This is an outright lie.


As is the existence of your entire professional organization. :rolleyes:

I have no idea if this is a possibility or not; I was just trying to think of potential reasons that an iris scan might be different from a fingerprint scan.

I object to the whole thought of a "trusted traveler" program to begin with, on several grounds:

1. Past actions are not always a good predictor of future actions. TSA has itself been very quick to say this in nearly every one of the hundreds (if not thousands) of cases where its employees have been charged with theft, battery, sexual assault, etc. The only data points that trusted traveler programs have are historical in nature. (Proving identity, proving lack of malfeasance, proving credit and medical history, etc.)

Keep in mind that people can be emotional, make rash judgments, and turn very quickly under the right circumstances. All it takes is one of those and -boom- something falls out of the sky. (I'm trying to not be Chicken Little here, and still put it in terms that are simple enough for TSOs to follow.)

2. Past actions don't equate to "innocence" or lack of intent to do harm. Simply because someone hasn't been arrested or convicted of something doesn't mean they haven't done it. It could simply mean that they're very good at hiding something or clever enough to get away with it. Trusted traveler programs that rely on identity verification linked to personal histories - no matter how "complete" - don't necessarily equate to planefuls of people that haven't done wrong.

3. This program creates different strata of fliers, with socio-economic status being the primary differentiator. I assume there will be some sort of fees involved with program entry and background checks. And since these checks will likely have to recur periodically, there are probably annual fees (or renewal fees of some sort) associated with the program too. In all likelihood these fees will be high enough to cause casual and cost-conscious travelers to not participate... which creates the different classes.

4. This program delves into personal history that the TSA should have no access to, plain and simple. TSA's mission is to ensure that no weapons are on one's person at a point in time... not to play psychic, voyeur, or any other role. Perhaps once the agency proves it is competent of handling the simple job of keeping WEI off of jets they can expand to other areas. (80% failure rates are unacceptable. Even 20% is unacceptable.)

5. This program requires individuals to reveal their personal medical history to an agency that has no right and no need to have access to it. My reasoning: this program will have to provide accommodation for physically handicapped travelers, otherwise the government would be in violation of its own laws. The only way to accommodate a physically handicapped person who would otherwise alarm and be sent to secondary would be to verify their medical history. Hence, access to medical records. (If not, then the program doesn't accommodate physically handicapped and that creates another who set of problems.)

I could go on with additional reasons, but I think you probably get the idea.

I have long called for the equal screening of everyone entering the secure area and I believe you know that. That would include all airport workers and travelers.

With that said, if Pistole is intent on giving preference to certain classes of people then I would expect some thought going into that process.

Screening should mitgate risk and how much risk do members of the military both active and retired present?

Most people in the military have at least a basic background check and are easy to locate and all retired military members have proven to be faithful to the United States and actually upheld their oath to defend the Constituion of the United States unlike those people who work for TSA who dishonor their Oath every time they feel up a 90+ year old lady or little 6 year old kids among the other things they do.

You may not like that I have an opinion that addresses both sides of this question but I do and there you have it.

Correction, McVeigh was x military but not a retired member of the armed forces.

The difference, as a retired member I carry a Military ID Card, have certain privileges on military bases and received retired pay based on my service.

McVeigh and others like him who leave the service before retirement do not receive those types of benefits with the exception of some health benefits if they have a service connected disability. they have severed their connection with the military.

My view:

I don't like what TSA currently does. Many of its actions are not those of the government of the type of country I want to live in. Many are rude and intrusive, others ineffective, others just plain dumb. The current security regime results from a frightened public and politicians who give voice to those fears, rather than dampening them down. But . . . .

We live in a democracy. Our elected officials (and to some extent even the courts) respond to what the public (as a whole) says it wants. And even though those of us why fly frequently think otherwise, the politician's perception, at least, is that John Q. Public wants airport security (theater). Democracy consists of given the people what they want, and plenty of it. If we really want TSA changed or abolished, that's only going to happen at the ballot box. Don't hold your breath.

Grudgingly accepting that at least in the near term we are going to have this kabuki dance every time we fly, this is a positive development. The real risk is not stuff (what most of the theater focuses on) but people (which it largely ignores). That's part of why it's so stupid. You search and nude-o-scope me and 94 year old ladies in depends, and 50000 airport workers a day saunter right through. Think maybe one of them somewhere could be subverted or blackmailed into doing something they shouldn't?

No one should care (in the abstract) if Carolinaflyr carries a weapon on board because I have no intent of using a weapon. At the same time, if some AQ terrorist is on the plane, he will try to wreak havoc with whatever is available (discussion of possible means is omitted - it's SSI :) ).

So if I am willing to tell TSA about myself (as I once told a cops-on-steroids CBP officer in DFW when questioned in secondary - go ahead and google me, I'm real easy to find, I'm done answering stupid questions), and they conclude I'm not likely to be a threat, why should I not breeze through? What a lot of us object to is that most of the kabuki dance is intrusive, serves no purpose and protects against very little. Let's lighten things up.

To the concern that this is a benefit for the socially favored or affluent, so what? The frequently flying public, as a group, is probably more favored than the infrequent flyers, so the kabuki dance we have now falls disproportionately on the more favored. So of course any reduction will disproportionately benefit the same group.

If the price (fee) of the program is the concern, well, lots of things in life are unfairly distributed. There was no chance I would ever play professional football, but that does not mean that we cannot have the NFL, or that the players can't be paid whatever they are paid.

We actually don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. Probably a good thing, since I don't want a referendum on every question that somebody chooses to ask.

The problem is that the politicians don't necessarily represent the will of the American people in every instance. When we vote, we are essentially voting for a basket of views, some of which we agree with, some of which we don't. Voters prioritize which issues are most important to them and, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think there are very many voters who make airport security a top issue. Furthermore, there are some very powerful CYA forces (not to mention economic ones, for a number of them) that will keep our Congresscritters happily approving and re-approving ridiculous "security" measures.

Fortunately, none of that really matters. What matters is that the nation is governed by the Constitution and, like it or not, being really, really afraid of sneaky brown people is not a reason that anyone, including Congress, the TSA or Santa Claus can ignore the laws of the land. That's what's really at issue here and, until the fourth amendment gets eliminated or changed, there's a heck of a lot of law breaking going on at the airport.

Mike

Ouch!
 

================================================== ====
Oh man, don't sit down for awhile after that!:eek:

SATTSO,

Kudos for attempting to start an intelligent discussion on this innovation. I'm afraid you picked the wrong audience; some of these folks will whine no matter what TSA does. You already know that. ;)

The biggest criticism against TSA is how an elderly person in a wheelchair has to undergo the exact same type of screening as a younger, more able-bodied passenger. Or how a young child is patted down in the same manner as an adult would be screened. The other complaint, which is nothing more than thinly disguised racism, is the old "Norwegian terrorist" argument: since none of the 9/11 terrorists were Norwegian, dark skinned passengers should undergo more intense screening. (Yeah, some in here will deny this, but what it boils down to is that white, Anglo-Saxon "Americans" should not have to undergo screening.) The implied complaint is that TSA ought to adjust its screening methodology according to the situation. In other words, apply common sense. The folks who advocate this usually do so because they believe they will fall in the exception category and that everyone else will have to undergo regular screening.

I think RBS is a long overdue step in the right direction. But it's going to require a massive culture change on both sides of the X-ray machine, and I don't think the public nor TSA workforce is prepared to make that change. The very first complaint I see coming is "why her and not me?" immediately followed by a demand that EVERYONE undergo the EXACT SAME screening methodology in order to be FAIR to everyone. And the other argument that will surface is whenever prohibited items are discovered after a low-risk passenger was screened how the program is "obviously" a "failure." I hope TSA sticks to its guns and continues to develop RBS because it is the right thing to do. Eventually, the traveling public will understand and accept it with the exception of the minority few knuckleheads who just live to piss in the pool no matter who's swimming in it.

Bottom line: focus on those who need the extra attention instead of those who truly do not pose a threat to commercial aviation.

It's a huge step. I don't think folks understand everything that comes with it.

Again, thanks for introducing the topic.

Bolding mine: Very well said on all points ^ and the key is what I bolded. It's a change and folks need (n.b. need) to adapt to it and deal with it but......"from my side of the x-ray machine" ;), I see more problems on your side. Imho, I think there will be more resistance to it from the TSA workforce than from the pax. You know-things like "it was so much easier the old way" and etc but the old way is just that-old (and gone) and with that, those who cannot "adjust" to the new RBS from your side of the x-ray machine need to think about changing careers before they will be 'asked" to do so. Just my two hockey pucks

I don't know. Let's ask Major Hassan.

I do think there is an opportunity here, and it ought to merit some reasoned discussion.

Personally, I'd reset the risk/intrusion calculation. The public does not understand that if you are going to be in a fight you are going to take a punch from time to time, and if you are not willing to take that punch you need to stay out of the fight.

The public also seems unable to grasp that no one is going to a commandeer an in-flight aircraft and use it as a projectile weapon ever again. A hardened cockpit door, and passenger and crew awareness of the new threat preclude that. But, anyone who thinks that in a world of 6 billion there isn't someone out there who wants to go out in a blaze of glory (probably using explosives) and take 1-500 passengers with them is also kidding themsleves. Yesterday's news.

I personally recognize and accept that we can't run that risk down to 0, and I do not want to try. If we pretend that the only acceptable outcome is that no one ever succeeds then we define a game that we are sure to lose (I can beat Kobe Bryant at one-on-one if the rule is we play until I score, it does not matter how many times he scores, and I get to inbound the ball whenever I want; you get the idea). I understand this but the "public" seems not to. And Congress either does not understand it or does not want to acknowledge it, so they play to the fearful. TSA fears being called on the carpet for a security "failure" way more than having to respond to inquiries about nude-o-scopes and grandma's diaper.

We live in a representative democracy/republic and the risk benefit decision is not going to be made (and can't be negotiated) at the screening point, or administratively by TSA (for whom all the incentives now point to "more security/more intrusion), That calculus, if it is reset, needs to be reset by Congress. I am not holding my breath, though I'll continue to work for it. Anyone who thinks the courts will put a stop to this is dreaming, please review the last 40 year of 4th amendment jurisprudence - after wars on crime, drugs and tewwowism, there is not much 4th amendment left. (IAAL!).

So here we are, and for the time being we have to make the best of what we have. The focus needs to be on people, not stuff. And yes, I recognize that as a white, middle aged guy my demographic is definitely not low risk (look at the last 50 years of aviation security hijacks and attempts, and incidents of domestic (and recent Scandanavian) tewwowism.)

We all know the current system is a kabuki dance - just look at how many airport employees and flight crew a day pass with minimal or no screening. Ya' think maybe one of them out there can be subverted or blackmailed? That someone can be induced to bring a pound or so of PETN or C-4 (maybe they don't even know what it is, fastened to the underside of that cart that just rolled through the WTMD) to the sterile side? And we are going through shoe carnivals, nude-o-scopes (that cost millions) and making sure teenage girls don't sneak cosmetics aboard. Doh. Just look at the number of potential "weapons" you can find airside at a terminal. Whatajoke the whole thing is. AQ is laughing their axxxx off in some cave, as millions go through this nonsense at an expense of millions of dollars a day, and all we have done is told them "bring your bad stuff through somewhere other than the checkpoint, on your body."

If we are going to refocus on people (all the people, not just pax) we need to understand what that means. We will get more privacy in our bodies and belongings, and maybe less intrusion and time wasted, but. . . .we are going to have to share some information about ourselves. What is really needed is a discussion about what information is to be shared, for what purpose it will be used, how long it will be kept around, and who will have access to it. Our friends in Europe share a lot of information with their governments but they have a pretty good rule set that means that most of it can't be kept around indefinitely in the giant database of everything and everyone We don't do that here. What information is collected is likely to be kept for as long as the collector wants and used for whatever purpose they want. While the FBI may be limited on what they can keep about you, they really don't care, because Choice Point's successors have no limits, and for $50 or whatever, the FBI can order it up, probably in near-real-time. Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to rein in the private data collectors, though I'm not counting on it. Still, if you think that big brother does not already know (or can't find out at low cost) where you go or what you do, how you spend, where you live, etc., think again. That train left a long time ago. So let's talk about how to better regulate the information collection, and use it to increase both security and decrease intrusion.

Purpose matters. I can see it now - it's only a matter of time before some do-gooders propose that we cross airline bookings with something like child support defaults (it always starts with deadbeat dads- that's how the cross reference between drivers licenses and social security numbers was built), so we can have them picked up for non-support at the checkpoint. Then law enforcement will want the database run against all outstanding warrants. Next, the anti-immigrant crowd will want to demand proof of ss# or immigration status to book a ticket, else you will be picked up and/or refused access). The beat will go on because for every capability, someone will want to assert a "power." And then, we really will have a police state. Let's see if we can get in on the front end and come up with something that limits the use of the information provided to fly to making a decision on the appropriate level of screening, and for no other purpose.

We are also going to have to replace "interchangeable part" screeners who mindlessly follow "policy" with people with a little more training, talent,and judgment. Might not need so many, and there will be more in the back office looking at information and fewer on the front looking for stuff, but it will be a huge culture change. Some people may lose their jobs and some people will need to be paid more. Always a tough one when dealing with government.

My point is that much as I'd like the current system to go away and revert to pre 9-11 with better cockpit doors, there is "0" chance of that happening, and whatever will happen, will have to happen in Congress. And lest you think I'm soft on fighting TSA, I fully support the (mostly symbolic so far) efforts of state legislatures to push back on more intrusive screening, and publicity of each and every abuse. So long as people wish to oppose it peacefully (talk on this board and elsewhere about violence toward TSA screeners is inappropriate and hurts the cause, no matter what you think of being fondled), that's great. And to the extent we can get the state and local law enforcement pushing back, that's great. But, in the meantime . . .

Politics is the art of the possible. Let's come off of some of the more doctrinaire positions, try to change things in Congress, and in the meantime, see how this can work better for all of us. Many of us are familiar with Bruce Schneir and his writing and criticism of TSA - I think risk based security is what it's all about. . . .

And recognize, most of the voting public flies 0-2 times per year and thinks nude-o-scopes are kind of fun. . .

Snell full coverage helmet - check. Nomex gloves and booties- check. Flame suit on and sealed - check.

So I'm totally against some of the crap TSA does today. However, obviously the pre 9/11 screening model did not work. I'd personally rather see it privatized, but what we had before 9/11 was way too lax.

The TSA cannot focus on anything and deliver reliably -- not even upon interdiction of contraband WEIs. There is no reason to believe that the TSA will do any better a job of delivering on the above "bottom line" than it has on anything else.

Why?