Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
Re-read what I wrote. What I said is that somebody who's shown they value money over lives is more likely to agree to be paid to bring something on a plane than somebody who has not shown that. I don't think that's the least bit controvercial.
Re-read what I wrote. It isn't evidence. It's an assumption you make.
Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
We're talking probabilities here. Obviously, there are people who have security clearances who've used them for espionage, but that doesn't mean that there's no purpose in doing investigations: they lower the probability that people given classified information will abuse it.
The investigations only lower the probability if they focus on the hazards that could trigger adverse events. Security investigations have been done for some time and are honed for the hazards. The links are demonstrated. I haven't heard of any similar work being done for "trusted travelers", have you? My impression is that TSA is making this up as they go along, and although they may have some causal links, they have a lot more in the way of assumptions and suppositions.
Of course, I have no way of proving that because TSA won't say what criteria they use. The program isn't transparent. For all we know they will rate people with low credit scores high enough to be groped simply because they assume a low credit score indicates a risk to aviation (after all, the person may be more likely to fall for a financial inducement!)