Rand Paul Wants to See Tracking of More People by the TSA

The Trusted Traveler program is nothing but a major league, very intrusive, tracking system implemented by the government. It  includes mandatory collection of biometric data.

Bloomberg gets it:

One data point is the TSA’s PreCheck program. It allows travelers to use expedited airport security lines where they can keep on their shoes and belts, and don't have to take out their electronics. In exchange, they provide the TSA with fingerprints, background information, submit to an interview and pay an $85 fee. There are two benefits. From a marketing standpoint, passengers theoretically enjoy a quicker, more pleasant security experience. Second, pre-screening of passengers enhances security overall. The message seems to be getting through: 598,814 people have enrolled in PreCheck, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal last week, and an additional 1.3 million people are eligible to use the program via other trusted traveler programs.

Yet the often empty or underutilized PreCheck lanes at U.S. airports indicate that only a minority of travelers have adopted the program. The problem, at least in part, is the collection of biometric data, according to the Journal.

Thus, it is a shock to read this about supposed-libertarian Rand Paul:

 As a senator, Paul is able to skip some of the hassles of flying commercial. On the way to Dallas, he got to jump to the front of the chaotic boarding line at Reagan National.

But the aggravation of passing through the Transportation Security Administration’s checkpoints can’t be escaped.

He says the agency has gotten better, but still needs to improve.

“Ideally what would happen is instead of 90 percent being in the long line and 10 percent being in the short line, we put more and more people in the Trusted Traveler program,” he said.

The libertarian answer is, of course, not to expand the TSA tracking of Americans, but to abolish the TSA and allow each airline to adopt its own security measures.

Rand, in issue after issue, continues to dilute the libertarian message, with policy recommendations that regularly call for an extensive role for government. His positions are not libertarian, they are coercive positions dressed in a wig and drag to look libertarian.

-RW