nrgiii

My name is on the selectee list and that has happened to me. And no I'm not in favor of what the TSA is trying to do. My argument is with those who say checking ID can never make us safer. I say it can if it was done correctly. Unfortunately that is not happening now and isn't likely to any time soon.

Read my other posts again. The examples I gave were those convicted of committing a crime.

leandrorar

If I tell a TSO that I think their policies are pure BS or if I show them the middle finger, will I get arrested?

Superguy

This is different than customs and immigration though. You're just asking for admission to the US which they can't deny you anyway. The whole Nexus thing is to determine that there wouldn't be any issues that would warrant further processing. Customs would handle the other issues.

Why should someone who refuses to subject themselves to such a scheme be harassed by TSA and get a more intensive screening than someone who does? I'm no more of a bad guy than you are, and I travel frequently too.

Reason I bring this up: there are parts of the government that prohibit employees and contractors from participating in things like this for what should be obvious reasons. Of course, these people have had much more extensive background checks than any of these services have/would offer. If they can be trusted by the government to handle classified information, why shouldn't they be trusted to get on a plane without a hassle because they don't do a Nexus type scheme?

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of malicious breeches are caused by insiders. This would also be possible with such trusted travelers. We see how well it works with TSA's "background checks."

You can't give passes on screening based on trust. It's been violated too often and provides a hole you can drive a mack truck thru. If the pre-9/11 screening is good enough for these people, it's good enough for everyone else. Otherwise, screening people differently adds a vector to get something thru.

I agree with you a lot, but I can't agree with you on this one.

We're a nation of equals. TSA should harass everyone equally or not at all.

Superguy

And shouldn't happen anytime ever.

Didn't seem clear. At any rate, those that have travel restrictions placed on them are done thru the court system and are monitored anyway thru release programs as mandated by the judicial system. If a person has paid their debt to society, then they shouldn't be harassed anymore.

That's like getting harassed for something done 30-40 years ago in college (say disorderly conduct or something) and paying the price forever. Canada denies entry for relatively minor convictions and it's a real pain to deal with (check the threads on it). I don't want to see that happen here for domestic movement.

chollie

Depending on the TSO (and the LEO who might be summoned), quite possibly, especially for the latter. You would risk being 'charged' with something like 'interfering with the screening process' (traumatizing a TSO's tender sensibilities).

bocastephen

All good points - but with the TSA seemingly focused on all things "identity" (instead of what's in the bag), this permits a simple way to validate identity and offer a streamlined (but still effective) screening option. Nexus works because enforcement comes in the form of spot checks - fail a spot check and not only is your Nexus access gone, but you can go on a Customs 'watch' list as well.

I agree that for 9 years and some 7 BILLION dollars, we should have effective, simplified walk through and carry-on scanning machines that quickly and safely identify the contents of electronics, liquids, shoes and torsos - so screening can be 100x more effective than pre-9/11 while taking no more and possibly even less time to execute.

The problem is the TSA has squandered much of that money on useless efforts and false starts. At this point they have nothing left but the 'Identity' angle.

goalie

emphasis mine: the only way this works is if...

• the no-phly list is accurate (yeah, right)
• the no-phly lists prevents (n.b. prevents) a person on said list from buying any ticket unless they show up in person (no on-line, no travel agent, etc)
• airline reservations systems (including those from travel agents and other booking sources) must be able to "talk to the no-phly list" to force the suspected (n.b. suspected) person to purchase in person.

now with those 3 simple things being said....

it ain't never ever ever gonna happen as our gub'ment is too stoopit to see it that way

FWAAA

I prefer a t-shirt with the following message:

F&$# the DraftTSA

There's a Supreme Court case nearly on point.

Global_Hi_Flyer

IAD.

Why am I not surprised? Aside from the TSA issues, I've run across the rudest CBP folks there of anywhere.

PTravel

In the interest of accuracy, this should read:

"Knowing the name in which a ticket was bought does not make a flight safer."

n4zhg

And submit to a body cavity search to get on a commercial aircraft. Remember the movie "Con Air"? That's how TSA wants to control airline passengers: Orange jumpsuits, chained to your seats, having to beg to use the toilet. And if you've said anything against DHS or the current administration, that's who the on-board chain-link cages are for.

jkhuggins

No. Because I think the notion of a "no-fly" list is fundamentally flawed ... at least, as currently constituted.

We are a nation of due process, of laws, and of balanced justice. The concept of a no-fly list, as currently constituted, does not seem to me to be compatible with those principles.

• Determining who is placed on the list is done in secret, by persons unknown, for reasons unknown. A person placed on the list has no ability to know whether they are even on the list. This seems to me to contradict the Fifth Amendment's protections regarding due process under the law.
• Once on the list, it's not clear how to get off the list. Certainly this is important for decisions made in error. But even for those who may have committed suspicious acts at one time, is there no room for redemption? The Eight Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments" for crimes; is it appropriate to ban a seventy year old nun from flying on commercial aircraft because she was present at a protest rally in the 60s? Even for "real" crimes, we understand that once imprisonment, and perhaps probation, have concluded, in most cases the prisoner is free to resume their life without restriction.

So ... I'm not sure that the notion of an "accurate NF list" even makes any sense. Unless you turn that into a "list of people with judicially-issued restraining orders prohibiting air travel" ... which is a much different concept.

ND Sol

Then I guess under your standard the Chairwoman of the US House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection (yes, the House committee that oversees the TSA) should not ever be allowed to fly.

cepheid

On the other hand, those seats looked bigger, and with more legroom, than most standard Economy-class seats...

Bad marketing. It would sell much better if you called it the "airy private suite."

nrgiii

A member of congress behaving badly? Hard to believe.

I wouldn't say Sheila belongs on the NFL because she wasn't convicted of an offense. That said, I have no problem with CO refusing to fly anyone who behaves that way.