Originally Posted by
RadioGirl
So if her parents had a credit card, they wouldn't have groped her?
Under current policy she would have been groped. We're talking about changing that policy.
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
Of course. My point is that at the moment, "being an Alaska elected representative" doesn't exempt someone, so the (much lower bar of) "having a credit card" is not likely to exempt someone.
The key phrase here being
"at the moment". Again, under current policy, every gets screened. As we've all said, that policy is stupid.
What's also clear is that profiling based on race, religion, or country of origin has also been made unacceptable. So that's out.
How else would you suggest who to screen and who not to screen? I'm suggesting that data on passengers is a "blind" (i.e. not subject to prejudice) system that could be used to determine who gets screened and who doesn't. I'm not sure I'd want the TSA developing a system to make that determination on it's own but I think it's possible to design an open and fair system that would do so. In theory I think that one's credit history would be a valuable bit of data to throw in the hopper. I'm not saying that a lack of credit history would doom you to an anal probe but if there was an opt-in program that required this information and got me out of the NoS/grope then I would consider it.
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
They don't screen airport employees.
I was under the impression that those folks go through background checks. I could be wrong. No background check is perfect, but then I'm not sure how many cases of airport workers actively being involved in terrorism there are.
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
They don't screen TSA staff. They don't screen (as rigorously) the pilots and FAs. (I'm not endorsing more screening for flight crews; see below.)
Screening folks who have access to the flight deck (and to firearms in the case of some pilots) seems pretty dumb to me, so yeah I think screening them is a bad idea. If a pilot wants to crash the plane we're not stopping him or her from doing so with a scanner.
Unless it was a Voight-Kampff....
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
They screen all passengers at the same level, but I would argue that that level is too high.
I would agree. The question is
how to decide
which passengers get that level of screening - unless you're saying that
none should, and that we're just willing to accept the risk of suicide bombers on planes. Personally - I'm willing to accept that risk. (The same risk I accept when I get on a bus, and there have been way more cases of terrorists blowing up buses than blowing up planes.)
The old style screening - WTMD combined with x-raying your carry-on, would PROBABLY find guns. And I'm good with that. The fact is that one upside of 9/11 is that the old advice of passengers complying with terrorists demands is out the window. We're clearly the last line of defense and in a few recent cases that last line has proved effective.
A lot of the current "enhancements" seemed to be geared towards explosives detection. I'm willing to say "give up on that". Are you saying the same thing?
Guess not...
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
If you add random ETD to the above (say, every fifth passenger), I think that is significantly LESS offensive than the current policy while being at least as effective.
It would be as effective as current TSA policy - that is
not at all. "Flip a coin" isn't really a good security policy. It's still security theater. I still think the better idea is to say that suicide bombers do not represent a significant threat against aircraft, and therefore screening against them is neither effective nor prudent.
But...if we do have to decide who to screen and who not to screen then somehow doing it randomly just bugs me because the
only reason to do it randomly is to avoid offending anyone. It's not being done with any sort of analysis or intelligence because that wouldn't be politically correct. Again, it's security theater. And that's a waste of my time and my money as a taxpayer.