Originally Posted by TSAMGR
Again, how would it be more dangerous? You threw it out there but won't back up your statement. Now you want to change the subject by stating it is a moot point.
As far as using ...ume, if you do a search you will see I use it often. It was not directed at you exclusively.
TSAMGR,
The fact that CAPPSII would make air travel more dangerous is well established. An MIT group put out a thorough analysis of many variations of the CAPPSII scheme, which analysis you can read for the mathematical details. The basic premise is that selectees under CAPPSII know that they are selectees after they get questioned and searched intensively at the airport. A group of conspirators can use that knowledge to defeat selection by sending many many members on "probing" flights to find out which of its members is a selectee and which not. Then the members who are not selectees will be the ones sent on a terrorist mission. Those members who are not selectees MUST have a lower probability of being super-screened than the CAPPSII selectees have, even if CAPPSII were to include some random mechanism for making even non-selectees occasionally get super-screened. A group of terrorists could use CAPPSII (and CAPPSI, since it works the same way with a different selection criteria) to give its bad guys the lowest possible chance of being super-screened.
On the other hand, selection utterly at random or super-screening of every passenger can't be defeated by a smart enemy.