I simply disagree with you on the seriousness of this effort. It is annoying, but not the red flag, in my opinion, you perceive it to be.
The CIA is tracking terrorists overseas; who tracks them in the USA...that is NOT the CIA's job. The FBI is supposed to be doing this, but they are not up to speed. I personally think this effort won't help except as a deterrent, in which case those who wish to travel surreptitiously will be forced into roundabout routes, forged documents, etc. and perhaps may be easier to spot overseas rather than people like me, who simply say they are going to London to see landmarks, then go to London and see landmarks.
I am well aware of the slippery slope argument. I also am aware that rights are somewhat curtailed during time of war. I also am aware that we don't have a declaration of war as of yet, but for all practical purposes we do.
So, we will just simply have to agree to disagree on this issue. No point in wasting Jim's bandwidth, and I am sure you will have people who see things as you do. Be sure you make a public comment to the government.
Well, that's really the crux of the issue, and you're completely wrong about it.
With all due deference, I don't detect that you've done enough foreign travel - certainly not in third world countries - to understand how easy it would be for terrorists or criminals to mask their travels. Avoid credit cards and airlines (e.g., overland travel) and you're off the grid.
Innocent, law-abiding Americans will have their travels meticulously entered into a database, while the purported targets will simply lie (and if all else fails, do exactly what Richard Reid did and simply "lose" their incriminating passports and visa stamps).
The bottom line is that this "rule" won't even touch the purported targets.
Since you agree that it will only work as a deterrent, and I've shown you that even that is not the case, what remaining rationale could possibly exist for infringing on the privacy rights of American citizens?