Risked based screening
Jul 14, 2011, 8:09 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,113
Not surprised that some on FT will see this negatively. Which goes to prove what I have said before - if TSA were to do what you want, you would turn around and be critical of it.
However, to address your statement, I believe this is a part of risked based screening. You have passengers who you can identify, who have a certain level of trust, thus they are screened less intrusively than others.
Another part is a general relaxation of some rules, based upon a threat assessment. I can confirm certainly policies are under review for this very reason. However, to argue that this is the only thing that can be consider risk based is, in fact, incorrect. Both processes go hand in hand.
However, to address your statement, I believe this is a part of risked based screening. You have passengers who you can identify, who have a certain level of trust, thus they are screened less intrusively than others.
Another part is a general relaxation of some rules, based upon a threat assessment. I can confirm certainly policies are under review for this very reason. However, to argue that this is the only thing that can be consider risk based is, in fact, incorrect. Both processes go hand in hand.
Jul 14, 2011, 8:12 pm
#17
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,781
So what would one have to do to gain standing to file a lawsuit to prevent this program from becoming permanent?
I'd like to help take part in shutting down something that:
1) Is a push for further government intrusiveness into people's lives
2) Discriminates against handicapped people
3) Is a pathetic attempt to steal money from people who want to join
Plus, there would be the personal happiness and joy that would come from being able to do something to negatively affect the TSA...
I'd like to help take part in shutting down something that:
1) Is a push for further government intrusiveness into people's lives
2) Discriminates against handicapped people
3) Is a pathetic attempt to steal money from people who want to join
Plus, there would be the personal happiness and joy that would come from being able to do something to negatively affect the TSA...
Jul 14, 2011, 8:21 pm
#18
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: cbr
Programs: QF WP (OWE) / LTG (LT OWS) | Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,972
A lot many countries manage to keep their strelie areas truly streile by enforcing blanket screening of everyone that seeks to enter them. Be it a fellow screener, a flight attendant or a Member of Parliament. And they manage to do it without the Kabuki Theatre of checking ID's, removing shoes and confiscating harmless containers capable of carrying more than 100ml of liquid.
Jul 14, 2011, 8:29 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,113
So what would one have to do to gain standing to file a lawsuit to prevent this program from becoming permanent?
I'd like to help take part in shutting down something that:
1) Is a push for further government intrusiveness into people's lives
2) Discriminates against handicapped people
3) Is a pathetic attempt to steal money from people who want to join
Plus, there would be the personal happiness and joy that would come from being able to do something to negatively affect the TSA...
I'd like to help take part in shutting down something that:
1) Is a push for further government intrusiveness into people's lives
2) Discriminates against handicapped people
3) Is a pathetic attempt to steal money from people who want to join
Plus, there would be the personal happiness and joy that would come from being able to do something to negatively affect the TSA...
Jul 14, 2011, 8:32 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,113
Well, a better way would be to screen everyone entering the sterlie area. Without any exceptions of prejudice. Any "trustred traveler" group only serves to create loopholes that can be exploited.
A lot many countries manage to keep their strelie areas truly streile by enforcing blanket screening of everyone that seeks to enter them. Be it a fellow screener, a flight attendant or a Member of Parliament. And they manage to do it without the Kabuki Theatre of checking ID's, removing shoes and confiscating harmless containers capable of carrying more than 100ml of liquid.
A lot many countries manage to keep their strelie areas truly streile by enforcing blanket screening of everyone that seeks to enter them. Be it a fellow screener, a flight attendant or a Member of Parliament. And they manage to do it without the Kabuki Theatre of checking ID's, removing shoes and confiscating harmless containers capable of carrying more than 100ml of liquid.
That being said if Pistole is going to try this deal then it really should be a risk based system and I think military and retired military present little risk to air commerce.
Jul 14, 2011, 8:39 pm
#21
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
it's not a valid option for anyone with medical issues that will trigger the mags.
For example, as an amputee, I can turn over all my personal info and pay whatever the fee is, and garner access to the Less-Likely-To-Be-A-Terrorist Secret Handshake or whatever. But the instant I walk through the mag, I will alarm it, and then still be molested, and it won't matter that I've passed the background checks.
So now it turns out that I am ineligible for a federal program because of my disability. You know, I get that I can't join the Air Force. But I would like to be able to board a plane without having my ovaries xrayed.
For example, as an amputee, I can turn over all my personal info and pay whatever the fee is, and garner access to the Less-Likely-To-Be-A-Terrorist Secret Handshake or whatever. But the instant I walk through the mag, I will alarm it, and then still be molested, and it won't matter that I've passed the background checks.
So now it turns out that I am ineligible for a federal program because of my disability. You know, I get that I can't join the Air Force. But I would like to be able to board a plane without having my ovaries xrayed.
There is anecdotal evidence (Claire McCaskill, for one) that some people who have been getting patdowns for years are very happy at the alternative to walk through a NoS. Is that because they feel they are not being 'singled out' anymore for extra screening, or it the thought of a gape really less offensive than a grope for some subset of the population?
Jul 14, 2011, 9:47 pm
#22
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 82
I do think this is an incredible important perspective that we often overlook. Forget the x-rays and any potential health concerns. If you could choose to use a MMW scanner instead of a WTMD, which would you pick? Or what recommendations would you have for scanning amputees, people with artificial joints, etc?
There is anecdotal evidence (Claire McCaskill, for one) that some people who have been getting patdowns for years are very happy at the alternative to walk through a NoS. Is that because they feel they are not being 'singled out' anymore for extra screening, or it the thought of a gape really less offensive than a grope for some subset of the population?
There is anecdotal evidence (Claire McCaskill, for one) that some people who have been getting patdowns for years are very happy at the alternative to walk through a NoS. Is that because they feel they are not being 'singled out' anymore for extra screening, or it the thought of a gape really less offensive than a grope for some subset of the population?
Unfortunately, for those of us with prostheses or casts, we must also submit to the CastScope, wherein the specific portion of our body that is artificial or casted must be directly xrayed. When I flew out of MSP in December, I had 8 separate images taken of my leg, one of which had me, despite my vigorous protestations, straddling the machine with xrays being shot straight up into my resistance. Interestingly, the woman let me look at the images. While I do not have a "C-leg" (containing electronic components), on the basis of those images alone and the woman's (lack of) training (she wanted to know if the prosthesis included my foot, or if it was just the middle part of my leg...), I firmly maintain that she would not have been able to distinguish between a C-Leg and a concealed bomb. This serves no purpose, and it needs to go away.
Furthermore, the TSA openly admits in their documents that CastScopes are only used at very large airports, particularly those that are close to military bases or veterans services, since they have a high population of amputees. Meaning...they deliberately run these programs in locations where there are higher-than-average odds that the people forced through them are not actually risks. But whatevs, this is why I don't fly anymore...
Jul 14, 2011, 9:52 pm
#23
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
Honestly, I'm not sure what I would pick. Aside from any health concerns, I would probably pick the MMW, and try not to think about the fact that someone is looking at me naked. My concern, though, is that my prosthesis would still register as an "anomaly", and then I would be "patted down" regardless. What I think should happen for anyone with an anomaly on a MMW is that only the area with the anomaly is patted down. No one needs to touch my breasts in order to determine that my left leg is actually a prosthesis.
Unfortunately, for those of us with prostheses or casts, we must also submit to the CastScope, wherein the specific portion of our body that is artificial or casted must be directly xrayed. When I flew out of MSP in December, I had 8 separate images taken of my leg, one of which had me, despite my vigorous protestations, straddling the machine with xrays being shot straight up into my resistance. Interestingly, the woman let me look at the images. While I do not have a "C-leg" (containing electronic components), on the basis of those images alone and the woman's (lack of) training (she wanted to know if the prosthesis included my foot, or if it was just the middle part of my leg...), I firmly maintain that she would not have been able to distinguish between a C-Leg and a concealed bomb. This serves no purpose, and it needs to go away.
Furthermore, the TSA openly admits in their documents that CastScopes are only used at very large airports, particularly those that are close to military bases or veterans services, since they have a high population of amputees. Meaning...they deliberately run these programs in locations where there are higher-than-average odds that the people forced through them are not actually risks. But whatevs, this is why I don't fly anymore...
Unfortunately, for those of us with prostheses or casts, we must also submit to the CastScope, wherein the specific portion of our body that is artificial or casted must be directly xrayed. When I flew out of MSP in December, I had 8 separate images taken of my leg, one of which had me, despite my vigorous protestations, straddling the machine with xrays being shot straight up into my resistance. Interestingly, the woman let me look at the images. While I do not have a "C-leg" (containing electronic components), on the basis of those images alone and the woman's (lack of) training (she wanted to know if the prosthesis included my foot, or if it was just the middle part of my leg...), I firmly maintain that she would not have been able to distinguish between a C-Leg and a concealed bomb. This serves no purpose, and it needs to go away.
Furthermore, the TSA openly admits in their documents that CastScopes are only used at very large airports, particularly those that are close to military bases or veterans services, since they have a high population of amputees. Meaning...they deliberately run these programs in locations where there are higher-than-average odds that the people forced through them are not actually risks. But whatevs, this is why I don't fly anymore...
Jul 14, 2011, 10:06 pm
#24
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
It is a *step* in the right direction. Unfortunately, it looks like the same divide and conquer strategy followed by TSA wrt pilots and FAs who made a stink back in october. The frequent flyers were up in arms so now they have an out.
the problem now is everyone else. so, is everyone not a frequent flyer to continue to get strip searched and/or groped?
selective civil liberties for the few, opression continues for the rest.
A regime change might not solve this. Aren't the Republicans continuing to authorize buying backscatter machines for TSA to expand their use?
the problem now is everyone else. so, is everyone not a frequent flyer to continue to get strip searched and/or groped?
selective civil liberties for the few, opression continues for the rest.
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
The game changer will be after the next election when Pistole gets fired if it doesn't happen sooner.
The game changer will be after the next election when Pistole gets fired if it doesn't happen sooner.
Jul 14, 2011, 10:37 pm
#25
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 580
As I mentioned in my response to another thread on the topic, my concerns regarding this are as follows:
1. The concern of having to provide biometric identification (possibly). I see this as perhaps leading to a scary situation where people feel that they have a choice of either providing biometric identification or being groped.
2. The concern that it will make it more miserable for everyone not a part of this program. I could see airports with a few WTMD lanes making those lanes only for people a part of this program. This program perhaps leads to everyone else not having the ability to self select a lane with WTMD.
1. The concern of having to provide biometric identification (possibly). I see this as perhaps leading to a scary situation where people feel that they have a choice of either providing biometric identification or being groped.
2. The concern that it will make it more miserable for everyone not a part of this program. I could see airports with a few WTMD lanes making those lanes only for people a part of this program. This program perhaps leads to everyone else not having the ability to self select a lane with WTMD.
Jul 14, 2011, 10:49 pm
#26
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
As I mentioned in my response to another thread on the topic, my concerns regarding this are as follows:
1. The concern of having to provide biometric identification (possibly). I see this as perhaps leading to a scary situation where people feel that they have a choice of either providing biometric identification or being groped.
2. The concern that it will make it more miserable for everyone not a part of this program. I could see airports with a few WTMD lanes making those lanes only for people a part of this program. This program perhaps leads to everyone else not having the ability to self select a lane with WTMD.
1. The concern of having to provide biometric identification (possibly). I see this as perhaps leading to a scary situation where people feel that they have a choice of either providing biometric identification or being groped.
2. The concern that it will make it more miserable for everyone not a part of this program. I could see airports with a few WTMD lanes making those lanes only for people a part of this program. This program perhaps leads to everyone else not having the ability to self select a lane with WTMD.
wrt #1, Did you ever get a driver's license? Have you ever had something notarized? Ever get a mortgage? What happens to your thumb on those occasions? How is an iris scan different? Is it not just another way of verifying that you are who you say you are?
Jul 14, 2011, 11:13 pm
#27
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: AA 1MM
Posts: 3,182
Something scanning your thumb print malfunctioning has no chance of rendering your blind.
Jul 14, 2011, 11:19 pm
#28
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,792
And that, at the end of the day, is the problem with this program (which, BTW, has been discussed at length numerous times over the past year).
A rational organization led by competent, intelligent, calm people might be able to make this work. TSA and its leadership aren't any of those things.
There are screams about patdowns of 6-yr-olds and removing diapers from dying senior citizens, but Pistole's statement refers to keeping shoes on and laptops in bags.
(He made similar statements the last time around, and earlier than that Nappy said something like "apparently people are upset about removing shoes".) If they are that ignorant about the main concerns of passengers, how can they implement a reasonable trusted traveler program?
TDCs already have challenges recognizing NEXUS or understanding passport cards as ID. How will they cope with the additional complication of trusted travelers?
Screeners make up their own rules, supervisors claim "we're allowed to do it differently here." Why would anyone think that a trusted traveler is really going to be exempt from anything? I agree with iowakatie; as soon as someone with a metal implant sets off the WTMD, they're going to get the full treatment, regardless.
You can't trust these people with your wallet or watch or laptop. Why would you trust this organization to handle your personal data?
As noted in the other thread, 95-year-olds with leukemia and 6-year-olds going to visit grandma are unlikely to qualify for trusted traveler status (or are unlikely to apply).
As I've said before, this further discriminates against foreign visitors to the US.
A rational organization led by competent, intelligent, calm people might be able to make this work. TSA and its leadership aren't any of those things.
There are screams about patdowns of 6-yr-olds and removing diapers from dying senior citizens, but Pistole's statement refers to keeping shoes on and laptops in bags.
(He made similar statements the last time around, and earlier than that Nappy said something like "apparently people are upset about removing shoes".) If they are that ignorant about the main concerns of passengers, how can they implement a reasonable trusted traveler program? TDCs already have challenges recognizing NEXUS or understanding passport cards as ID. How will they cope with the additional complication of trusted travelers?
Screeners make up their own rules, supervisors claim "we're allowed to do it differently here." Why would anyone think that a trusted traveler is really going to be exempt from anything? I agree with iowakatie; as soon as someone with a metal implant sets off the WTMD, they're going to get the full treatment, regardless.
You can't trust these people with your wallet or watch or laptop. Why would you trust this organization to handle your personal data?
As noted in the other thread, 95-year-olds with leukemia and 6-year-olds going to visit grandma are unlikely to qualify for trusted traveler status (or are unlikely to apply).
As I've said before, this further discriminates against foreign visitors to the US.
Jul 14, 2011, 11:28 pm
#29
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 580
In response to JumboD, yes, I have a driver's license, and yes, I have had things notarized at many points. Thankfully, I have not had to submit a fingerprint for either of these things.
Iris scans can be done at a distance, which makes them scary as an iris scan database could make it easy for people to be tracked at all points.
Have you seen the movie "Minority Report" and how scary the world is with the large amounts of iris scans? I know that the movie may seem far-fetched, but this type of thing seems like it may be one step further in this direction.
Iris scans can be done at a distance, which makes them scary as an iris scan database could make it easy for people to be tracked at all points.
Have you seen the movie "Minority Report" and how scary the world is with the large amounts of iris scans? I know that the movie may seem far-fetched, but this type of thing seems like it may be one step further in this direction.
Jul 15, 2011, 12:11 am
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
But let me ask, why are you contradicting yourself? You say your disappointed military and former military are not included, and then in another post say "I have long called for the screening of everyone". On one hand you would agree with certain groups - such as active military and retired military - receiving less through screening. And then you say you support the same screening of everyone. So which is it?
Reading some of your comments are amazing. Sorry if it upsets you, but it appears that many travelers will eventually be allowed to leave their shoes on, keep computers in their bags, and very possibly have less restrictions, or none at all, on current policy and procedure.
And I suspect that many of you complaining now will be the first to sign up. In fact, in the other thread, some of you made the case how some of you would be perfect for being in this program.
Which further strengthens what I have said: if someone from TSA says something, anything, many of you have to counter it. But consider some of the follow quotes taken from another thread opened regarding this topic:
"This will be interesting."
"What I'm more interested in finding out is what "expedited screening" means...If "expedited screening" means merely that I get to cut to the front of the line (like CLEAR), but I still have to dance around without my belt and shoes on while collecting my Kippie bag, I'm not sure it's worth it. But if there are some real passenger benefits"
"I really like the fact that the government is expanding the concept of "trusted traveler" to work for domestic security screening, not just for entering the country"
"This could be a good start....At this point, I'm pretty skeptical. I'm afraid it's still going to end up as nothing more than a bypass line, and generally I use elite lines anyway, so that won't buy me anything."
"How long does it take to become a member of one of the CBP programs? I don't travel internationally often enough to have warranted it in the past, but if it gets me in the door early here, might be worth it."
"Sure would be great if 'trusted traveller' included a bypass (unless 'randomly selected) of the NoS"
"Score! EXP with NEXUS and Global Entry who lives in DFW - I should definitely be in on the pilot. As an EXP, I already get to the front of the line. I hope that isn't the extent of the program."
"As I look at this article, I think to myself: if my wife and I get NEXUS cards and apply for TSA "trusted traveler" if/when it rolls out, could this exempt us from the shoe carnival, pornoscans, and pat-downs?"
"My fear is that all it will earn is a cut to the front of the line..."
"OK, so I'm kinda psyched about this...hoping for the best, that is, a shoes-on trip through the WTMD and baggage X-ray."
"It seems like most people here are happy with this program."
"I know this will end up being a complete cluster**** when implemented, but what the heck, I'll go along with it for the time-being"
So, in the other thread about this program, the comments are generally positive. Yes there were some negative, but out of the 4 pages so far, generally positive. Yes, there is some or a great deal of skepticism, yet people in the other thread complain if they DO NOT get special benefits, such as leaving shoes on, etc.
Yet on this thread, why, this is a horrible thing to do, and how can it be stopped?! I do recognize that some of you will never support such a program, and thats ok, but why the difference between attitudes in the thread? Is it because I, a TSA employee, started this thread, so generally you have to attack?
Last edited by SATTSO; Jul 15, 2011 at 12:36 am