I have to admit my admiration for these news outlets who manage to come up with mostly technically true headlines that still don't represent at all the core of the article.
Thanks for saving me a click - that's why I always scan the comments before following a link :)
I’m of an age where the name Newsweek still has some inertial value of quality (and, in fact, I somewhat preferred it to Time). Sad to see what it’s become.
I was mildly in the Time camp for whatever reason although they were pretty much made from the same mold and hired from the same schools.
But, leaving aside the state of journalism generally, the days of a lot of us getting our information from weekly or monthly magazines--and maybe the evening network news sometimes--went out a long time ago. I never subscribed to a daily newspaper because I didn't actually live in the city.
A warrantless search that’s a cronjob? Seems that for some people, if the tech is simple then that’s ok! To me, that’s still a rights violation whether it’s a cronjob or not.
Is it a rights violation? When you sign up for Global Entry it's pretty clear that criminal history will disqualify you. That's kind of the entire point of the program (pre-clearance to validate a low risk).
The fact that they just repeat the same background check you do when you apply, doesn't seem out of place.
The program lets you come in to the country on a fast path when you're a low-risk traveler. For that to work you need constant evidence of being a low-risk traveler.
They're not standing outside your home to see if you're smoking weed. They're scanning DBs to see if you've gone from low-risk person to "currently being investigated".
A friend lost her GE recently and the only link I can think of is that a relative of hers was being investigated for visa fraud.
I have all of Global Entry, TSA Pre, and Clear and it's obviously a voluntary choice between convenience and privacy. The last of them has face and eye scans and fingerprints and the rest of them have my photo and fingerprints and consent to do whatever.
I think a lot of people don't realize just how strict Global Entry is.
You're supposed to declare all food items that you bring into the US for inspection, whether it's permitted or not.
Flyertalk.com has plenty of people posting about forgetting a small food item in their luggage, USCBP finds it and their Global Entry is cancelled before they get home.
What about the aspect of monetary loss due to no fault of your own? A citizen pays hundreds of dollars and schedules a whole interview to get GE, then schedules their travel layovers expecting to have this convenience. But since a family member pops up in a database they can just cancel yours. I wonder if this includes your phone number popping up on a geofence warrant dragnet search?
Germany has an opt-in policy for these programs: I would have to go to the Bundespolizei (federal police) at an Airport to declare that I am fine with regular data transfer of my police records. Only afterwards can I join these programs. Sorta double opt-in: opt-in in Germany, opt-in in the US.
So I am surprised this is news as it is exactly what I am told the program is doing. It's also not like this is a search on social media and alike (something that could also happen and would be a huge privacy breach).
Is the main issue here not the US but that other countries share this without better explanation / opt-in controls?
And to be fair I hate that I would have to go to an Airport to kick this off. It's horrible UX but good privacy defaults.
Sounds pretty reasonable. These people voluntarily signed up for more scrutiny in exchange simplified screenings at the airport. Monitoring law enforcement databases daily to see if they are still eligible seems like something that they should be doing.
This dovetails beautifully with today's parallel thread on automakers collecting and selling personal information from their customers (and customers' passengers).
Global Entry involves signing up for proactive scrutiny and proving you’re trustworthy enough to avoid standard levels of screening. This involves a background check and in-person interview, as well as periodic renewal requirements.
There is no analogy that ties the two together, and at best, they’re tangentially related by a vague notion of privacy.
No one expects privacy when they sign up for global entry.
No one expects a complete lack of privacy when getting into a car.
Wouldn't we be concerned if a trusted traveller program didn't do this?