I know there is a thread already started, but I felt this was worthy enough of its own thread. It confirms what I have said before. If the mods feel they need to combine it, feel free. However, what I quote below I believes deserves its own attention.

As reported by CBS:

"The expedited passengers will still go through metal detectors, but may escape more rigorous screening -- for example, those fliers may be able to keep their shoes on and their laptops in their carry-ons"

Also attributed in this article to Pistole:

"This new approach will start small, only benefiting a few thousand passengers each day. But if it works, Pistole wants to expand the concept, calling it a potential game-changer for travelers. "


The entire article here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...UpperPromoArea

That isn't risk based screening. It is the exact opposite of it.

What is being described is the ability to bypass normal screening for those that can afford to pay for the privilege (and take the time to go thru pre screening.)

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.

A step in the right direction. The random perp frisk is a non starter though. Either these folks are a risk or they are not.

No, if the TSA did what I wanted them to do, I would be cheering in the streets. I want them disbanded and to go back to a pre 9/11 screening model.

Risk-based screening can operate by identifying passengers that you have a reason to believe are lower risk or by identifying those that are higher risk, or both. The latter goes the direction of watch lists and profiling.

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.

Aw but I bet your ovaries look so cute on the little black and white screen that certainly does not have the ability to save or print images.

--Jon

Well, it is a step in the right direction. I am guessing that actually syncing all the necessary arms of DHS and other agencies to effectively match travelers to the watch list in real time just isn't possible anymore, so it's now gone from "everyone is a terrorist until proven otherwise" to "everyone is a terrorist who hasn't proven in advance they aren't one." For now I'll take it (and subscribe to one of the programs offered by CBP).

^^^^^^^^

No doubt the TSA clerks and their bosses are going to pat themselves on the back regarding this wonderful new advance. What they should really do is admit that their screening model is a farce, and as the OP said go back to the pre-9/11 model.

SATTSO, so we are talking about the same thing, what is the TSA's definition of "risk", as that term is used in "risk based screening"?

I'm asking because risk typically is the likelihood and impact of an adverse event. Using that definition, I fail to see how the CBP programs directly allow an individual's risk to be measured. To the contrary, the "risk" element in play seems to be entirely qualitative and judgmental.

That doesn't mean the programs are bad, it just means they essentially come down to the TSA saying "we believe these people are good enough, and those others are not".

You forgot to mention that this will almost certainly result in the intrusiveness of the screening for non-registered passengers being even higher than it is today. The intention will be to drive as many people as possible into the registered program, so that TSA has free license to dig into every corner of their lives in ways that have nothing to do with transportation.

Tentacles in your life, or tentacles in your pants. Take your pick, folks.

So the TSA would like us to believe but a person of minimal intelligence or training in computers know this is a bold face lie.

Sounds like a fairly trivial set of "improvements" in exchange for passing what amounts to a security clearance. Plus, this is only an "example" and "may be" what participants might expect. I'll reserve judgment until real details are released.

Of course, saying "if it works" leaves way too much uncertainty on the table. Recall that Pistole is already on record as saying that private screening is inherently inferior to TSA screening, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. It's not clear what his criteria are for deciding that "it works".

I'm not saying this might not be a good idea in the long run. But from where I'm sitting, there's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little information about this program in evidence for me to make any judgment.

The game changer will be after the next election when Pistole gets fired if it doesn't happen sooner.