Originally Posted by
JakiChan
Ok, but then realize that what you're saying is that you WANT the AIT/patdowns/whatever. EVERYONE gets treated as a potential terrorist. You don't get to complain when they pat down the baby or the nun or the 80 year old guy in a wheelchair or YOU. Make everyone anonymous is fine, but then everyone has to be screened as if they were OBL himself. And since we don't have the "Total Recall" type scanners yet that means you're saying you want the the continued level of TSA screening we currently have.
Which seems to be NOT what folks say in other threats. They complain about how they're not a terrorist, why do they have to go through it, etc.
It's like you're saying you want MORE screening, not less. Which makes me go
That's not what's being said at all. You're making the Kip Hawley argument.
You can make two assumptions about a person coming into a checkpoint: everyone is a suspected terrorist until proven otherwise, or everyone is presumed to be good until given reason not to be.
The former gives rise to the type of idiocy we have now. The latter still has screening, but is much more sensible and risk managed. It acknowledges that the vast majority of people are good people, just trying to get from A to B. The statistics do not show that there was a significant amount of terrorists traveling to warrant that level of search. That's CYA. The latter acknowledges the reality that there are just a handful of idiots out there and they should be dealt with as they're found, not assuming that everyone is one of those idiots. You can still screen for the basics noninvasively: bag x-ray, WTMD and puffer or dog. If there's an alarm, you now have reason to think there is something worth looking at. You don't waste your time looking for every little thing on every person and then miss what you're really looking for.
People traveled for years before 9/11 without ID checks. Planes didn't fall out of the sky. We didn't go crazy over every little thing. We trusted security to did their job and they largely did an adequate job. Even with ID checks, nothing is being proven. All TSA sees is me producing something with my name and picture and it matches a piece of paper with my name on it. Now how does that improve security at all? It's not being compared to the NFL or harassment list right there. If someone wants to travel under a different name, it's not hard at all. Buy 2 refundable tickets under different names, show TSA the one with your name and matching ID, then travel under the other. Refund the former when you're done. I'll bet you the plane doesn't fall out of the sky.
If you're looking for every little thing, you're going to cast a net so wide you'll never find what you're looking for unless you get lucky. People are imperfect and they will miss stuff. If you narrow down what you're looking for, it's much easier to focus on the truly dangerous items and find those items. The vast majority of items currently banned could be allowed on with no net loss of security. I'd argue that narrowing that list would increase security. Instead of screeners focusing on the water bottle, they might actually find a WEI instead.
You're presenting the false choice of TSA security or no security, and that's not what's being argued. Knowing who a person is, especially with how TSA implements it, doesn't change the fact that security wouldn't change whether TSA required ID or not. Many people with background checks have abused security in the past (both in TSA, airport, and government environments). Knowing who they are, and "trusting" them doesn't mean they're not a bad guy. It just means they haven't done anything to violate the trust yet. And of course, a person can do that at any time for any reason. TSA is quick to point that out whenever one of their unscreened workers does something wrong.