Originally Posted by
Mientree
Can't believe I'm about to say this... but,
"A terrorist would never think of [the above]." Right? or, perhaps "A terrorist would never figure how to use someone that does qualify by [the above]."
Having said that... <runs off to bathroom to shower>... as I personally despise the constitutionally deteriorating methods that TSA uses - and would rather take my chances on an airplane where no passenger screening has occured than to go through the current procedures. ...
While I could agree that you are most likely not a threat to aviation security - it does not mean that I or anyone else is more of a threat just because we fly less than others.
In my opinion, there are all sorts of issues with the program... a government agency forcing people to pay and provide personal information to be allowed to avoid certain procedures, any of which are questionable for constitutionality, just to travel; is wrong on so many levels that I'm at a loss for where to begin.
I guess to start, similar to what others have pointed out, why should the person who flies for the first time in their life to go on a trip with their spouse be considered any more of a threat than a person who flies every single day of the year?
I am not saying that you are more of a threat than I just because you travel less frequently. I am saying that I have a history, a long one, of not being a threat that statistically implies that less initial screening might be justified under a managed risk approach.
Risk mitigation based on statistical patterns is a difficult subject to discuss as there will always be those whose statistics put them in a less favorable point on the range of values that determines the assumed statistical level of risk.
Yet, if we agree that we should do screening more efficiently, that we should not treat everyone as terrorists, and that some mitigation of risk is in order, that will be the result. Some people will be seen as statistically more favorable than others based on historical patterns.
Boiled down to its fundamentals, there are only three ways of applying security, all can be done with various levels of fervor. One, we assume everyone is nefarious and take steps to assure that they are not (current). Two we assume everyone is safe and take steps to determine those that may be unsafe (What we had in the past). Three, assign various individual levels of risk and response based on historical and statistical patterns (what we are discussing).
I do not see myself as qualifying anytime soon, so it is just a discussion topic for me. My primary carrier (WN) is not part of any of the trials. The primary airport I use and most of my destinations are not major hubs, which also seems to be the focus.
Furthermore, I do not really care. I have adapted to the current regimen and am surviving just fine. I am not asking for changes.