California Senate Committee Approves Bill Restricting Clear’s Expansion at Airports
A California Senate committee has given the green light to a bill that would impose significant restrictions on Clear, a company that enables travelers to skip portions of the TSA line at airports for a fee. While the bill stops short of an outright ban on the controversial security company, it does prevent Clear from expanding to more airports in the Golden State.
Lawmakers have accused Clear of operating a “two-tiered system” at airports and are investigating security failures that occurred last year.
The bill, known as S.B. 1372, received bipartisan support and was approved by California’s Senate Transportation Committee on Tuesday night. Senators Josh Newman and Janet Nguyen criticized the company for creating a system that favors some travelers over others at airports.
Clear offers customers the ability to skip the TSA line for a yearly fee of $189, provided they verify their identity using biometric data such as fingerprints or retina scans. However, even Clear users can be subject to random screenings by TSA agents.
The original version of the bill sought to ban all third-party vendors from operating security screenings. However, the amended version that passed through the committee now only prevents them from entering into new contracts with California airports.
In a statement, Senator Newman explained that the bill will encourage Clear to open separate screening lanes and operate distinct lines for subscribers, eliminating the friction and frustration caused by the current system.
Presently, Clear operates in over 55 airports across the United States, including major hubs such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego International Airports. The company claims to have more than 18 million verified users.
Clear did not respond to requests for comment from Forbes.
Background and Concerns over Clear’s Security Measures
Prior to the approval of the bill, Senator Newman introduced S.B. 1372 to the Transportation Committee, making it the first bill in the nation to impose restrictions or bans on third-party security screening companies at American airports. Newman criticized Clear for creating a two-tiered system that inconveniences travelers navigating the security queue. His Republican colleague, Senator Nguyen, concurred, highlighting how the system allows affluent individuals to bypass others, including TSA Pre-boarding pass holders who have already been screened by the TSA.
Clear’s security practices have also raised concerns within the TSA, which operates its own expedited screening service, TSA PreCheck. Senator Newman pointed out that Clear’s expedited screening services lack the background checks and enhanced pre-screening protocols that TSA PreCheck offers.
Incidents involving Clear customers have further amplified concerns. In one incident, a Clear customer was escorted through security without presenting proper identification, using a boarding pass found in a nearby trash can. Another incident saw a Clear user boarding a flight while carrying ammunition. Despite these security breaches, Clear has resisted TSA plans to impose more stringent vetting procedures on its customers.
Divided Opinions on the Bill
Airline industry directors, including representatives from Delta, United, Southwest, and Alaska Airlines, penned a joint letter opposing the bill. They claimed that it would raise flight costs for travelers and severely limit airports’ ability to efficiently manage security checkpoint lines. However, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1230, a union representing 1200 TSA workers in the San Francisco Bay Area, supported the bill. The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA also backed the bill, describing it as a “pay-for-play way to cut the screening line.” Neither the unions nor the airlines provided immediate comment when contacted by Forbes.
Implications and Future Trends
The approval of the bill marks a significant development in how third-party security screening companies operate at airports. The measures aim to level the playing field and address concerns over a system that grants privileges to those who can afford it, potentially creating division and inconvenience for other travelers.
Looking ahead, this decision might influence other states to consider similar legislation, either restricting or banning third-party companies like Clear in the interest of fair and standardized security protocols. As the world grapples with the challenges posed by evolving security threats, it is crucial to strike a balance between convenience and safety in the transportation sector.
The airline and travel industry may need to reassess current security practices to ensure that expedited screening services do not compromise core safety measures. It is possible that more stringent background checks and pre-screening protocols, similar to those implemented by TSA PreCheck, may be necessary to maintain public trust.
Furthermore, the growing trend of utilizing biometric data for identification and security purposes might gain further momentum as airports seek to improve the efficiency of their operations. Biometric authentication methods, such as fingerprints and retina scans, offer the potential for swift and secure identity verification, reducing the need for physical documents and enhancing overall passenger experience.
In conclusion, the approval of the bill restricting Clear’s expansion at California airports highlights the ongoing debate surrounding third-party security screening companies. As the industry navigates these challenges, it is crucial to prioritize the safety and convenience of all travelers. By embracing emerging technologies and implementing robust security protocols, airports can create a more equitable and efficient aviation system for the future.
Sources:
https