Changes afoot for PreCheck?
 

http://reason.org/news/show/airport-...urity-news-108

The CF that is the TSA rolls on apace!

No matter how TSA handles Pre Check I think it will be the wrong solution. Any plan to add more travelers to dedicated Pre lanes bogs down those lanes. Not adding to Pre clogs the regular lines. And given TSA's apparent inability to schedule manpower where it is needed further degrades Pre.

The vast majority of travelers present no threat of any kind to air travel. Even taking into account the prohibited items found by TSA each week that represents a fraction of 1% of travelers. The obvious, most economical solution is to screen everyone to Pre standards initially then ramping up on individuals as needed.

A top to bottom review of all TSA procedures is needed. If any practice cannot be proven to be effective that practice should be discarded. In particular would be the BDO and LGA policies. Sufficient data has accumilated to show if either of these practices actually improved security. Same for Whole Body Imagers.

Also interesting in the article referenced by OP was the discussion of the FAM program. Seems some people understand just how little FAMs add to security.

I think before TSA starts shelling out taxpayer $$ to crony-run recruitment offices (which will become permanent), it might be great to start offering the product in a meaningful way.

I'm talking about PHX, JFK and other airports that don't offer Pre regularly and reliably.

Is this going to benefit pax or is it just a retirement perk for Pistole or some other recently retired DHS honcho?

...and people wonder why I call it "ExtortionCheck".....

Even if they went back to pre-9/11 checkpoints, the TSA would always have to have something for the elite flyers and others who feel they have to be privileged. That's the only way to silence criticism and keep the airlines happy. They will never go back to pre-9/11 checkpoints because they would have to admit they were wrong and apologize (or ignore) every country that played along at considerable expense to their own taxpayers.

No, they could go back. They could claim "the major threat is over ... bin Laden is dead ... times have changed since 9/11." TSA wouldn't have to admit they were wrong.

But that would require TSA to step out and lead, especially when the inevitable backlash ("anything for security") would occur. And TSA has shown little to no ability (or even interest) in doing that.

Instead of wasting taxpayer $ sending certain privileged TSA employees to certain (desirable) overseas airports to 'advise' on security, we should be inviting foreign security to come to the US to advise TSA.

Seriously. Is US security really 100% better than the collective and varied efforts of every other country on the globe?

TSA could, for example, get rid of the TDC and stop requiring shoes off. That would put the US in line with the rest of the world, could be implemented immediately, and require no cash outlay.

OK, not implemented immediately, because TSA would have to re-train every one first, and there would be a cash outlay because the taxpayers would have to cough up $$$ to pay to re-train every TSO. There would be no net savings because the TDCs would likely just be reassigned to 'standing around' checkpoint duties.

I think a major reason for not returning to simpler security is the profit motive. It's not about 'better' security; more invasive security generally comes with a higher price tag - and higher profits for corrupt public officials and their friends.

I think the TSA could change their policies without having to admit they were wrong. They could say something "consistent with the rest of the world, shoe explosives aren't a credible threat and shoes can remain on". Or "The liquid explosive threat isn't as viable as earlier thought, so we are allowing more liquids and larger sizes, such as water bottles". Imagine the good PR they would get by letting people bring a bottle of water through security. We would still be as safe.

On the other hand, after seeing the reaction to allowing small knives on board, I'm not sure if any change the TSA makes will be well received. There are still too many people who will do anything for safety. It would be nice to have some sanity when it comes to the TSA rules. I have a 4 oz bottle of liquid adhesive I use with my insulin pump. I could claim that as a medical liquid or throw it in my quart bag. All it's going to take is one TSA screener who won't listen or be reasonable and I will be forced to toss it. If it was 0.6 oz less, it suddenly isn't a threat.

One of the major problems with TSA is that passengers have no recourse when some screener makes some idiotic decision at the checkpoint. Example, a FT member had their nitroglycerin pills confiscated by TSA. The only reason for that to happen is because that screener and the supervisor had no idea of what they were doing. Even with this issue being reported after the fact TSA has failed to acknowledge the problem or to provide clear guidance on the TSA website. A member of the TSA Blog Team who posts here seems unable to admit that the TSA guidance on this point is lacking. TSA spends way to much energy telling the public such and such didn't happen instead of taking steps to make sure these things don't happen in the first place. If TSA employees are well trained then that training is how to be obnoxious bullies.

I personnaly do not believe that TSA serves the public well and simple steps could be taken to improve TSA. It is absolutely crazy that you even have to worry if TSA will allow the adhesive you use with the set for your pump. How does that serve the public good?

Didn't see it mentioned in this thread, but the TSA did say late last week that Pre is going away for random pax selection and will only be for paid members. I assume and hope that means GE/NEXUS members still get Pre "gratis" since we're paying DHS for those programs already.

Not quite. They have moved on to "Managed Inclusion III" in which sniffer dogs will be used to select non-paying passengers for Pre, at least as far as I understand.