TSA eyes 'Randomizers' to sort security lines
Jul 12, 2013, 4:33 am
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I thought about this, too. The TSA is spending a lot of our money preventing us from doing SDOO's. But, there are only a small subset of us who are actually doing that anymore, by the time you eliminate those who have bought into the PreCheck extortion.
But, this RFI also acknowledges that the wTMDs are here to stay because the TSA can't handle the amount of passengers during rush hours all going through the PornoScopes.
The joke is on us for allow this to persist and for allowing our elected officials to allow this to persist.
But, this RFI also acknowledges that the wTMDs are here to stay because the TSA can't handle the amount of passengers during rush hours all going through the PornoScopes.
The joke is on us for allow this to persist and for allowing our elected officials to allow this to persist.
Indeed.
This will be used to increase the number of people who end up with PreCheck LLL screening outcomes. Underutilization of PreCheck lanes seems to be a concern of some sort.
Jul 12, 2013, 4:37 am
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I have had the red-light go off at MEX where customs did no hand search of my bags. They did get an x-ray examination.
Jul 12, 2013, 8:58 am
#20
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
Many problems with this...
Where is the cost-benefit analysis? Which vendor is this lined up for? And has TSA already decided that it will ignore the public comments on the NOS NPRM?
EDIT: Will this randomizer split up families? And how will the TSA ensure that I go to the designated lane? Will the document checker keep an eye on me? Will the randomizer keep a record of what lane I was assigned to so as to prove that I did not go to the designated lane?
- Highly questionable value given (a) effective lack of terrorists, (b) the other "layers" of TSA security, (c) the numerous loopholes that allow people to bypass the NOSs anyway, and (d) the millions of sheep who don't care about privacy and Constitutional rights
- Doesn't address SDOO through alternative gate selection
- Not a priority (e.g., not as important as scanning airport employees and vendors and not as important as scanning cargo)
- Potential to add yet more delay and confusion at checkpoints
- Excessive expenditure of public funds (for equipment procurement, additional staff, training, maintenance, etc.)
- Confirms that the current TSA process is flawed (which we already knew but TSA apparently just figured out, despite years of NOS infestation in our airports)
- Ignores relevant public comments on NOS (e.g., designed to support NOSs when most of the comments clearly indicate NOSs are offensive)
Where is the cost-benefit analysis? Which vendor is this lined up for? And has TSA already decided that it will ignore the public comments on the NOS NPRM?
EDIT: Will this randomizer split up families? And how will the TSA ensure that I go to the designated lane? Will the document checker keep an eye on me? Will the randomizer keep a record of what lane I was assigned to so as to prove that I did not go to the designated lane?
Last edited by Schmurrr; Jul 12, 2013 at 10:58 am
Jul 12, 2013, 9:48 am
#22
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
I am actually concerned about this as it would take away the opportunity to pick lines/terminals that do not send one to body scanners. Also, I am surprised about how much money that they are willing to spend on something this simple. Could this mean that perhaps they are planning on using fewer body scanners though, and using randomizers to justify not sending everyone to them?
Jul 12, 2013, 10:50 am
#23
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: WAS
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Nexus, GE
Posts: 2,123
Jul 12, 2013, 10:52 am
#24
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 580
Aren't there already "randomizers" that generate pseudorandom outcomes on the WTMDs? Such as the ones that randomly say that people need to get their hands swabbed, etc.? It seems like the TSA could save money by just making the WTMD the default and using its random feature to determine who is randomly selected for something else.
Jul 12, 2013, 11:11 am
#25
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Aren't there already "randomizers" that generate pseudorandom outcomes on the WTMDs? Such as the ones that randomly say that people need to get their hands swabbed, etc.? It seems like the TSA could save money by just making the WTMD the default and using its random feature to determine who is randomly selected for something else.
Jul 12, 2013, 11:27 am
#26
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Our friends at the TSA have come up with yet another "let's screw the pooch" toy
Jul 12, 2013, 11:34 am
#27
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 468
That one was in Spanish. This new randomizer will require completely new design, testing, and a guaranteed purchase amount. Minimal cost of course.
Jul 12, 2013, 3:30 pm
#30
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DC area and San Francisco
Programs: SWA A-List, OnePass, AA, U-MP, more
Posts: 170
A trivial practical solution is to use a higher number die and re-roll when the number is out of bounds.
You could ask a mathematician to help you out. But any reasonable one would say "With approximately zero terrorists trying to get through the security lines, statistically none of this matters". (I had "and practically" in there, but had to remove it because we are talking about mathematicians, who can talk about 'richer infinities' with a straight face.)