Discrimination has a legal context. Differentiation has a statistical context in my world. Hence the value of the distinction for me. I will continue to use the two words in those contexts so that you know what I'm talking about.

Different screening to make reasonable accomodations for certain individuals' limitations and the Precheck program are both available. The first is an accomodation regarding standard process and often includes secondary screening. The second is expedited screening that rarely results in a secondary but a secondary is still possible. The first group opts in to their accomodation by requesting it - the second group opts in to their process by have airline status and allowing this information to be shared or by opting in to an application process including providing significant amounts of personal information.

So your argument is that there is no statistically valid way to differentiate risk between individuals based on group membership and that all individuals should be subjected to the same level of security?

(hyperbole on) Or better - the least likely are now the most likely because terrorists will use them and as such old ladies and kids and frequent flying businessmen should have to fly totally naked? (hyperbole off)

You are welcome to your opinion. I am inclined to see it differently and given my understanding of probabillity theory and inferential statistics, I'm comfortable with that.

:D

You mean based on ethnic or religious group membership? Of course there's no statistically valid way. Classifying persons with disfavored skin color or disfavored religions as Untermenschen and harassing them as they board aircraft does nothing to promote security. Since the beginning of powered flight, how many persons have attacked aircraft, and what proportion of fliers have they represented? There are no statistics (especially based on race or religion) to analyze. For every person of any ethnicity or religion who has attacked an aircraft, there have been tens of millions of the same ethnicity or religion who haven't. Harassing those tens of millions won't accomplish anything, and it jeopardizes aviation.

[QUOTE=Carl Johnson;21171176]You mean based on ethnic or religious group membership [/qoute]

No that is not what I said or meant. I said that there exist a differential risk and identifying these differences statistically allows different levels of security to be used while maintaining the same air travel safety.

Racist hyperbole deleted

I think the TSA could screen all passengers the Pre Check way and it wouldn't increase the risk of terrorist attack. Shoes don't have to be removed around the world and there haven't been any new shoe bombers. Many of the airports don't require removal of or don't care about leaving the liquids baggie in luggage. I can't comment on leaving laptops in their bags because I've never performed the x-ray screening.

The TSA will never go back to screening all passengers the Pre Check way, even if it adds almost zero increased risk. To do so would be admitting that their added security procedures are not needed, which could lead to a reduction in their budget. Also, look at the backlash from the proposed knife policy. Too many people freaked out about allowing knives, even though knife wielding terrorists aren't going to take over a plane anymore. Some people will probably think that there will be will be a horde of shoe bombers waiting to take down planes if security is relaxed.

The $85 fee makes it look like the TSA is doing something. A terrorist group would just have to pick someone who could pass the background check. The TSA has the Secure Flight data when a ticket is purchased. Why can't they use that? They always can throw in extra checkpoint security at random.

I agree with your premise. Screening is not a math problem. Government already has information on most travelers to make a risk assessment when a ticket is purchased.

Pre Check level screening for the majority of travels results in less stress on screeners, more satisfied travelers, reduced screening cost, with no significant negative impact on safety. I think it might improve safety if screeners can concentrate on the highest risk passengers.

It's just that simple!

+1

Indeed it won't accomplish anything in terms of increasing security in any statistically significant terms.

The "differentiation" in security screening is indistinguishable from "discrimination" in security screening, whether or not the discrimination is lawful or not.

By the way, the attempt to argue by analogy using medical screening to defend the TSA is amusing in multiple ways. At least the expensive US medical system looks like a great bargain compared to the TSA, right or not? ;)

What information does TSA have routinely on every passenger?

How do you identify who is in the majority and who is not?

How does the announced change to precheck fail to address your premise?

Statements like this are evidence of a lack of understanding of probability theory and simple mathematics.

For the statement to be true it requires screening using precheck standards to be equivalent in specificity to those using the alternative. The alternative methods have been argued as more invasive and hence more sensitive.

If you have evidence that the two are equivalent in their ability to detect the threat when the threat is true then the hypothesis is supported. If not, then your assertion cannot be true. It's not an opinion, it is the mathematics of test accuracy. Sort of like 2 plus 2 is 4 is a mathematical certainty even if your financial adviser tells you otherwise.

I've never defended the TSA or its methods. In fact, I went so far to say pretty much he opposite. As for using medicine as an example of how the mathematics of test accuracy works is exactly spot on. Not recognizing this makes it clear to me, you aren't interested in a discussion of the science but are hell bent on playing the politics of emotion.

Well here there are some posts defending the TSA -- at least in this matter -- but whether doing so before or not doesnt really matter to me since I don't get emotional about much of anything in these matters.

By the way, just because something is "clear" to someone doesn't necessarily make it correct. This situation is an example of that.

For $85 on average, do you get a US pathologist to even check out the slides from a breast cancer biopsy? And the chances of having a metastasizing breast cancer, even in a male patient, are higher or lower than that of an $85 background check finding a terrorist at a US airport with the means and intention to attack a passenger plane or its people? I wouldn't be surprised if pre-school boys were to have a higher incidence of breast cancer than the incidence of a US passenger being a terrorist with the means and motivation to target the flight flown. :rolleyes:

$85 or whatever multiple of that is paid by passengers will actually do nothing to effectively discriminate against the very rare species of terrorists relevant in this context. If anything, this program only helps terrorists since terrorists attempting to get someone "enabled" "under the radar" will have a way to do so with pretty high confidence about who is more consistently not flagged and be able to do so for a relative bargain given the trash "security" value of this "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than other animals" PreCheck extortion racket.

We would be as "secure" (or more "secure") with none of this PreCheck and ID-related nonsense and instead using PreCheck LLL screening as a default with truly random extra screening on an equitable basis for all including my proverbial Scandinavian grandmother with mobility impairment.

"Test accuracy"? :D ROTFLOL :D There are reasons why in the medical context even medical professionals ask for second opinions and run tests/procedures again. ;) And it doesn't always have to do with self-dealing of some sort or another. ;) Do you really believe that for $85 or whatever multiple of that is collected in "user fees" from passengers the TSA is going to perform as well or better at "diagnosis" than an expensive medical industry with far greater threat of meaningful litigation than the TSA will ever face?

Government has watch lists.
Government has NCIC.
Goverment has access to credit bureau data which has more than your credit history.

I have little doubt that government has other information available. What do you suppose happens when a person shows with no ID?

Government can make a reasonable security decision when you purchase your ticket.

The majority are those who pose little or no threat. All others get full screening.

The announced Pay Check scheme wants money for a step that I don't think is needed. I don't advocate no screening but Pre Check style screening for the majority of travelers.

So it's ok in your book for the government to run a background on you without your knowledge or consent justifying it as a necessary part of security.

The only demonstrable difference is how its funded. That and I can opt out of underwear inspection by not applying for and agreeing to it.

And one last question....who's paying for these new enhancements anyway? User fees attached to airline tickets, taxes, or? Having data access is different than running and interpreting the data in terms of resources required.

The savings in other areas of the screening process would fund these changes.

I suggest that government already looks into individuals history when it wants. Take a look at what FINCEN does, or OFAC requirements government places on certain businesses. Not to mention the individual data collection being done by local police departments, NSA, and who knows whom else.

We could also approach this from a simpler position. Pre Check style screening offers adequate security and is used on everyone only elevating on alarms. I think the demonstrated risk, 1.6 million passeners daily with no terrorist attack in recent years validates this premise. Either way cost savings would be realized which is good for taxpayers.