I do think there is an opportunity here, and it ought to merit some reasoned discussion.

Personally, I'd reset the risk/intrusion calculation. The public does not understand that if you are going to be in a fight you are going to take a punch from time to time, and if you are not willing to take that punch you need to stay out of the fight.

The public also seems unable to grasp that no one is going to a commandeer an in-flight aircraft and use it as a projectile weapon ever again. A hardened cockpit door, and passenger and crew awareness of the new threat preclude that. But, anyone who thinks that in a world of 6 billion there isn't someone out there who wants to go out in a blaze of glory (probably using explosives) and take 1-500 passengers with them is also kidding themsleves. Yesterday's news.

I personally recognize and accept that we can't run that risk down to 0, and I do not want to try. If we pretend that the only acceptable outcome is that no one ever succeeds then we define a game that we are sure to lose (I can beat Kobe Bryant at one-on-one if the rule is we play until I score, it does not matter how many times he scores, and I get to inbound the ball whenever I want; you get the idea). I understand this but the "public" seems not to. And Congress either does not understand it or does not want to acknowledge it, so they play to the fearful. TSA fears being called on the carpet for a security "failure" way more than having to respond to inquiries about nude-o-scopes and grandma's diaper.

We live in a representative democracy/republic and the risk benefit decision is not going to be made (and can't be negotiated) at the screening point, or administratively by TSA (for whom all the incentives now point to "more security/more intrusion), That calculus, if it is reset, needs to be reset by Congress. I am not holding my breath, though I'll continue to work for it. Anyone who thinks the courts will put a stop to this is dreaming, please review the last 40 year of 4th amendment jurisprudence - after wars on crime, drugs and tewwowism, there is not much 4th amendment left. (IAAL!).

So here we are, and for the time being we have to make the best of what we have. The focus needs to be on people, not stuff. And yes, I recognize that as a white, middle aged guy my demographic is definitely not low risk (look at the last 50 years of aviation security hijacks and attempts, and incidents of domestic (and recent Scandanavian) tewwowism.)

We all know the current system is a kabuki dance - just look at how many airport employees and flight crew a day pass with minimal or no screening. Ya' think maybe one of them out there can be subverted or blackmailed? That someone can be induced to bring a pound or so of PETN or C-4 (maybe they don't even know what it is, fastened to the underside of that cart that just rolled through the WTMD) to the sterile side? And we are going through shoe carnivals, nude-o-scopes (that cost millions) and making sure teenage girls don't sneak cosmetics aboard. Doh. Just look at the number of potential "weapons" you can find airside at a terminal. Whatajoke the whole thing is. AQ is laughing their axxxx off in some cave, as millions go through this nonsense at an expense of millions of dollars a day, and all we have done is told them "bring your bad stuff through somewhere other than the checkpoint, on your body."

If we are going to refocus on people (all the people, not just pax) we need to understand what that means. We will get more privacy in our bodies and belongings, and maybe less intrusion and time wasted, but. . . .we are going to have to share some information about ourselves. What is really needed is a discussion about what information is to be shared, for what purpose it will be used, how long it will be kept around, and who will have access to it. Our friends in Europe share a lot of information with their governments but they have a pretty good rule set that means that most of it can't be kept around indefinitely in the giant database of everything and everyone We don't do that here. What information is collected is likely to be kept for as long as the collector wants and used for whatever purpose they want. While the FBI may be limited on what they can keep about you, they really don't care, because Choice Point's successors have no limits, and for $50 or whatever, the FBI can order it up, probably in near-real-time. Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to rein in the private data collectors, though I'm not counting on it. Still, if you think that big brother does not already know (or can't find out at low cost) where you go or what you do, how you spend, where you live, etc., think again. That train left a long time ago. So let's talk about how to better regulate the information collection, and use it to increase both security and decrease intrusion.

Purpose matters. I can see it now - it's only a matter of time before some do-gooders propose that we cross airline bookings with something like child support defaults (it always starts with deadbeat dads- that's how the cross reference between drivers licenses and social security numbers was built), so we can have them picked up for non-support at the checkpoint. Then law enforcement will want the database run against all outstanding warrants. Next, the anti-immigrant crowd will want to demand proof of ss# or immigration status to book a ticket, else you will be picked up and/or refused access). The beat will go on because for every capability, someone will want to assert a "power." And then, we really will have a police state. Let's see if we can get in on the front end and come up with something that limits the use of the information provided to fly to making a decision on the appropriate level of screening, and for no other purpose.

We are also going to have to replace "interchangeable part" screeners who mindlessly follow "policy" with people with a little more training, talent,and judgment. Might not need so many, and there will be more in the back office looking at information and fewer on the front looking for stuff, but it will be a huge culture change. Some people may lose their jobs and some people will need to be paid more. Always a tough one when dealing with government.

My point is that much as I'd like the current system to go away and revert to pre 9-11 with better cockpit doors, there is "0" chance of that happening, and whatever will happen, will have to happen in Congress. And lest you think I'm soft on fighting TSA, I fully support the (mostly symbolic so far) efforts of state legislatures to push back on more intrusive screening, and publicity of each and every abuse. So long as people wish to oppose it peacefully (talk on this board and elsewhere about violence toward TSA screeners is inappropriate and hurts the cause, no matter what you think of being fondled), that's great. And to the extent we can get the state and local law enforcement pushing back, that's great. But, in the meantime . . .

Politics is the art of the possible. Let's come off of some of the more doctrinaire positions, try to change things in Congress, and in the meantime, see how this can work better for all of us. Many of us are familiar with Bruce Schneir and his writing and criticism of TSA - I think risk based security is what it's all about. . . .

And recognize, most of the voting public flies 0-2 times per year and thinks nude-o-scopes are kind of fun. . .

Snell full coverage helmet - check. Nomex gloves and booties- check. Flame suit on and sealed - check.