Bicostal

Absent data of reduced risk, the assigned risk is the population risk. It's math. The FF status has been determined by those who make the decision regarding risk to be evidence of membership in a lower risk cohort.

That's why it is acceptable. Whether or not you agree with the metric is a matter of opinion, not math.

Like I said, my opinion is that the entire system is a CF. that doesn't change anything in the math underlying probability theory.

cbn42

So just to clarify, do you agree with the use of probability theory to discriminate against groups of travelers? By discriminate I mean put them through more rigorous screening or make them pay to avoid it.

I'm talking about groups, not individuals.

Boggie Dog

I never claimed that the risk is zero, I said the risk approaches nil. That theory is supported by the sheer volume of travelers versus terrorist events.

The risk of getting to the airport from your home or business is many times more risky than any flight you may be on but you apparently accept that risk or you wouldn't be a frequent flyer.

We all know that there is risk in flying and there is always a chance that the plane will crash for some reason. I accept that risk as the cost of the convenience of travel as do the other 1.6 million air passengers who fly by commercial air each day. If anyone thinks flying is absolutely safe then they are only fooling themselves.

When a person purchases a ticket to fly their name and other personal information is processed through government databases to determine if that name is on any watch list. If not a ticket is allowed to be purchased. If the name is on a watch list then several things may happen up to not being able to fly at all.

I submit that government has sufficient data on most travelers to already determine risk and can also determine what level of screening each person needs. Only those with no history need intense screening which would be satisfied with current standard TSA screening as a starting point. All others should receive the minimum level of screening deemed acceptable which at this time is Pre Check. Pre Check should be the default level of screening for everyone excepting those people who cannot be vetted.

We seem to differ only in how to complete the task.

I believe that government currently has the information to safely screen the vast majority of people with Pre Check level screening and would in turn realize efficiencies in both cost and manpower by doing so.

You seem to think, if I understand your position, that doing so would cost more and passengers should bear that cost.

I clearly disagree with your position assuming I do understand your point.

Bicostal

Absolutely - except its not the pejorative "discriminatory" but rather the more appropriate - differentiation. As for "those who pay for it" that too is incorrect. It is NOT about BUYING access, its about proving eligibility for reduced screening. Huge difference.

This is how it works - and we do it this way in medicine all the time.

You have a population of travelers - based on prior experience, we believe that at some time or another one or more of them is a Bad Guy. Without any additional information, all passengers are screened at a single level - Level X - since this has been predetermined to be the way to achieve te required AIR TRAVEL SAFETY (ATS) - a level of safety deemed necessary by society. The sum of the risk times the membership adjusted for the sensitivity of the screening used equals the acceptable risk to achieve ATS when Security is Level X.

We recognize that the relative risk is variable - it is differentiable - when we have additional information. We can divide - that is differntiate - the population into smaller Cohorts - Call them A, B and C, and assign to the Cohort a "bad guy" risk that is less than the population risk.

Therefore, to maintain the exact same ATS, one can reduce security Level from X to some lower version, call them Y and Z for Cohorts B and C. Cohort A, the remaining population, continues to get security Level X.

The key is in the additional information you have about Cohorts B and C - in the presence of that information the lower level security is justified mathematically, in the absence of it, it is not. It isn't about the individual and their TRUE state - Good Guy or Bad Guy - its about the probability of that individual being a Good Guy or Bad Guy. And it doesn't matter what the distribution of Good Guys and Bad Guys is as long as neither is zero.

Passenger #1 shows up at security for screening. He is of unknown rsik. We assign the unbiased population risk A to this individual and subject him to Security Level X.

Passenger #2 presents at security. He is a member of Cohort B in that he has that evidence (he's a FF and it says so on his boarding pass). He is now afforded security screening at Level Y.

Passenger #3 shows up. He is a member, by proper documentation and evidence, of Cohort C. He gets security screening at Level Z.

Passenger #1 complains - why didn't I get Level Y or Z screening, I'm no more a risk than either Passenger #2 or Passenger #3?

Whether or not he is correct in his self assessment of cohort membership, absent additional data, it doesn't really matter what he thinks. For society to achieve their expected ATS, he needs to undergo Level X - its the math.

Now, Passenger #1 has options. He can avail himself of the various methods to document his membership in a lower risk cohort. He can produce a FF card and be "invited" by his airline. He can, as I have done, submit a set of data to CBP which then is authenticated and be documented as a lower risk (GE). Going forward it appears that GE-lite will be put in place for certain other possibly qualified travellers.

The cost of providing this documentation and assessment to be made regarding membership of any individual in the lower risk cohort is born by the applicant. It comes in the form of a user fee.

One CANNOT buy Precheck - one can apply for Precheck and pay the administrative fee for TSA/CBP to determine if the individual meets criteria for membership in this lower risk cohort.

Its all about the math.

Bicostal

I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer. The risk is non zero. To reduce the risk requires security. The amount is inconsequential for this argument. Absent additional information the risk presented is indistinguishable between individuals requiring that the same screening standards be applied. The presence of additional data that documents lower risk allows for lower levels of security. The individual can provide these data. The cost of providing these data and the incremental cost of determining their veracity should be born by the applicant in the form of a user fee.

Clear enough?

Boggie Dog

Perfectly clear, just wrong.

Let's take it point by point so I can make it clearer.

The risk is non zero but almost nil.

Agree that to reduce risk takes security but not necessarily only at the airport by passenger screening workers. Intelligence is a very important component to security. The question is how to deploy security and I believe that TSA has it wrong on every level.

The amount of security is not inconsequential for this argument, it is the core issue.

The risk can already be determined between individuals because government has already collected data on most people traveling allowing for a risk determination when an airline ticket is purchased. The additional information you seem focused on is currently in governments hands. The individual has no need to provide additional data except in cases where government does not have records on a certain individual.

There is no increased cost except for a very small minority of individuals. This increased cost is offset by the savings realized by screening the majority of people with streamlined screening processes.

In short the information is already in government hands to allow more streamlined screening for the majority of travelers. This is good for the traveler and the security apparatus. It could reduce cost, manpower needs, and improve security by focusing attention on those people who are unknown to government.

Clear enough?

Bicostal

Interesting - How is the concept of non-zero risk = security required wrong?

How is risk B < risk A = security Y < security X wrong?

Its math - I have not infered any definitional constraints on what we use to define either the risk, the traveler, or the security. You can define each any way you like, as long as the equations are not compromised. You spend a huge amout of effort arguing that when risk = A, security = precheck

So what? If thats how you feel - I'm good with it. The only conditional is that if risk B < risk A, then security B < precheck. Or if you prefer, if risk B > risk A, then security > precheck. It doesn't matter either way and the number of residents in A or B risk categories is inconsequential as well - as long as one has two categories the math works just fine.

I really don't care if its almost nil, almost guaranteed or somewhere in between - the ONLY conditional is that RISK > 0 and that is what has been agreed.

So we agree - the actual parameters of Security Level X, Y or Z are important in HOW we assure the required amount of societal AIR TRAVEL SAFETY (ATS). In the proposition, what X, Y or Z are is entirely inconsequential. You can make them whatever you want just as long as X>Y>Z.

Exactly - that's called INFORMATION. And that is my argument exactly. If you know something - if you have additioanl data - if you have more information about Passenger #1, you can better assign the relative risk that he is Good or Bad.

Again, this is immaterial to the poposition. We are stuck with what we have but it doesn't matter. The question is conceptual in that security is now being bifurcated - LOW and HIGH risk and as a result we also have LOW and HIGH intensity procedures, e.g. WTMD versus MMW plus all the other things associated with precheck and non precheck. Whether or not this meets YOUR criterion for what's best, again, is immaterial. It is what it is but the arguments I present are independent of where you draw the line - it simply requires that there exists a line somewhere - you are free to draw it wherever you want.

The amount of ATS is perhaps not inconsequential BUT the process - that is the amount of security is completely inconsequential. As long as we have differential risk then we can rationalize differential procedures and as long as the sum of the risks meets the ATS criterion.

It is immaterial how you operational define the procedures. One could suggest that we should have pre-check for high risk and only random ID checks for low risk. We could just as eaily put all high risk on the no fly list and put all low risk on Naked Airlines.

It doesn't really mater what you believe is "appropriate" just that there are differences in risk and one can differentiate level of security accordingly. Otherwise, everyone needs to be screened at the exact same level of security - the exact same procedures must be applied to each and every traveler. Before precheck that was the case. Soon after 9/11 exceptions were being made - air crew had different procedures, then BKSX in and then out, then elderly and children exempted, and now trusted travelers and frequent fliers. Differen processes depending on some assessment of relative risk.

You are one scary guy if you believe that.

However, to a certain extent existing (albeit limited) data are being used to assign risk. FF passengers are assigned to the low risk, non-FF are assigned to the high risk. GE versus non-GE same thing. There are also intricacies with the SSSS system, etc. based on other characteristics (my understanding anyway), so TSA is already using these data.

I'm not focused on any particular information - I simply described the GE process as an example of what additional information is made available by the applicant. Do you believe that the DHS can match your employment data with your tax records with your drivers license data with your residency data with your travel history with your marriage status with your passport photo with your criminal record.....and so on? Do you believe they are doing this already? Do you wear tin foil hats? (just kidding aout the hat.)

Currently, when you buy an airline ticket the TSA gets your name, gender, home address, and birthdate - plus your FF # and TT # if you have one and your passport if traveling internationally. Do you really want them to have more? I dont. Whether or not I can stop them is an unknown.....

Fine - no problem for me. I have an anecdote that suggests the CBP cannot get certain information unless it is volunteered and verified by documents only the individual can provide such as DL data, employment, financials, etc., but if you are of the opinion that TSA knows your underwear size, so be it.

It still makes a little bit of sense to me, to at least to allow individuals to CHOOSE if they want the government to invade their privacy by actually running a background check without cause. If you believe they do have this capability and it SHOULD be routine as part of TSA screening, then I am worried about you.

Its inconsequential - you can readily bundle the entire package of costs into the user fees assigned to the airline ticket. I just found it expedient that assignment to the lower risk strata is not cost free and the cost ought to be born by the beneficiary. You argue that it ought to be bundled into the tickets and that you pay regardless of what happens or if you even want it.

I'm not entirely sure that the government has the depth of data or sophistication to run background checks on everyone as routine - but in any case, doing so is certainly not cost free. At minimum SOMEONE has to review the output. Whether it's done on request per application or as routine, its not free.

Sure - you made a very nice argument for 1. complete government intrusion into your underwear whether you like it or not and 2. the government can do things for free that would otherwise cost the private sector money to do.

It still doesn't change anything.

Note the highlight and underline in your statement above and follow along.

All you have done is moved the line - you have made pre check standard EXCEPT for those who need more screening. Thats no different than saying that MMW is standard EXCEPT for those who need less screening. You drew the line of precheck at the routine whereas currently TSA draws the routine line at the MMW. What TSA doesn't do is try and identify a priori if someone is a greater risk but rather allows those who are a lower risk to prove it.

I never bothered to draw a line - I simply said it exists.

Still leaves us with the dilemma of who is the "majority" and how do we decide if you're in or out.

And most interestingly is your comment as follows "....improve security by focusing attention on those people who are unknown to government."

sounds a whole lot like this: ".....focus our resources on those passengers who could pose a higher risk, ..."

Same idea or not?

Bottom line - differential risk exists and if that difference is reliably assignable then it can be used to differentiate screening "intensity." The onous of who gets lower risk is placed on the applicant and requires confirmation by the TSA. Securty is not cost free and user fees are the process by which the government has decided is the method to pay for it. Processing low risk applications has a cost. Whether or not the TSA has been successful in executing its fiduciary responsibility is questionable but again, inconsequential.

cbn42

When the government differentiates between groups of people based on statistical data, that is called discrimination.

For example, if a black person and a white person show up to a gun shop to buy guns, the government cannot charge the black person more for the NICS check, even if they have perfectly valid statistics to show that he is a greater risk for criminal behavior.

You still haven't answered my hypothetical about Muslims in post 144.

I completely understand the math, so no need to explain it to me. The point I am trying to make is that the government is required to be fair and equitable to everyone, and cannot discriminate (or "differentiate") among its citizens, even if they have the "math" to back it up.

Bicostal

Only in cases where the "group" is a protected class - and as such, there are no statistics required. And this is specific to EEOC. But all that aside...it isn't relevant.

In the case of "Muslims," can TSA use that group membership (or religion in general) as a criterion for non-eligibility for precheck? Was that your question? I imagine that they wouldn't but it is an open question. In no case am I advocating the use of religious affiliation as a criterion - my assertion is that its based on statistical risk and ONLY to allocate individuals to risk groups.

And it doesn't and neither does CBP under the auspices of GE - which, by the way is the only relevant example we can draw from in this instance.

If you want GE - you submit your application and pay a fee. Whether or not you are approved is an entirely different matter.

I believe I have - but in any case - religious affiliation is a protected class. I was not asked my religious affilitation in the GE application. The government, though with the EEOC exception isn't required to follow the various Titles under the Civil Rights Act and its derivations and extensions - and in the case of National Security has a tremendous amount of leaway. For the record - I dont agree with this. It is the reality, unfortunately. However - one more time - using protected class membership as a criterion for APPROVAL of applications is problematic for US citizens. I have far fewer qualms about non-citizens/non residents.

And in the case of application and eligibility for Precheck, I have no evidence, nor do you, that the government discriminates against any protected class.

What class gets their application processed for free and what class pays?

My argument is ONE MORE TIME -

A non zero risk exists in AIR TRAVEL SECURITY. Because of this, SECURITY processes are required. All passengers presenting at security have an equal risk of beign a Bad Guy absent any additional information or data. As such, all passenger should be exposed to the same level of SECURITY. In the presence of additional information, the risk of an individual passenger may be less than the next passenger in line because of the statistical association between the evidence and its outcome as determined by someone - whether or not you believe, agree, or support this is immaterial.

Therefore, providing two levels of security - HIGH and LOW is supported since ATS is ensured at the level required under this "discrimination." [what makes the race card so damned attractive anyway?]

The evidence of membership in HIGH or LOW is a necessary precondition for assigment to HIGH or LOW. The cost of such determination is born by the individual seeking this assignment. Thats called USER FEES.

Who is getting precheck for free from the feds because they aren't the "right" class?

Please......inquiring minds whant to know.

RandomBaritone

Of course it can! It does so all the time! The only time discrimination is illegal or inappropriate is if it's against a member of a protected class solely because the party is a member of that class.

But, to take only one obvious example, TSA can decide to discriminate against anyone under 75 and make them remove their shoes before flying, while waiving that requirement for those over 75. Perfectly permissible.

Fredd

Why?

Bicostal

Because age is only a protected class under title Vii of EEOC ?

Because elderly are a lower risk?

Because it makes screening slower?

Why not?

And it's not discrimination, its differentiation.

cbn42

Yes, that was my question. Are you saying that it's an open question whether or not the government can charge people fees based on their religion?

Why? Non-citizens and non-residents, while present on US soil, have the same constitutional protections as citizens.


Age is considered a protected class in certain circumstances.

I also have observed that women are more likely to be sent through WTMD than men, if traveling with kids.


I assume you meant to say "are" in the right class. Many people get precheck for free because they are in a certain class: those over 70, those who fly often enough, those with certain "injuries", and so on.

Fredd

Yes, you have elaborated on my question. Differentiating (or do I mean discriminating since they are synonyms in real life? ) between discrimination and differentiation fails to persuade me as to the appropriateness of the TSA's actions.

The poster whom I quoted above presumably meant the TSA "may decide" rather than "can decide." Unfettered and unchallenged bureaucracies tend to blur that distinction in any case, and relying on legal interpretations of words as interpreted by this era's robed priest class of judges reassures me as to the rightness of a given action no more than Humpty Dumpty's various proclamations. To that poster I also suggest there can be a vast gulf between actions that are technically legal and actions that are appropriate.

Taking a step back from the statistics and reliance on the mot juste exactly as lawyers "choose it to mean — neither more nor less" for a moment, the simple fact remains that certain identifiable groups, e.g. the young and an accompanying parent, the elderly, the afflicted, the employees, the frequent flyer trusted traveler, and now the 85-dollar trusted traveler, are generally subjected to less screening than others.

Taking all of the bureaucracy's previous warnings at face value, it seems IMHO that if any terrorists are looking for willing, unwilling, or even unknowing "mules," these groupings give them a good start. YMMV.

Bicostal

It is NOT what I said at all.

The challenge you continue to face is the process of applying and being approved for precheck - versus the criteria for being selected as low risk.

There are only two current and soon to be three ways to get precheck access - though we all know you may not always be able to use the precheck screening process on any given day..

1. you are a FF with a partnered airline
2. you participate in one of the three CBP Trusted Traveler Programs

The TSA has announced there will be a third method to qualify for precheck and that is by submitting to a background check - in the apparently same way GE is run with maybe some exceptions/nuances we dont know about yet.

If you go route 1, you, as the individual are not required to pay an additonal administrative fee to the TSA. The cost of determining eligibility in the program is born by the airline and is provided to you as part of their loyalty program - hust as Delta gives me free SkyClub access, free upgrades, and free EC seating and so on....The TSA gets my data that I qualify based on the agreed criteria and I am screened accordingly.

In option 2, if you fail to qualify under the FF criterion of acceptance you can apply via the trusted traveler program. In this instance, the TSA is required to ensure eligibility and part of the process is, apparently, a background check. As opposed to having general revenue tax dollars pay to administer the process, the TSA passes the cost to the applicant.

Once you have applied - you are NOT guaranteed of being accepted as a Trusted Traveler and your fee is non-refundable. You are NOT buying precheck - you are requesting pre-check and paying a fee to have that request actioned to a YES or NO answer. If you are Muslim or not, it makes no difference - you will pay the application fee under Method #2.

You do not pay for #2 if you qualify under method #1. It matters not your race, religion, national origin - just be a frequent flier (and I do believe there's some sort of US resident criterion - not exactly sure). Not a FF -pay the application fee and you too can be considered for membership in the precheck club. Just as a wrinkly, AMEX card holders of particular card colors also get "free" #2.

Perhaps and perhaps not - I've never seen a citizen deported but its immaterial in any case. Citizenship is apparently a criterion for Trusted Traveler eligibility with a few exceptions under NEXUS and SENTRI. The CBP has determined and executed on a range of procedures (visas and I94 forms, etc) to secure the borders. TSA has done the same, apparently. Citizenship is not one of the handful of "protected class" distinctions.

its Title VII of the EEOC regs - it applies to employment. I have not observed the elderly getting free GE or paying extra to get it.

Children 12 and under (or is it under 12) are NOT required to use NoS screening. The TSA permits ONE parent to accompnay a child through the WTMD as part of the screening process. If both parents are present with only one child, then the parents decide who goes with the child. This is NOT the same as PreCheck.

This is factiually wrong - NO one gets Precheck without meeting Method #1 or Method #2 above - and soon a Method #3 which is similar to #2 but for those not having a passport.

The elderly get modified security based on TSA policy - they do NOT get free precheck.

The disabled and those with "medical opt outs" generally get secondary patdowns since they cannot pass the WTMD successfully or participate pysically in the NoS process. They are not Precheckers and likely, if they were eligible and participated it wouldnt help them anyway as they would fail WTMD in either line. As for the medical opt outs (cannot raise arms above head) WTMD is the option though secondary screening happens.

Are you satisfied yet?

To participate in precheck requires that the individual present with a lower level of risk for being a bad guy. There are two ways to do this - FF or GE and soon to be GE-lite. The cost of FF eligibility is born by the airline and provded as a perk to their frequent fliers. The cost of determining eligibility is born by the airline. Esablishing lower risk via GE requires a an application and background check. The individual bears the cost of preparing the application and the CDP the cost of executing on the application to determine its status - accept or reject. The CBP requires the applicant to pay this cost through the user fee process.

Protected classes under the contex of discrimination laws have no role in this. Any American can particpate in Precheck if they qualify according to the rules. Every American participating through GE pays the administrative cost of this. Every American who qualifies under FF prgrams has the administrative costs of that method paid by their airline as a perk for being a loyal and frequent flier.

I get free SkyClub access when I travel on Delta - you dont but if you want, for $50 you can go in. Is this discriminatory? Of course not.

AMEX pays for my GE entry application fee. Discriminatory? Of course not.

Muslims pay $200 for processing and Agnostics pay $50. Is this discriminatory? Probably - but it doesn't happen that way and you know it.

It's a very simple process. And it all comes back to - PROVE TO ME YOU ARE LESS OF A RISK TO BE A BAD GUY AND ILL MAKE THE PROCESS SIMPLER. IF YOU CANT, YOU GET THE FULL MONTE.