gingersnaps

“The confusion lies in the fact that we ended Managed Inclusion 2, but have left Managed Inclusion 1 in place,” TSA spokesman Mike Englund Travelskills.com


“TSA routinely evaluates the effectiveness of airport checkpoint screening procedures at all U.S. airports to ensure the security of travelers. TSA has recently eliminated the practice of utilizing behavior detection officers and explosive trace detection sampling to direct certain passengers into TSA Pre✓® expedited screening lanes, a practice known as “Managed Inclusion II.” TSA will also continue to offer expedited screening to certain travelers who have been pre-screened by TSA canines, a practice known as “Managed Inclusion I.” Overall, the agency is now moving toward offering TSA Pre✓® expedited screening only to trusted and pre-vetted travelers enrolled in the TSA Pre✓® program, and is working with a number or partners to expand enrollment in program. Aviation security employs multiple layers, both seen and unseen, to ensure the safety of the traveling public, and TSA constantly tests and challenges this system in order to enhance capabilities and improve techniques as threats evolve.”


So it is confirmed from TSA, Managed Inclusion has not ended. The ONLY WAY to end Managed Inclusion is passing the Securing Expedited Screening Act (HR 2127).

Given TSA's success rate, pushing as many people as possible through with the least amount of screening, should never be an option.

Boggie Dog

The simple solution is to use Pre Check standards as the initial screening method ramping up on individual passengers as needed. Use body scanners as secondary screening devices. Pre Check as it is being done now under utilizes TSA screening staff which slows down the vast majority of travelers.

RadioGirl

So MI 1 (dogs) continues (and is being called MI 3), but MI 2 (BDO + ETD) is over. Seems to me the confusion lies in the fact that the TSA is involved.
Given TSA's success rate at finding stuff (extremely poor) coupled with the number of successful attacks by passengers as a result of things TSA missed (zero), pushing as many people as possible through with the least amount of screening sounds efficient and no less effective than the entire dog-and-pony show. (Or at least the dog part.)
This. Only (as I think you've said yourself) without the whole PreCheck background check boondoggle.

petaluma1

More gobbeldygook from the TSA trying to extricate themselves from the mess they got into. I'm lovin' it.

GUWonder

As of today, lots of people are still getting 100% (or other very high frequency) PreCheck LLL outcomes despite having no KTN and leaving the KTN field empty. Many of these PreCheck LLL people don't even have airline elite status.

^^ for PreCheck LLL type screening at airports being the default screening even for those airline non-elites who don't pay into the DHS membership programs' extortion rackets.

I strongly oppose that "Securing Expedited Screening Act", a bill which is still in Congress. There are various other ways for Managed Inclusion and other access to PreCheck to end, none of which require passage of yet another law.

KevinDTW

+1 IOW, go back to what screening used to be pre-9/11. And forget the body scanners as secondary screening devices; just use a pat-down instead if necessary. Many times when I've had to use the non-Pre line the scanner gives a false positive resulting in a pat-down anyway; we don't need expensive machines for that.

IMO the non-Pre screening routine is nothing more than a mix of knee-jerk reaction and corporate welfare. It is more hassle and time consuming, but if it is really a better system that keeps us all safer then it should be used by everyone with no exceptions. If not, then the less expensive, less intrusive system should be the norm.

jkhuggins

There are cases when the body scanners can resolve anomalies without the use of a pat-down.

People's views on privacy differ. Some people would rather have a body scan than have a pat-down conducted by a stranger. Others would prefer the pat-down. *IF* we were to return to the "good old days", both the pat-down and the body scanners could be offered to passengers needing secondary screening, with the passenger able to choose.

While I agree with the sentiment, I will quibble with the reasoning.

Being "safer" shouldn't be considered simply as a "yes/no" question. Of course the non-Pre screening routine is "safer". But we are probably talking about an infinitesimal improvement in a system designed to protect against an infinitesimally unlikely event, at a substantial cost (both in terms of financial expenditure to conduct the screenings and the opportunity cost born by passengers who give up some of their liberty to submit to the screening).

What we really ought to be doing is a sober cost-benefit analysis; how does the infinitesimal amount of increased safety compare to the increased cost? If the benefits aren't worth the cost, a change ought to be made.

Alas, that sort of analysis isn't likely to occur anytime soon.

KevinDTW

I get your point, but at what cost? Those machines aren't cheap to purchase, maintain, or staff. As you rightly point out, an unbiased cost-benefit analysis would be useful here.

Not sure I'm ready to concede that point. Have any real-world tests actually confirmed it (not a rhetorical question; I really don't know although I have my suspicions ).

Agree 100%.

Carl Johnson

No no, obviously using the Übermenschen Lane standards (minus the War on Water) is the solution, but don't casually assume the next step is "ramping up on individual passengers." The Shoe Carnival and the NOSs don't do anything, so why use them ever? The thing to do is, use Übermenschen standards for everybody, while THINKING about whether there are cases in which more thorough screening should be done, and if so, figure out what should be done and then do it. Really, terrorist attacks are so rare that there's no way to stop them by screening. Maybe you can stop a random shooter that way. But the way to stop a terrorist attack is to actually use intelligence that works (as opposed to just sucking in everybody's data in order to harass members of disfavored groups and persons with disfavored opinions) and learn about actual plots.

Carl Johnson

"Safer," maybe. Safer, no.

Boggie Dog

Agreed, we certainly don't need a federal law over how Pre Check is to be operated. What we need is to get government out of the screening business.

I can understand how those people who fell for TSA's Pre-Check scam feel when the Pre-Check lane fills up with Random Inclusion but no one should have preference or be able to purchase preference for a government service which is exactly what airport screening currently is. Being a frequent flyer, having status, or perceived entitlement doesn't give a person any more right to the screening lanes than it does for the person who flies once in a lifetime.

I advocate Pre-Check screening standards for everyone, increasing the scope of a screening as need dictates. This is fair and balanced for everyone presenting for screening, leaves TSA with all of the tools they now have, and does not increase the cost of screening for anyone, especially cost born by taxpayers.

chollie

There has been and continues to be plenty of cost-benefit analyses. The analyses focus on benefitting connected ex-TSA/DHS employees and their Congressional owners.

It's a huge industry with unlimited growth potential and bought-and-paid-for corrupt congressmen willing to see a benefit in anything that generates the right profits for the right people.

Actual security is the least important factor in such analyses.

Often1

Despite all the rants, I find Pre-Check to be great value (100% with GE). Saves time, effort, stress and is generally painless.

Even when the Managed Inclusionees troop through, I have found that even lines which look long do not take long. True, people putting their shoes on the belt may add a few seconds, but it's not world-ending.

History, having nothing to do with TSA, shows that when there are security lapses, security is tightened not loosened. The impact of the various TSA failings over the past 18 months are not going to lead to a less rigorous experience, no matter what people think.

From a self-interest perspective, Pre-check is faster and cheap. That's all I care about.

jkhuggins

I feel like I'm arguing about angels dancing on head of pins, but, sure ...

How you answer this question depends on what you mean by a "real-world test". I'm sure there's a TSA press release somewhere that crows about one scanner at one checkpoint finding one item that wouldn't have been found with a WTMD.

Oh, hey, look, here's one: http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/02/tsa-week...-firearms.html --- though you have to look through the comments to discover that TSA is crowing about the scanner finding a ceramic knife a passenger concealed in a sock.

I find it unlikely that the AIT scanners are allowing *more* contraband past a checkpoint than the WTMDs did. And since allowing exactly the same amount of contraband past a checkpoint is extremely unlikely, I'm left to conclude that the AIT scanners are allowing *less* contraband past a checkpoint.

But I don't want us to be debating about being "safer". Implicit behind that argument is the "anything for security" mindset --- "safer" is always better than "not safer", no matter how much money we spend, no matter how many civil liberties we give up, no matter how much time we spend. That mindset does not serve us well. Conceding the point about being "safer" allows us to move directly to the debate we really ought to be having.

DaveBlaine

A ceramic knife? What next? A porcelain gun made in Germany?