The timing for implementation of the second version of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's computer assisted passenger prescreening system is in jeopardy as the Congressional General Accounting Office this week reported that DHS had failed to achieve seven of eight criteria established by Congress for the forward motion of CAPPS II.
As of Jan. 1, according to GAO, the only issue to be addressed fully was the establishment of an "internal oversight board" to review CAPPS II development. "However, concerns exist regarding the timeliness of the board's future reviews," noted GAO this week. "Other issues, including ensuring the accuracy of data used by CAPPS II, stress testing, preventing unauthorized access to the system and resolving privacy concerns have not been completely addressed, due, in part, to the early stage of the system's development."
A DHS spokesperson last week told
Business Travel News that the agency was planning to begin testing CAPPS II in the spring and to implement it during the summer
(BTN, Feb. 9), but added that, "we need to wait for the GAO report in order to proceed to completion."
Speaking with reporters on a conference call today sponsored by the Business Travel Coalition, former Congressman and civil liberties advocate Bob Barr said the GAO report--which shows a "failing grade"--would be ignored by Congress "at its own peril."
Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union, questioned DHS' claim that 15 percent of passengers currently are subjected to secondary screening under the current CAPPS, which DHS has said would be cut by two-thirds under CAPPS II. Steinhardt said he has asked for data, but that DHS has provided "no statistical evidence" to support the 15 percent figure. Secondary screening typically involves a closer check of carry-on luggage and the waving of a handheld wand.
Formerly a Republican Congressman from Georgia, Barr added that he does not support the concept of a registered traveler program. "I'm not quite sure why the government would feel secure with such criteria," he said. "It would be subject to being used by the bad guys, just like the good guys. I don't view that as a solution in any way, shape or form."
Other GAO comments reflected issues that have been raised in the past, including the cost of new procedures and the impact on privacy and civil liberties, particularly for low-income and minority citizens.