What the Passenger Name Record Report Really Says

The DHS Privacy Office works overtime to ensure privacy protections at the department for Americans and those who travel to the U.S.  News of our efforts doesn’t always get out.  Recently, my office issued the Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data Report (download PDF), a public document that is a requirement of the joint U.S./EU agreement on PNR.  In fact, I encourage you to check out a previous Leadership Journal where I discussed this. On December 18, I pointed out that the department, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), actually complied with the agreement and privacy documentation issued by my office.  Any statements to the contrary are mischaracterizations. I invite you to read the report for the truth.

Yes, the Privacy Office review did find areas for operational and policy improvement – I would be remiss in my statutory duties had I overlooked areas where privacy protections could be better integrated into DHS operations. Specifically, CBP needs to improve its handling of Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act requests, a key component of redress generally, and with respect to PNR data.  I note, however, that for every recommendation made in the report, there was a concrete and actionable response that CBP began to implement before the report was even issued.  As with any program, improvements can always be made and so is the case here.  CBP did not fail in meeting its commitments to the Agreement and Letters between DHS and the Council of European Union.  CBP actively contributed to the review, opening itself up to criticism while still trying to operationally meet the requirements of the 2007 Agreement and Letters.  Moreover, CBP and the Privacy Office have been working together closely to improve CBP’s handling of FOIA and Privacy Act requests.  I am proud of my office’s hard work and I commend CBP for its efforts and its improvements.

The other half of the story is the one that has been ignored, so I will make it quite clear. The U.S. has upheld its commitments, but the Europeans, to date, have not.  On July 25, 2008, the European Commission vice president wrote to Secretary Chertoff suggesting the first review take place in "late 2008" and that questionnaires be exchanged beforehand.  The Secretary confirmed our intent to participate in order to review "the effective operation and privacy protection" of both U.S. and European systems.

My report was originally intended to provide the basis for a Joint Review in December 2008, which the European Commission unfortunately postponed for unknown reasons. The Joint Review is meant to illustrate the effective oversight and to promote further transparency of activities in both the U.S. and the EU. This is particularly important given that the EU is now considering use of PNR as a screening tool, and some Member States have already begun national PNR programs.

Only through effective oversight and real transparency, here and in Europe, can we truly gauge the effectiveness and impact on individual freedoms resulting from any single approach.

Hugo Teufel III
Chief Privacy Officer

Passenger Name Record Data and Privacy

In July 2007, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Council of the European Union (Council) signed an agreement and exchanged letters regarding the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to DHS by air carriers operating flights between the U.S. and the European Union (EU). Included was a provision to “periodically review the implementation of this agreement, the DHS letter, and U.S. and EU PNR policies and practices” to assess the “effective operation and privacy protection of their systems.” In a series of communications between the European Commission and the Department, the parties agreed that a Joint Review would be conducted this December.

In preparation for the Joint Review, my team conducted a review of DHS PNR processing practices, the results of which are published in A Report Concerning Passenger Name Record Information Derived From Flights Between The U.S. And The European Union, posted on the privacy website. In short, we found that the Department complies with the representations made in the Agreement and Letters, as well as those representations made in the System of Records Notice for the Automated Targeting System (published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2007), the system where PNR resides.

I am proud that our team was able to complete this important task in my final days as Chief Privacy Officer, but I am disappointed that our European counterparts chose to postpone participation in this exercise. The Joint Review is meant to illustrate a common commitment to effective oversight and to promote further transparency. The review DHS hopes to hold with the European Commission in early 2009 will be of considerable value to DHS, as it will identify areas for improvement and confirmed best practices.

The EU is now considering use of PNR as a screening tool, and some Member States have begun national PNR programs. In the spirit of reciprocity and transparency, and to contribute to our shared goals of protection of citizens and their personal information, we look forward to a comparable review of European PNR systems.

Hugo Teufel III
Chief Privacy Officer

U.S. and EU Agree on Data Protection Principles

Data protection and data sharing took a big step forward yesterday at the U.S.-EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial meeting in Washington. The French EU Presidency, the European Commission, and the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State agreed to a Statement on Information Sharing and Privacy and Personal Data Protection and recorded progress on a set of principles that will advance both data privacy and data sharing in a law enforcement context. (download PDF)

The U.S. and the European Union have long been seeking common ground on data protection and data sharing principles. The U.S. proposed the discussion after divisive negotiations over airline reservation data (“PNR”) finally resulted in an agreement between the U.S. and the EU. The PNR agreement did two things: on the one hand, the U.S. set forth data protection rules for PNR, and on the other hand the EU agreed to approve the sharing of PNR with the U.S., thus protecting from penalty airlines and third countries that cooperate with U.S. antiterrorism measures by providing such data.

Noting that U.S. and EU standards for law enforcement data protection we in fact quite similar, the U.S. proposed a broader set of talks, with a view to reaching a broader agreement with the same basic structure as the PNR arrangement: (1) an agreed set of data protection principles and (2) protections so that private companies and third countries are not punished for cooperating with antiterrorism data gathering measures. A High Level Contact Group was formed to explore this possibility.

The talks began to bear fruit this year. In May, the two sides disclosed that they had reached substantial agreement on twelve data protection principles that both EU and U.S. law enforcement agencies observe.

More progress was made, as the parties took up the remaining job of reaching agreement on ways to protect those who cooperate in data gathering measures. The parties accepted an experts’ report that disclosed broad agreement on matters such as private entities’ obligations, preventing undue impact on third countries, and procedures for resolving questions arising under the principles. For example, the third country provision states that “when the European Union or the United States has international agreements or arrangements for information sharing with third countries, each should use their best endeavors to avoid putting those third countries in a difficult position because of differences relating to data privacy.” These principles demonstrate both sides’ willingness to avoid penalizing private entities and third countries because of possible U.S.-EU differences over data protection.

More negotiations lie ahead, of course. In particular, the parties noted that they have not reached agreement on redress (how to handle individuals’ complaints about how their data was treated) and reciprocity (making sure that the U.S. and EU do not demand higher data protection standards from others than they demand of themselves and their member states).

But, while negotiations are in progress toward a binding agreement that will mutually recognize both privacy regimes, the U.S. and the EU are already providing some comfort to those whose data is collected and to those who help to collect or share such data. Along with the principles, the parties issued a statement promising that, while negotiations continue, the U.S. and EU will “use best endeavours to refrain from activities which undermine these principles.” This statement means that the U.S. and EU will discourage deviations from the agreed law enforcement data protection provisions, which should reassure those whose data is collected for law enforcement purposes. At the same time, the parties’ undertaking should encourage law enforcement agencies, private entities, and other countries to provide data without fear of being drawn into conflicting demands by U.S. and EU data protection regulators.

Stewart Baker
Assistant Secretary Policy

International Consensus on Small Boats

DHS policymakers spend a lot of time worrying about threats that haven’t happened yet. We also take a lot of grief from people who think that all our worrying is a waste of time—or, worse, an intentional strategy of fear-mongering. So it’s important to note those occasions when our worries have turned out to be on target.

The most recent such confirmation comes in the context of small boat terrorist attacks.

Two weeks ago, in Mumbai, India, terrorists seized a fishing vessel, killed its crew, navigated to Mumbai, and used small inflatable boats to come ashore for their attack.

DHS spent much of the last year on measures to reduce the risk that terrorists will be able to use small boats in an attack on this country.

In April, 2008, the Department developed a Small Vessel Security Strategy. The strategy outlines the goals and objectives that the Department component agencies, especially the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection, will work toward. Supporting the strategy an interagency working group has been developing an implementation plan which in the coming weeks will outline the Department’s specific intentions. All of this effort has been done in coordination with the owners and operators of small vessels, including American fishing fleets, recreational craft associations, and commercial passenger and cargo vessels.

And less than a week ago, on December 5th, an international effort led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, resulted in the approval by the International Maritime Organization of new guidelines for small vessel security.

A year in the making, the new guidelines provide recommendations for governments and the owners and operators of small vessels and related facilities such as marinas. The recommendations encourage the registry of vessels and the sharing of such registry information between governments, the installation of access controls at marinas and on small commercial craft, as well as guidance on how to conduct vessel searches.

Numerous delegations at the International Maritime Organization meeting expressed their intent to implement the guidelines within their domestic security programs.

Getting the international community to focus on terrorism, and especially on new terrorism threats, is not a job for the impatient, but this is a case where DHS was both patient and ahead of the curve, and the reward is that we were able to move swiftly once an international consensus emerged.

Stewart Baker
Assistant Secretary, Policy

The Visa Waiver Program Success Story—Our Newest Chapter

Each year, we welcome hundreds of millions of visitors to America. Since 1986, many of them have arrived under our Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa.

Last month, President Bush announced that seven new nations – the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Korea – have met the requirements needed to enter the program. Starting today, eligible tourists and business people from these nations will be able to travel to the United States without a visa and contribute to our economy, as visitors have from other VWP countries for more than a generation. They will return to their countries with a first-hand impression of America and its people, helping us further enhance our reputation overseas.

The admissions requirements reflect a significantly upgraded and modernized VWP. Acknowledging the need to modernize and to recognize post-9/11 realities, they include new elements, mandated by Congress, such as new security provisions for countries and visitors alike.

Under the new requirements, countries must now provide information about serious crimes, known and suspected terrorists, timely reporting of lost and stolen passport data and cooperation on airport and aviation security.

As for individual visitors, our Department’s new Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) requires all VWP travelers to submit biographical and eligibility information on-line prior to their departure for our country. This will enable us to pinpoint potential security threats ahead of time, identify ineligible individuals before they board (saving them a wasted trip to a U.S. airport and back) and process authorized travelers more efficiently.

For the better part of a year, I have been privileged to work with my colleagues in each of the seven countries that are joining the VWP. I am proud of their accomplishments as free nations that have stood up to tyranny. Their admission to the program is a milestone in their history. It promises to be a boon to our country, while opening a bright new chapter in the VWP success story.

Michael Chertoff

Travel Authorization Via Computer

You may recall that in June we announced a program that would bring an antiquated aspect of international travel into the 21st century and at the same time improve our security. I’m pleased to say that starting August 1st, this new program, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, will be up and running for use on a voluntary basis. This means that foreign travelers from Visa Waiver Program countries will be able to apply for travel authorization to the U.S. using a simple, secure website.

Let me explain some of the details and benefits of this system.

Currently, there are 27 countries in the Visa Waiver Program, which means that citizens from places such as Austria, Italy, and Japan do not need to apply for visas to travel to the United States. In lieu of a visa, they currently fill out a paper I-94W form en route to the U.S. These forms ask for basic biographic, travel, and eligibility information, and provide our Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers an opportunity to ensure that travelers do not pose a threat before they’re admitted to our country.

With ESTA, we’re simply automating this process so passengers can complete these forms online before they even depart for the U.S. This is clearly a win-win for all involved.

First, it’s convenient for travelers.

• They can complete the forms online at their leisure whenever they begin making travel plans. (We recommend this be done at least 72 hours before departure but the system can accommodate last minute travel).
  
• Most travelers will receive a response within seconds, notifying them of their eligibility or that their request is pending.
  
• An approved ESTA authorization is valid for up to two years or until the traveler’s passport expires, whichever comes first.
  
• And ESTA authorizations are valid for multiple entries into the U.S.

Second, and more importantly, it provides significant security enhancements.

• CBP will know who is traveling to our country before they arrive, and can determine if they pose a threat earlier in the process.
  
• It helps us assess risk based on individuals, rather than groups or countries. We know that just being from a stable country with a friendly government doesn’t automatically exclude one from being a threat (for example, Richard Reid from Britain or Zacharias Moussaoui from France).
  
• And by increasing the convenience on our end (we will no longer have to decipher handwriting or manually transfer information from paper forms to electronic files), we can focus more time and resources on security matters.
  
• ESTA will also help us meet a legislative requirement that will allow us to expand the Visa Waiver Program to additional allies. An expanded, more secure VWP will provide an opportunity for millions of foreign citizens to travel to the U.S. to learn firsthand what a great country we have.

As I mentioned, ESTA applications will be accepted on a voluntary basis starting August 1st and will be mandatory for all individuals traveling under the VWP on January 12, 2009. I invite you to see this system for yourself and view a great example of how 21st century technology can improve security for Americans and enhance the travel experience for our international allies.

Thanks for reading.

Kathleen Kraninger
Director, Screening Coordination Office

Tool Needed to Prosecute Drug Traffickers Using Subs

I commend the Government of Mexico and the Mexican Navy for their superb interdiction of a self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) vessel carrying more than 10,000 pounds of cocaine last Wednesday. This was a remarkable example of the value of active international cooperation in combating drug smugglers and the great effectiveness of the U.S. Southern Command’s Joint Interagency Task Force South. The professionalism demonstrated by the CBP Marine aircrew, JIATF-South and Mexican Navy was one of the most impressive international interdictions I have seen in my 37-year career and sends a clear signal to drug traffickers and other transnational criminals that there is a unified effort to secure our maritime borders from all hazards.

SPSS vessels represent an increasingly significant threat to our safety and security. These vessels, which can be both manned and operated remotely, can transport multi-ton loads of cocaine and other illicit cargo to the U.S. The use of SPSS vessels has grown in recent years as a means to counter effective interdiction efforts. The SPSS, once perceived as an impractical and risky smuggling tool, has proven successful as an innovative and highly mobile, asymmetrical method of conveyance. After just 23 total SPSS events between 2000 and 2007, drug trafficking organizations conducted at least 45 SPSS transits during the first six months of FY 2008. SPSS now account for 32% of all maritime cocaine flow in the transit zone.

Success against this emerging threat requires a multi-faceted approach, including: international cooperation and coordination; a persistent patrol presence in the transit zone; active intelligence gathering and sharing; and effective legislation to facilitate prosecution. As demonstrated by last week’s case, the U.S. and its partners have the ability to aggressively pursue and interdict SPSS vessels, but it is the legislative piece that is currently missing. The Mexican Navy’s interdiction notwithstanding, the overwhelming majority of SPSS interdictions result in the successful scuttling of the vessel with its entombed cargo of cocaine. Absent contraband evidence, there are few practical options under existing U.S. law to pursue prosecution.

If operation of and embarkation in an SPSS were illegal, U.S. interdiction forces and U.S. Attorneys would have the necessary legal tools to combat the SPSS threat even in the absence of recovered drugs or other contraband. Criminalizing the operation of stateless SPSS vessels on international voyages would improve officer safety, deter the use of these inherently dangerous vessels, and facilitate effective prosecution of criminals involved in this treacherous and emerging trend.

The penalty for any SPSS offense should be sufficiently strong to deter use and encourage cooperation by those interdicted at sea. Because the desired legislation is limited to stateless SPSS and submarines on international voyages, the law would not affect legitimate business users and law abiding hobbyists.

We strongly support the legislation introduced in both the House and Senate and urge passage of this legislation to enhance both national and regional security and fully empower our ongoing interdiction efforts.

Admiral Thad W. Allen
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

Progress Made in Travel Security

I’m pleased and proud that today the Department is announcing a final rule and schedule for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). ESTA will add new security to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), the program that lets millions of visitors from countries like the U.K., Japan, and France come to the U.S. without first getting a visa.

Three years ago, when the Policy office was created, one of the first things we looked at was the VWP landscape. There were voices seeking to close the program down. They pointed out, correctly, that the VWP was the product of an earlier age. If you’re most worried about foreign visitors becoming illegal immigrants, then it makes sense to relax visa requirements from other developed countries. If you’re worried about terrorism, though, it doesn’t make sense to admit any visitors without an opportunity to screen them first. Just because a country is economically developed and has a friendly government doesn’t mean there are no terrorists in that country willing to attack us.

That was one view, and a reasonable one. At the same time, we heard voices calling for expansion of the program, in part because it increasingly did not reflect the world in which we live. Some of our best allies – and some of the most rapidly developing economies -- are in Eastern Europe, and they don’t have VWP status.

Our solution was to expand the program – but only after dramatically improving the security guarantees that it requires.

ESTA is one of those guarantees. It is an electronic website where visitors to the U.S., many of whom have already gone on line to make a reservation with their airline, will now do the same with the United States. Instead of filling out a form on the plane, to be handed in at the immigration booth, visitors will supply the same information electronically and in advance of travel. From the traveler’s point of view, it means no more having to beg or borrow a pen from the flight attendant. Plus, if there are any admission problems, they can be resolved before the flight.

From DHS’s perspective, we have the information in advance – in time to make decisions about the tiny handful of travelers who pose security concerns. Plus, we don’t have to try to decipher everyone’s handwriting on the forms. It’s a win-win, particularly because the travel authorization will be good for two years.

Of course, no policy achievement in Washington is complete without press that doesn’t quite get it right. To be clear, this is not a visa; it is a substitute for forms that visa waiver travelers already fill out, and it is based on an Australian reporting system that has never been seen as a visa by other countries. Nor does it require 72 hours notice for travel to the U.S. It is recommended that individuals who plan to travel under the VWP apply for their ESTA as early as possible so as to avoid last minute problems. ESTA has been designed to accept applications for last minute and emergency travel. [*]

The system is now scheduled to be fully applicable to all VWP travelers in January 2009. That opens the way to admitting new members from Eastern Europe and elsewhere (assuming the other security requirements are met) – and substantially improving security – all in less than four years. It’s not often that officials get to see a policy initiative go from “glint in the eye” to interagency agreement, legislative authorization, and full implementation, all in their term of office. I’m deeply pleased and grateful to all the decision makers and participants who embraced our vision of a VWP that is both more secure and more broadly based.

Stewart Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

[* update: Changed last sentence from: "We will have a means to apply up to the time of travel in emergency case."]

A Vicious Circle

When homeland security officials point out that we are still threatened by al-Qaeda, we are sometimes accused of fear-mongering. But when it comes to creating a bogeyman to scare the public, it’s our critics who are in a league by themselves.

The Washington Post recently recycled a travel association claim that overseas travel to the U.S. has declined since 2000 because people are treated badly at the border (“Fear Is A Tax, And We’re Eagerly Paying It,” Josef Joffe). I say recycled because this is at least the tenth time in the past year that much the same claim has been repeated, always accompanied by references to the same flawed poll. While saying they just want to encourage tourism, Joffe and the industry that commissioned the biased poll are in fact discouraging it by perpetuating fear of a border “security apparat,” whose face is “distorted by fear and suspicion.”

There are two problems with the claim that travel to the U.S. has declined because of harsh security at the border. First, the poll Joffe cites as evidence that border security is too harsh doesn’t actually show that at all. Half the respondents had not come to the U.S. in the last five years. So when they were asked whether they feared rude treatment in U.S. Customs, they weren’t relying on recent experience. The only data they had to go on was the news media. Peddling this uninformed judgment as proof that travelers are treated badly simply generates more stories claiming rude treatment in the U.S. It’s a nearly perfect example of a vicious circle.

The second problem with Joffe’s argument is that there has not been a reduction in travel to the United States. It is true that, after 9/11, there was a decline in global tourism (not just travel to the United States). However, international arrivals to the U.S. have risen for four consecutive years, and they have returned to pre-9/11 levels.

Some argue that those figures reflect a disproportionate increase in Canadian and Mexican visitors, while visitors from overseas (mostly Europe) are still below 2000 levels. Maybe so, but that in itself raises doubts about the claim that our border practices are deterring travel. The U.S. doesn’t have one line at the airport full of friendly inspectors for Canadians and a different line for Europeans.

So why has travel from Europe been slower to recover? Here’s one answer: During the last five years, transatlantic plane fares have steadily increased while intra-European fares have dropped, making it cheaper to fly from Britain to Southern Spain or Italy than to Florida. That’s a much more straightforward explanation for the slow recovery of transatlantic travel.

Want proof? How’s this--overseas travel to Canada dropped even further after 2001 than travel to the U.S. And travel to Canada has not been as quick to rebound. But no one thinks Canada’s border has gotten more unfriendly recently. Only transatlantic fares explain why European travel to both the U.S. and Canada have been slow to reach 2001 levels.

We at DHS want to attract more international travelers. We will continue to do whatever it takes to improve the quality of our welcome. But we won’t stay silent when aspersions are cast on the quality of our workforce.

Stewart Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Lessons from Europe

I just returned from a trip to Europe to meet with several of my counterparts, and want to make an observation about what impressed me most about my visit.

In Berlin, Attorney General Mukasey and I signed an important agreement with Germany to improve information sharing, including information on known and suspected terrorists. While at the Reichstag building, which houses the German parliament, I came across an exhibit depicting the fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s easy to forget that just a short time ago Berlin was literally a divided city – totalitarianism on one side of the wall and democracy on the other. The photo brought to life a historical moment that a lot of people thought would never happen: students standing on top of the breached wall; East German guards looking unsure of themselves as freedom asserted itself before their eyes; and people separated for decades coming together in the streets to celebrate. Seeing the exhibit was an inspiring reminder of the power of freedom over tyranny and how the will of the people, even in the face of tremendous opposition, can lead to monumental change.

In Estonia, I signed an historic agreement with the Interior Minister to put his nation’s citizens on a path to join our Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which will allow them to travel to the United States without first having to get a visa. Several European countries have signed similar agreements with the United States, including the Czech Republic, Latvia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Lithuania. In his comments after the signing, the Interior Minister said something that really struck me. He praised the United States and the American people for standing by his country during its darkest days of Soviet occupation. As you may recall, America never recognized the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States. He told me that it was our stand against communism that gave his people hope and inspired him to hold fast to a dream that someday a fleet of white ships from the United States would sail into the Estonian port of Tallinn. Signing the VWP agreement signified to him that the symbolic white fleet had finally arrived, and the United States remains a symbol of hope and freedom for people all over the world.

Finally, I had a chance to visit the tomb of Pope John Paul II in Rome. Aside from being a man of tremendous faith and strength of character, Pope John Paul did as much as anyone to reverse the forces of tyranny. Pope John Paul assumed the papacy at a time when his native country of Poland and other states was still under communist rule. He refused to accept the conventional wisdom that said nothing could be done about it. Instead, he helped set in motion communism’s downfall.

These three things are vivid reminders that taking a so-called “realistic” view of the world does not mean abandoning our efforts to advance the cause of freedom around the world. Thirty years ago, few people would have thought it realistic to believe the Berlin Wall could fall, or that Estonia and other Eastern European nations would be liberated, or that Pope John Paul would help bring about the demise of communism. But these things did happen – and they happened not because people accepted the status quo, but because they held true to their ideals and vision of a better world and they acted upon their beliefs. That is a lesson Europe fought hard to achieve, and it is a lesson we should never forget in the United States

Michael Chertoff

Fighting Terror: A New Consensus

It’s time to bury the myth of American divergence from the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. Contrary to popular opinion, we are constantly working with our international partners to create a better, safer world.

Late last week I spoke in Dublin, Ireland at the Institute of European Affairs and then met in Germany with my security counterparts from six European nations, with the goal of strengthening transatlantic cooperation.

As I stressed in Ireland and in Germany, I remain struck by how remarkably our paths converge.

For starters, most nations, including those of Europe, clearly grasp the danger that terrorism poses to them and to our entire global system of security, safety, and prosperity. They know that Osama Bin Laden, his cohorts, and their ideology have become a major threat to the freedom- loving world. They recall the bombings in Madrid and in the United Kingdom (UK), and the thwarted plot against transatlantic airliners in London last year.

Our paths also converge on three key principles on how best to respond. First, nations are realizing that security begins beyond our own borders and ports of entry. So, we’re stressing the importance of partnerships with other nations. And our allies join us in pursuing a strategy that seeks to manage risk, not to eliminate it, since complete eradication is impossible.

And finally, there’s a growing consensus that information is a critical tool for applying these principles in an effective, risk-based way. By collecting only a few pieces of key commercial information, we can zero in on the handful of potentially dangerous individuals, without violating privacy rights or harming commerce by inconveniencing the vast throngs of legitimate travelers.

Through using personal name record (PNR) data, we can identify previously unknown individuals who are dangerous. In cases where we have no travel data, we will be using our new 10-point fingerprint program to match visitors’ prints against latent prints we’re collecting from battle fields, safe houses, and terrorist training camps abroad. And to guard against dangerous operatives masquerading as innocent visitors, we are creating secure identification through our Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

Other countries now have adopted strikingly similar approaches. Earlier this month, the European Union released a proposed requirement for its member states that mirrors our own rules for PNR data usage in border management processes. The UK has embarked on a seven-year eBorders program. Ireland will roll out a similar program to secure its common travel area with the UK. The Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, the UK, and Malaysia have expedited entry and/or registered travel programs enabling pre-approved travelers to move quickly through passport control. Australia has long had an Electronic Travel Authorization program to facilitate travel while mitigating risks associated with visa-free travel. Japan has begun recording the fingerprints and photos of all foreign visitors.

When it comes to security, no two nations can ever be exactly alike, but clearly convergence is accelerating. Together with our international partners, we are working hard to enhance security, here and across the globe.

Michael Chertoff

A Visit to the Middle East

This past weekend, I traveled to the Middle East to participate in several events with our servicemen and women and to meet with a number of our allies throughout the region. I visited Iraq, Bahrain and Jordan, and on the way back, met my European counterparts in London.

I’d like to share with you some highlights from the past few days.

On Veterans Day, I had the privilege of administering the Oath of Allegiance to over 170 U.S. soldiers at a naturalization ceremony in Iraq. They were born in over 50 countries. Ironically, the ceremony took place in an auditorium formerly used by Saddam Hussein as a movie theater. But most remarkably, these brave men and women were willing to leave their native homes and put their lives in danger to defend America before they were naturalized American citizens.

After Iraq, I went to Bahrain and met with several U.S. Coast Guard members who are assisting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. There, a small unit is doing a tremendous job securing ports in the North Arabian Gulf, augmenting U.S. Navy security forces, training Iraqi sailors and marines, and protecting Iraq’s oil infrastructure, which is crucial to overall reconstruction efforts. In addition to Coast Guard forces, DHS has Customs and Border Protection personnel stationed in and around Iraq to help train Iraqi soldiers and strengthen their border security efforts.

DHS personnel deployed overseas are directly enhancing our security at home. By working closely with Iraqi, American, and Coalition Forces, they are helping to stabilize a fledgling democracy, creating a safer Iraq and therefore a safer Middle East. And a safer Middle East means a safer world for us and our allies. These young men and women are also goodwill ambassadors, setting an example and forging relationships that enhance America’s reputation in Iraq and the Gulf.

But America also has a responsibility to extend its protection to vulnerable populations, including those in Iraq. And, of course, our greatest duty is to those who are at risk because they have worked side by side with our military and civilian personnel. So I also visited a refugee processing facility in Jordan to examine what we are doing to process Iraqi refugees seeking asylum in our country. We are processing Iraqis faster than any other nationality and the pace is increasing. At the same time, we have to remain thorough in our screening procedures, so terrorists and criminals do not exploit our refugee process to sneak into the country. DHS, U.S. State Department, and Jordanian officials are equally committed to this goal.

Thanks for reading.

Michael Chertoff

A Global Approach

This week I traveled to Canada to speak with international commissioners from around the world on data privacy and to Mexico to meet with Mexican officials and governors from our border states. All this travel illustrates how global the mission of homeland security really is.

From protecting our land and sea borders to screening travelers and goods coming from other countries, a large part of our mission necessarily involves relating to and working with partners all over the world.

In pursuit of this mission, we are engaged overseas nearly as much as any department in the United States government. We have DHS personnel on nearly every continent and in many foreign cities. Our Customs and Border Protection officers screen U.S.-bound cargo at more than 50 overseas ports. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has more than 50 attaché offices in 35 countries that investigate human smuggling and money laundering cases. The Secret Service investigates counterfeit U.S. currency all over the world. And the Coast Guard works with the U.S. Navy to protect vital maritime assets in the Middle East, including in Iraq.

In our 21st-century global environment, people, goods, money, and ideas routinely move around the world in a matter of seconds and hours, rather than days and weeks. Unfortunately, so can terrorists. We need to look no further than to 9/11, where the plot was hatched in Central Asia, using recruits from Saudi Arabia who trained in Afghanistan, planned in Europe and launched their attack in America.

That’s why it’s vital that we continue to partner with our allies overseas to share information and develop international standards to combat the global threat we face.

Working together with our foreign partners to enhance security is clearly a win/win for both sides. When we screen cargo overseas and strengthen the security of the international supply chain, we’re not only keeping America safe, but also increasing the safety of countries where the cargo originates. And through advanced planning and coordination with these partners, we can mitigate the effects of natural disasters and help stop the spread of infectious diseases.

While globalization presents us with clear security challenges, it also provides opportunities to expand our cooperation with international partners to protect our shared interests. I’ll keep you updated on our progress as we work with our colleagues overseas, as well as those here in the U.S. to combat terrorism and keep the homeland safe.

Thanks for reading. I look forward to hearing from you.

Michael Chertoff