Susan Gurley
At a press briefing during their conference here this week, Association of Corporate Travel Executives officials raised two issues: demand management and laptop seizures. On the latter, ACTE is seeking more information about a U.S. Customs Border Protection policy allowing agents at U.S. borders--including international airports--to examine, confiscate and withhold laptop computers and their contents without any evidence or suspicion of a crime. Regarding demand management, ACTE estimated that 40 percent of corporate travel is not strategic and addresses administrative or other "non-revenue generating" purposes. It also suggested that remote conferencing technologies--namely web- and videoconferencing--can serve as more efficient substitutes. Chief staff officer Susan Gurley was among the leaders to field questions on those topics. Five exchanges follow.
What is ACTE doing about demand management and bringing new technologies to the forefront?
The other term for it is "telepresencing." We are going to be working on this issue under our corporate productivity initiative--anything that makes things more efficient and more revenue-generating for a company. We are hoping and planning for our solution showcase in Munich to have a certain component on telepresencing. The more information travel managers have, the more they can take over the trend, drive it and organize it. This trend is here and it is something the industry should take note of and analyze. We are bringing it to the forefront and saying not to view it as competition against any segment, and to make it part of your [company's] revenue-generating component. Just like corporate social responsibility, we are saying not to be afraid of it. Embrace it and make it your own.
Is the technology here now?
Some international law firms started a lot of this 10 or 15 years ago and decided it was the worst investment ever. Everybody had to go into one room. You had to have all of this machinery. Also, you were speaking and the person [on the other end] heard you later. It was just awkward. People did not like it and they felt they had wasted a lot of money. The technology is now becoming more and more efficient. We would argue that if the technology is not perfect today, it will be tomorrow. We are not saying it should take away from travel. It can help you be more strategic and toward the bottom line. And that is very important. We do not want any industry segment to be afraid of this because it is a positive thing for everybody.
What makes you think it won't deter travel?
If you have more money to use for sales calls, more people are going to potentially be able to travel. But for administrative, day-to-day work, you can be more efficient. It is just another tool in your arsenal to be more productive. There will be more people traveling and more business travel, just by demographics alone. If you look at it statistically, [business travel] is not going to decrease.
Since ACTE last October in Barcelona raised the issue of laptop seizure, what have you heard from members?
We actually have a member here who had a seizure of a laptop and has not received it back. I introduced that person to [DHS Office of Screening Coordination director Kathy Kraninger] and they spoke at length. [Kraninger] was actually surprised that the computer and the information on the computer has not been returned in over a year. The law firm helping us with this case, on a pro bono basis, said it has happened to several of its clients, as well. We [filed] a Freedom Of Information Act request asking that the U.S. government explain the policies. The issue is, "If you have policies regarding this, then make that available to the public and to organizations so they can know what is going on." We received responses to the FOIA request, but a lot of information was redacted. So based on those FOIA responses, we still do not know what the internal policies are of the U.S. government regarding data protection of proprietary business information that is on seized laptops.
Does this affect both U.S. and foreign travelers?
It is a policy that can affect anybody who crosses the border. It does not matter what nationality they are. The U.S. government believes that if you are a U.S. citizen or a non-U.S. citizen coming into the country, they have a right to treat you and ask you the same questions as they would of anybody. To us at ACTE, the question is, what happens to the documents? What happens to the data? That is the thing that would impinge on the members. And that is a big issue. We have heard that several corporations have had to change their policies because of this issue. And there is an insurance issue. A lot of companies have not anticipated this and don't have insurance on that. And insurance companies also have not anticipated this issue. It can have a huge impact. And we don't know if proprietary information is stored for a year or destroyed. The FOIA responses did not give us answers to any of these questions. It also is an issue of what is reasonable suspicion. We are actually not arguing that as much. For us, the issue is, what happens when they take the data and find out there is no criminal activity--that you are just an innocent businessperson, but they have taken the data and done a mirror imaging? Do they give the computer back to you? When do they give it back to you? Have copies been made? The government answer has basically been silence.