LuvAirFrance

Seems clear to me that the volunteer army has never been overly picky about the background of people it enlists. Wasn't there a mole in the Special Forces before 9/11? Somehow the security procedures of the military had no problem allowing that. Then the Ft Hood doctor. How many sleepers are wearing the uniform of our nation right now? Anyone care to guess? To say zero is VERY optimistic. Even people who might not have been a risk pre-2003 are potential threats now due to the rotten way our government has treated its enlistees.

I'm not confident that I know whether to screen them more carefully or less. But to say somehow being allowed to wear a uniform is tantamount to a clean bill of health is not rational in my view. On top of everything, even when the current government mustered them out, it was into a bleak civilian society. If a few are ticking time bombs, I can't even say I don't get why. I do. America is a society fertile in reasons to be very mad.

RichardKenner

Agreed. But saying that the probability that an otherwise-unknown person is a threat to aviation is lower if he's in the military than a civilian seems rational in my view.

chollie

Or it will be rolled into a new TSA-managed version of 'RealID'. Everyone will be required to have a RealID and everyone will have a 'risk score' assigned.

Unfortunately, if TSA's in charge, there will still be the problem of false/erroneous data with no recourse for the pax. And although I agree, risk assessment should be based on a total picture, positives and negatives, but I absolutely don't see that happening. Nor do I see any likelihood of being able to address (and clear up) any incorrect or mistaken information.

LuvAirFrance

A priori? Why? Some sort of hope that uniforms only go to the worthy?

OldGoat

Re-read what I wrote. It isn't evidence. It's an assumption you make.

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!)

chollie

I worry about TSA making this up as they progress. TSA hasn't exactly shown a willingness in the past to slow down and thoroughly think through new implementations or sweeping changes.

I worry that TSA will approach this with a 'risk profile' in mind. 'Negative' points will be tailored to this profile.

I worry that TSA will also (ab)use such a program by mission creep - contribute to the 'wrong' organization, register any kind of question or complaint with TSA and get labelled as 'domestic extremist' and get added to the list, 'suspect' postings on Facebook, holders of green cards - the list of 'factors' that TSA can start layering on to the program is endless.

Years ago, I worked for an insurance agency in the southwest (TX-based). We had a list of 'high-risk' occupations, folks whose business we wouldn't write at any price.

Two of those occupations were: gambler and pastor/priest. I asked why.

The answer? Gambling is a risky lifestyle associated with drug use, alcohol, dodgy characters, fiscal riskiness and a taste for 'fast living' - not a good risk behind the wheel.

Pastors and priests? The answer was that pastors/priests couldn't be relied on to keep their minds on driving. They could be driving along thinking about a parishioner with problems or composing a sermon or praying. Also, they were very risky because if they were involved in an accident, they might be took quick to accept blame.

This was part of the reference/training/underwriting manual for our company. Folks who got turned down for these occupations (or the others on the list) never knew why.

I am afraid any TSA 'trusted traveller' program will end up the same way.

I'm sure all current TSA employees would automatically be 'trusted'. I wonder if a terminated TSA employee would jeopardize that 'trusted' status.

RichardKenner

It's not an "assumption", it's a probability assessment.

"use" seems the wrong tense, since there's no program yet. My guess is that
the exact set of criteria to be used hasn't been decided yet and will evolve over time. But given the descriptions of the program that we've seen, it seems highly unlikely that anything like credit score will be used.

chollie

Current job involves government contracts, clearances, etc, but also commercial work.

We have been running credit checks on new employees for years. I've heard that higher clearance levels include a credit check, but I don't know that.

The argument is similar to the reasoning you mention for denying trust to someone who has committed armed robbery. In that case, the thinking is that the act of armed robbery is indicative of someone whose moral compass was so skewed that he/she used a weapon to achieve something.

We were told that someone with financial problems, involvement in bankruptcy, low credit score was someone who statistically was more likely to compromise principles for gain because of the financial pressures.

If you take this logic far enough (and I'm afraid TSA will use a layered approach and that is what will happen), eventually there will only be a small subset of those who can be trusted because if you look hard enough, you can find something 'suspicious' on almost anyone. Particularly if you are not too interested in the truth.

OldGoat

My understanding of "probability assessment" is very different from yours. It's like me saying that if I see a squirrel outside it's probable that a dog is nearby. The probability is unstated, and the link between the squirrel and the dog is nothing more than dogs chase squirrels. If that's what you call a probability assessment, so be it.

My guess is that the program has taken so long to arrive simply because they were trying to decide on criteria. I agree with your guess that the criteria will evolve. I have not confidence, however, that the criteria will actually tie to the risk of an adverse event on an aircraft. It's more likely that the criteria will be whatever can be sold to Capital Hill.

LuvAirFrance

My feeling is that making no consideration of risk leads to an absurd program of indignities for totally innocent people, in the hopes of maybe finding someone who actually has dangerous intentions. Like sweeping a whole neighborhood where a crime happened and interrogating every single person present there. The real criminals would get a huge laugh watching such a thing. In fact, they'd hope the authorities would tie themselves down that way.

RichardKenner

Sure. And it makes perfect sense to use it as a part of a security clearance determination for that reason. But because the "nature of the enemy" is very different with terrorism and a national espionage agency, the correllation of such with threat level is lower in the checkpoint case. Moreover, criminal history is public, but credit history is not. That's why I think it makes sense to use criminal history, but not credit score.

RichardKenner

Well, it's certainly true that the probability of a dog bring around is higher if there's a squirrel outside than if there isn't: it's just not a lot higher. The thing about using multiple probabilities is that even if one is wrong, the product usually ends up close. It's like the job interview question "How many piano tuners are there in NZ?". You guess the population of NZ, what percentage have pianos, how often each has it tuned, and how long it takes to tune it. You then compute the number of piano tuners. Each of those is a guess and, although I've never done it, I'm told people usually come surprisingly close.

It would seem to me that the proper approach is a balancing of those two things. You want to balance the predictive value of a criteria against the intrusiveness of that criteria.

LuvAirFrance

This story seems to raise the issue again.
Another Sleeper?

Global_Hi_Flyer

You mean like the republican party as long as the current administration is in power, and the democratic party if/when we get a republican administration?

chollie

I wonder how long an activity can be held against a pax.

You know, is 'trusted traveller' status going to depend on answering a question like: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of...blabla:?"

So if I checked out a library book about Islam or attended Rev. Wright's church 25 years ago or I took Arabic Literature in college, is that still going to be held against me?

If I am delinquent on my federal taxes, will that prevent me from being a 'trusted traveller'?