Talk:Transportation Worker Identification Credential

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External link[edit]

The external link is dead.

It's been fixed. --Pesco 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to pre-enrollment site[edit]

Not too sure on how wiki really works yet, but a link to the pre-enrolment site could be a good thing ( All that is required by 25 September is pre-enrolment, the temporary pre-enrolment receipt is supposed to be good enough until the card is delivered. KubalaC (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it in the external links section so you can see how it's done. HausTalk 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Information Critical of the Government Biometric Worker ID Card has been Removed[edit]

Pesco is not unbiased his information clearly shows he works for the government. He benefits when the information is censored. Wikipedia does not censor

An unaffiliated third party is requested to revert the deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

-- I do not know whether the information will improve wikipedia or not but I tend to err on the side of including more information rather than casually deleting it, who is going to make the judgement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has made the judgement. I appreciate the effort you've put in, but all additions to Wikipedia must be verifiable (read here) or they may be removed. It means that you have to find a reliable source that supports the text you're adding. Also, the removal of what you added is because it didn't meet the guidelines I just linked to; it's not "censorship". You said I "benefit when the information is censored." I'm not a "government monitor" as you state below, either. Both comments are wrong, rude, and inappropriate. ~PescoSo saywe all 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV third party review requested to add information,[edit]

An editor deleted information from .


-"controversial" is POV,
-Removed info belongs in the article about the card, not in this article.

The same editor deleted all critical information in this article as well

-Not convincing that this is a "controversy"; it could be seen as the intent of the law.
-While factual, not controversial.
-It wasn't secretive, and it was announced. See the references, including the "final rule" announcement.

Reading the final ruling there is no notification of why a particular individual is guilty of being a security threat. People are simply denied jobs by an unlected TSA administrator without due process of law or a jury of their peers to determine both fact and law. There was no public comment on the process for selecting individuals who are deemed security threats. This is controversial.

The methods the TSA uses to determine security threats are not definitively published in the final ruling and therefore are not open to public comment and are indeed secret.

Furthermore Federal Register Vol 72 No 16 Pg 3501 acknowledges concerns from congress and significant public comment that the security threat determinations are overly broad, this should be included as it is by definition, controversy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The specific methods TSA uses, as announced in the final rule and listed in federal regulations, can be found here. ~PescoSo saywe all 03:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Federal Register Vol 72 No 16 Pg 3501 states: ...or 2) the applicant was incarcerated for that crime and was released from incarceration within five years of the date of application... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Businesses are no longer able to employ the best man and do their own background checks. If a person has been incarcerated on suspicion of a crime (remember innocent until proven guilty) their employer decides whether or not to terminate them, not the government. The [chilling effect] is palpable, if one is critical of the government, then at any time that individual may be incarcerated for no reason, and as a result they lose their job.

Bad check writing, years ago, should not end a mans career and put his wife, and three daughters in the poor house after 10 years of driving a truck for the same company, this is one example of many. That is controversial.

1 in 50 Louisiana Residents already have this card, an astonishing figure likely to promote controversy if known publicly.

This informations may be found by Google searching all nongovernment TWIC sites beside Wikipedia that condemn its issue as privacy invasion, overstepping the bounds of the federal government enumerated in the constitution, the use as a means of retribution to those critical of the government by firing them from a jobsite, a stepping block for the REAL ID Act being resisted by 19 state governments or the introduction of a totalitarian surveillance and police state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you add information, as I've said above, it must be supported by reliable sources by you. You can't just tell people to look it up for themselves on Google. Also, just so you know, personal websites, blogs, forums, or other such sources aren't considered "reliable sources" for Wikipedia. Lastly, when you leave a comment on a talk page, place "~~~~" after your comments to sign them. Now, about your assertions...
  • The security threat assessment by TSA isn't its own "court" as you seem to suggest. It is based on an individual's criminal record.
  • For lesser offenses an individual can still get a TWIC card seven years after conviction or five years after being released from jail for that conviction. I question the scenario you've given. I've included detailed information in the article now about the security threat assessment.
  • If it's true, how is the fact that 2% of the population has this card controversial? Doesn't a lot of Louisianna's population work in maritime-related industries? Is the fact that a large percentage of the population has driver's licenses also controversial, then? ~PescoSo saywe all 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising[edit]

When I posted this information I did not expect it to stay for long, but this is ridiculous a government monitor to delete all critical information. Wikipedia has higher standards than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a "government monitor" and it's rude to just throw things like that out there. Wikipedia does have high standards, and I've commented below on how your comments don't meet them. Conform your edits to Wikipedia's standards and they can stay. ~PescoSo saywe all 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to criticisms of my edits[edit]

To the editor referring to my edits (from ip address starting with "66"): Welcome to Wikipedia. I will post a personal message to your talk page, which you can view by clicking here. I will keep my comments here focused on your edits and why I removed them. To start off, eveything I'm commenting about was in the sectioned labelled "controversy".

"Barbara Minton says the Transportation Worker Identification Credential is a step toward implementing the Real ID Act[3]" How is this controversial? While it could be moved to another section, it doesn't fit in "controversy".

"More than 1 in 50 Louisiana Residents have the TWIC Biometric Government Worker ID Card.[4]" Again, how is this controversial?

"Many individuals lost their job due to the TSA background check of all workers for writing bad checks, prior drug use, incarcerations, warrants, prior arrests, or other secret methods unelected TSA administrators have arbitrarily decided without public notice or comment.[5]" Ok, now we can discuss some issues. When you add information to Wikipedia, you need to support your comments with references to reliable sources. You did add a reference, but it doesn't support your comments at all. The closest thing the article says is this:

  • The article says he "filled out [an] application and is waiting to hear something back". This doesn't say he was turned down, even though he anticipates problems because of his past felony. It doesn't say what it was for or when it happened.
  • Your edits included "writing bad checks, prior drug use, incarcerations, warrants, prior arrests" which aren't mentioned in your reference.
  • Then you included "secret methods unelected TSA administrators have arbitrarily decided without public notice or comment". This is just not the case. Yes, TSA administrators are unelected, but they are acting under the legal mandate from Congress to create the TWIC card. The security check process was announced in the Federal Register and is how federal agencies are legally required to announce new regulations.

It appears you are newer to Wikipedia. I appreciate your viewpoint, and there is certainly a place for the kind of information you are trying to add to this article as it represents a view I know others share. What we have to figure out is how to add it in a way that is neutral, verifiable, and consistant with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Thank you. ~PescoSo saywe all 00:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


I am adding a "History" section with cites, references, that will include laws that led to the TWIC, and a section on drivers and some controversy. "If" there are missing references or concerns I would appreciate a tag so I can address any issues. Assuming good faith I offer every opportunity for corrections before deletion. I simply wish to try to be fair on both sides and show another side to escape bias. This is somewhat hard with a limited amount of information but I will as best I can. Otr500 (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Secure Worker Access Consortium[edit]

This business? Organization?'s website states: Public agencies, private corporations, labor organizations and contractors strategically partner in SWAC to mitigate risk, develop the SWAC Trusted Community, and cooperatively improve regional and national security. The largest transportation agencies in the New York metro area including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), and New Jersey Transit (NJT) have adopted SWAC as the regional standard for access control to sensitive facilities, critical infrastructures, and key national resources. So that could use some inclusion. I couldn't find any news items on this in search or I'd start an article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently passing a federal background check is not enough, or the government can not be trusted, so there is yet another need for an organization to provide the same service, at a cost of course. I live near the gulf and have found that, because of the added costs, many companies here have found another solution. Halliburton, the Port of Lake Charles, and many others simply segregate the docks from the port area and remove the guard shacks. This "solution" has appeared in many areas from Lake Charles east and south along areas with docks. Cameron has areas that have no security and I loaded, alone, on a dock. I have pictures of abandoned guard houses and was granted unescorted access to the Port of Lake Charles without even producing my TWIC card.
I do like the fact that a TWIC is "honored" since it is Federally sponsored. With my TWIC card I had a background check that included TSA and FBI. I have hazmat and this resulted in state and federal background checks, of course from the same sources so redundant, and at a premium cost. Now we need another card, in the name of security, for the safety of our country. Since we know that the terrorists that flew the planes on 9-11 were disgruntled airline pilots we can assumes that the same will be true at ports and any attack would be by a disgruntled port worker or truck driver right?
I am not sure how it could be added but it is a security type program, accepts the TWIC card, and therefore has some relevance to the article. This program covers New jersey and New York. [1] shows it is similar to TWIC and if a worker has this the cost is reduced to $200.00 dollars, and I can assure anyone that these areas will require both which, for lack of more eloquent words, sucks and is stupid. [2] shows that there is federal and regional, "standard for access control to sensitive facilities, critical infrastructures, and key national resources." Otr500 (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Transportation Worker Identification Credential. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)