Originally Posted by
InkUnderNails
I understand the Animal Farm reference, yet I would like to post a contrary opinion.
80+ times per year I have my name compared to any number of secret lists and each time I am cleared.
...[deleted for space]...
As a practical matter, my screening could be less intensive than the occasional traveler, not because I am an any way special or better, but simply because I have a history that shows that I have a high likelihood of trustworthiness. It is not to say that the casual traveler is not trustworthy. It only says that they have not had an opportunity based on repeated successful clearings to demonstrate that trustworthiness.
Can't believe I'm about to say this... but,
"A terrorist would never think of [the above]." Right? or, perhaps "A terrorist would never figure how to use someone that does qualify by [the above]."
Having said that... <runs off to bathroom to shower>... as I personally despise the constitutionally deteriorating methods that TSA uses - and would rather take my chances on an airplane where no passenger screening has occured than to go through the current procedures. ...
While I could agree that you are most likely not a threat to aviation security - it does not mean that I or anyone else is more of a threat just because we fly less than others.
In my opinion, there are all sorts of issues with the program... a government agency forcing people to pay and provide personal information to be allowed to avoid certain procedures, any of which are questionable for constitutionality, just to travel; is wrong on so many levels that I'm at a loss for where to begin.
I guess to start, similar to what others have pointed out, why should the person who flies for the first time in their life to go on a trip with their spouse be considered any more of a threat than a person who flies every single day of the year?