Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Sign in using an external account

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 10, 11, 10:15 pm   #16
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 450
I will say this... Background checks and being trusted is only as good as the information that is available at the moment. Just as soon as this program hits a glich with a person/persons getting through that turns out not to be as trust worthy as TSA thought they were. The TSA will have a different response to passengers than they do for their TSA screeners.

I mean when it comes to TSA Screeners nothing gets complicated for every single one of them when a TSA Screener fails the trust test. However all the passengers are required to jump through alot of unknown hoops when a passenger fails the trust test.

Last edited by Lara21; Nov 10, 11 at 10:47 pm.
Lara21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 2:18 am   #17
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails View Post
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.

80+ times per year I present a valid ID to the TDC and get the magic squiggle.

80+ times per year I voluntarily submit my possessions for an xray inspection and whether it is initially cleared or must undergo additional tests, it always clears.

80+ times a year I submit to a screening of my person that may include WTMD or a scan of my virtually naked body, or a opt out and frisk from the same.

80+ times a year my checked luggage is voluntarily submitted for screening and physical inspection as needed, every time without incident.

Except for the times I use an unrecognized NEXUS, or insist on not being visually separated from my belongings, or add to their work by opting out, my clearing is uneventful.

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.
Add to that the fact that I go through immigration checks throughout the world over 20 times a year and we have pretty similar situations. But I do not qualify for this program, despite being globally trustworthy!

Besides, the current differences in screening are specifically the parts of screening which add no security whatsoever.
BubbaLoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 2:30 am   #18
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN A+ w/CP, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Platinum
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaLoop View Post
Add to that the fact that I go through immigration checks throughout the world over 20 times a year and we have pretty similar situations. But I do not qualify for this program, despite being globally trustworthy!

Besides, the current differences in screening are specifically the parts of screening which add no security whatsoever.
I have been screened for NEXUS. I did not add that to the list. I see the logic in allowing the experience of people like both you and me, to determine that through historical experience that we constitute a lesser risk than one with an unknown history. It is an imperfect technique for 100% security, as all are, but it may allow an acceptable management of statistical risk. The have chosen their current criteria and it may very well be expanded, maintained or even abandoned.
__________________
The Consultant's Dilemma: You can't tell a man he has an ugly baby.
InkUnderNails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 4:58 am   #19
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioGirl View Post
Does "all passengers" include people who are not US citizens and/or live in the US? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.

Does "all passengers" include those who fly one round-trip every third year to visit grandchildren on the other side of the country, on a carefully researched discounted economy fare, for whom a $100 application fee would be too expensive? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.

Does "all passengers" include those who fly rarely, on different airlines, and therefore don't belong to or qualify for an airline's frequent flyer or elite program? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.

Does "all passengers" include a person who has never flown before but suddenly needs to fly across the country at short notice - to see a dying relative or go for a last-minute job interview - and won't have time for an application process? After all, such people fly within the USA every day.

Until the answer to all of the above is "yes", all this program is doing is creating a two-class society at the airport. And despite the fact that I don't belong to any of the groups listed above, I don't think that's acceptable. And as BubbaLoop said, I suspect it will make things even worse for the "have nots" as the entire TSA workfarce can concentrate its efforts on the "suspicious" minority.

Really easy to argue when you pick and chose what to argue about, as I clearly wrote "all passengers to apply". If you wish to discuss what I wrote, do so, but don't pick and chose from what I wrote - as that changes the context of what I stated. But perhaps that is the only way you can argue against what I said?
SATTSO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 5:01 am   #20
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10mmAutoFan View Post
Sen Boxer would be the LAST person I'd listen to an opinion of any Federal program. She's a liberal loon.
Ok, fine. But my point was she is still a MoC, and seems to support the current policy of TSA. I could care less if she is a liberal loon, a right wing nut, or anything in-between. My point is this: when Congress shows public support for TSA (btw, as some others MoC did recently when Pistole testified before them), how well will they hear the complaints of people from this site who write in to complain about TSA, liberal loon or not?
SATTSO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 6:36 am   #21
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by SATTSO View Post
Ok, fine. But my point was she is still a MoC, and seems to support the current policy of TSA. I could care less if she is a liberal loon, a right wing nut, or anything in-between. My point is this: when Congress shows public support for TSA (btw, as some others MoC did recently when Pistole testified before them), how well will they hear the complaints of people from this site who write in to complain about TSA, liberal loon or not?

Key phrase:
Quote:
when Congress shows public support for TSA
.

Confidence in the TSA is eroding in Congress as has become quite evident in the past several weeks. What is said in public and what is said in private are two very different things. You and I have no idea what Congress is saying in private to Nappy and Pistole. I believe both are being told to clean up their act.
doober is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 7:58 am   #22
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails View Post
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?
Mientree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 8:21 am   #23
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SATTSO View Post
Ok, fine. But my point was she is still a MoC, and seems to support the current policy of TSA. I could care less if she is a liberal loon, a right wing nut, or anything in-between.
I'll see your Boxer with a Paul, and raise with a McCaskill.



... I know, I know... due to political expediency, I'm sure you can point out more that have publically supported TSA... but, fortunately, more and more are starting to speak out against it - typically after they have experienced it for themselves... and if they don't listen... we work on voting them out and electing people that will listen to our concerns.
Mientree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 9:46 am   #24
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mientree View Post
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?
What about those who might qualify for PreCheck but because of a physical disability would "flunk" WBI? They are being discriminated against if they have to go through a grope each and every time they fly?

I find PreCheck totally discriminatory as well as opening up an avenue for terrorist activity. The more people who are allowed a free or semi-free pass at security, the greater the chances are that a terrorist will get through, if, indeed, there are actually any out there tyring.
gnorwost2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 10:16 am   #25
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York and Vienna
Programs: PA WorldPass Platinum, AA, DL, LH. GHA Black, SPG and HHonors Gold
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnorwost2 View Post
What about those who might qualify for PreCheck but because of a physical disability would "flunk" WBI? They are being discriminated against if they have to go through a grope each and every time they fly?
Are PreCheck lanes using WTMD or WBI? Since one can leave one's jacket and shoes on, I would assume the former but, since I haven't gone through such a lane yet (since I haven't flown out of any of the airports with PreCheck yet), I don't know first hand.
__________________
Frequent Business Traveler magazine | Travel, tech, wining and dining
The Diesel Driver | Fuel-efficient driving and travel
jspira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 10:32 am   #26
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: in the sky
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspira View Post
Are PreCheck lanes using WTMD or WBI? Since one can leave one's jacket and shoes on, I would assume the former but, since I haven't gone through such a lane yet (since I haven't flown out of any of the airports with PreCheck yet), I don't know first hand.
Most of the early reports state WTMD in use where there have been pre-check security lines available, but the TSA reserves the right to mix it up at any time. Dunno how pre-check will work for people with wheelchairs, titanium replacement parts flunking the WTMD or those with physical anomalies that alarm the AIT or those simply unable to stand and assume the position. Can a person with medical anomalies or any disability EVER be considered a trusted traveler???
loops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 1:35 pm   #27
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mientree View Post
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.
Agree. Reinforced cockpit doors, armed pilots, and complete reversal of the policy requiring passive cooperation with hijackers are good enough for me.

I am prepared to accept some incremental risk resulting from no passenger screening just as I accept many other risks in life, such as drunk drivers.
__________________
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
PoliceStateSurvivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 1:54 pm   #28
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by loops View Post
Can a person with medical anomalies or any disability EVER be considered a trusted traveler???
Not by the execrable screeners who act as if we lost bodily functions just to make them work harder.E.g., the goon at SDF who barked to his accomplice, "You got another one in the cripple lane who says he can't walk."
4nsicdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 11, 2:18 pm   #29
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN A+ w/CP, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Platinum
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mientree View Post
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?
I am not saying that you are more of a threat than I just because you travel less frequently. I am saying that I have a history, a long one, of not being a threat that statistically implies that less initial screening might be justified under a managed risk approach.

Risk mitigation based on statistical patterns is a difficult subject to discuss as there will always be those whose statistics put them in a less favorable point on the range of values that determines the assumed statistical level of risk.

Yet, if we agree that we should do screening more efficiently, that we should not treat everyone as terrorists, and that some mitigation of risk is in order, that will be the result. Some people will be seen as statistically more favorable than others based on historical patterns.

Boiled down to its fundamentals, there are only three ways of applying security, all can be done with various levels of fervor. One, we assume everyone is nefarious and take steps to assure that they are not (current). Two we assume everyone is safe and take steps to determine those that may be unsafe (What we had in the past). Three, assign various individual levels of risk and response based on historical and statistical patterns (what we are discussing).

I do not see myself as qualifying anytime soon, so it is just a discussion topic for me. My primary carrier (WN) is not part of any of the trials. The primary airport I use and most of my destinations are not major hubs, which also seems to be the focus.

Furthermore, I do not really care. I have adapted to the current regimen and am surviving just fine. I am not asking for changes.
__________________
The Consultant's Dilemma: You can't tell a man he has an ugly baby.
InkUnderNails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 11, 3:37 pm   #30
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by SATTSO View Post
I know many FT members on the TS/S site contact their Congress person to protest/complain about TSA, but here is what Sen. Boxer thinks of this program.

http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/110911.cfm
Senator Boxer does not speak for me, furthermore she doesn't represent my state.

I don't believe in providing more info to big brother (or big Sis Napolitano).

I'd be happy if the TSA budget was cut in half and a number of programs (i.e. BDO) eliminated.
__________________
-- Aviation News & Travel Blog --
SDF_Traveler is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:22 am.