business traveler who consistently scores yellow for unknown and unresolved reasons consequently misses scheduled flights?"
Mitchell on March 17 will ask the subcommittee that CAPPS II be "strictly authorized for use only in aviation system security," "efficient-to-a-fault" in its process and time for correcting a traveler's risk profile and "sunsetted" in, at most, five years for cost and efficiency evaluations.