Originally Posted by
SATTSO
Again, those policies allow for 2 different things to happen: the passenger/parent to say they are under a certain age, without providing proof, and the screener to, lets say, guess, the age (and I can tell you most if not all screeners guess in favor of the child).
So all the proof is that a policy like this works.
Agreed in general. I've heard a lot of TSA horror stories, but I don't recall one where a 15-17 year old was hassled by a TDC for not having ID. If there aren't any, then maybe TSA is doing that right. If it were common, I think we would have heard about it.
Originally Posted by
SATTSO
I will point out one thing, which almost none of you will like: there are major changes like this coming under RBS. Many of you have talked about how the tides of public opinion are turning against TSA. Whether or not that is true, programs like this, when they go national, will do much to improve TSAs image - even if you do not like such policy.
...
It is clear that what Pistole is doing is ensuring the continuation of TSA as a government agency.
This will be interesting. TSA history would suggest that RBS would mean the current level of screening for everyone and
more screening for those deemed risky. E.g., if the BDO doesn't like your answers, micro-expressions, or non-answers, you get sent for a full secondary. But this MCO policy may signal an inflection point toward using RBS to reduce screening, and it's becoming clear that TSA is worried about the bad PR it gets from overzealous screening.
If RBS changes mean that the vast majority of people (i.e., 95%+) get substantially less invasive screening, then that could help TSA from a PR standpoint and make it easier to dismiss complaints from civil-liberties activists.
But it's going to be a very hard balance to strike. If the new policies can be perceived, even falsely, as racial/ethnic/religious profiling, TSA will get in huge trouble from identity-based civil rights groups that have a lot of clout with politicians and the courts. TSA has mostly avoided this problem by treating everyone equally badly; any RBS changes will remove that cover.
Realistically, and I'll get called a racist for this, I don't see how any RBS that reduces screening for many or most people will not result in foreign citizens, men 18-35 or so, and yes, Muslims, getting more screening than others. Even if you use non-racial, non-gender, non-age, non-ethnic, non-religious criteria for the RBS, any policy that doesn't result in increased screening for these groups is more likely to miss the terrorists, because that's who the terrorists have mostly been. The USA won't stomach that kind of profiling, regardless of how effective it is or is not at reducing overzealous screening or catching terrorists. If RBS ends up targeting conservatives ("right-wing gun loving extremists", pro-life activists, etc.) when a Democrat is President and liberals ("eco terrorists", racial/ethnic-group activists) when a Republican is President, that won't fly either.
If the new policies only reduce screening for a small or moderate percentage of passengers or rely on a trusted traveler program requiring invasive background checks, I don't think they will help the PR issue much. Particularly if people are perceived as being ineligible or flunking the background check for racial, ethnic, religious, monetary (bad credit report), or lifestyle (transient with no fixed address) reasons.
I also don't see how, given the TSA mentality, management or the screeners will be able to stomach reduced screening for any large number of people. TSA mentality seems based on treating every passenger as a likely terrorist and every bag as likely WEI. Changing that is a huge paradigm shift.