Saturday's Washington Post: Threats Reassessed To Ease Clearance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081201557.html

It sounds almost rational.

Or a hoax.

I have to agree that it sounds fishy. Parts of the proposal are in the "too good to be true" category, like scissors, short bladed knives, ice picks, throwing stars, bows and arrows, etc.

If true, this represents the first intelligent thought from this agency in its 3.5 years of existence. But it sounds a little unbelievable.

It doesn't seem like a hoax, or the TSA spokesman would have denied it outright. I thought that it seems like they're trying to trim down SSSS...

I agree that it sounds too good to be true. However, maybe they picked a director that ISN'T an assclown?

I won't get my hopes up.

A few things I picked up:

"It also recommends that certain categories of passengers be exempt from airport security screening, such as members of Congress, airline pilots, Cabinet members, state governors, federal judges, high-ranking military officers and people with top-secret security clearances."

The pilots make sense. But what about everyone else who isn't in a uniform or famous like some people like Condie or Rumsfeld? Are they going to have to register to get some sort of card to be registered, or is a federal ID going to be enough?

People generally know what they're elected officials look like, and a few more famous ones, but most people couldn't pick out the rest.

And I can imagine those with TS clearances on cover assignments wouldn't their cover blown at security. This is where biometrics would be bad.

"The proposal also would allow ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights. Allowing those items was suggested after a risk evaluation was conducted about which items posed the most danger."

Someone's finally using their noggin. ^

"It also proposes that passengers no longer routinely be required to remove their shoes at security checkpoints."

We were never supposed to routinely remove our shoes per SOP.

"Douglas R. Laird, former head of security for Northwest Airlines, said the proposal was a step backward. Laird said exempting certain categories of passengers from security screening would be dangerous because trusted groups have occasionally abused the privilege. "In an effort to be customer friendly, they're forgetting that their primary requirement is to keep airplanes safe," Laird said. "Either you screen everybody or why screen anybody?"



If you can't trust those officials and those with TS clearances who went thru months of background checks, WHO can you trust?

Sure, the system could be abused. Just like shoe carnivals abuse SOP right now. What's wrong with the shoe being on the other foot?

I also don't like that "If approved ..." caveat that's strung out in there.

I agree. Baghdad Bob/TSA Tom would have denied it.

Bottom line: Sounds good, but I'm not holding my breath. Show me the money.

If they exempt members of Congress, I'm going to join that club so I can fly again without being searched.

Sounds too good to be true. When I see it in print tomorrow, I'll believe it.

Dumb@ss!!!

Perhaps I'm alone in agreeing with this but it seems to me that the chap's right. The obvious argument is the risk of bad guys using people in the exempt from screening catagory as mules. But do you even need to go that far when we get congressmen turning up with loaded firearms they forgot they had?

Actually, I think most congressmen should be screened as they ARE known bad guys.

Not to toot my own horn here, but I did predict that TSA would eventually swing more towards a true risk-management philosophy. However, these are mere proposals and there hasn't been any pen put to paper yet.

As for the proposals themselves, I agree with a lot of them. I think relaxing on scissors, knives with blades shorter than 5 inches and razor blades (as opposed to utility knive blades) is a reasonable risk. Not too sure about throwing stars, however. By definition, they are martial arts weapons. They serve one purpose only. Or, to put it another way, there are many non-weapon uses for scissors but there aren't any that I can think of for throwing stars. Therefore, I would continue to prohibit throwing stars. But, it's not my call. Still, I'm curious to see how the new prohibited items list will look.

As for exempting certain people from regular screening, I have to admit that I felt goofy screening the few Senators that I've screened. And I also feel it's a waste of time screening general officers and airline pilots. So if TSA exempts these people from screening, I don't have a problem with it. Airline pilots, by the very nature of their job, don't need a pair of scissors, a screwdriver or even a gun to take down a plane. All they have to do is just point the nose down. So it's a waste of time for us to screen them. What's needed instead is that they undergo a thorough background investigation. I do disagree with exempting anyone with a top-secret security clearance from screening. I've conducted a significant number of criminal and counterintelligence investigations with subjects who had such clearances. I draw the line with general officers because at that point in their careers, they've demonstrated their trustworthiness and reliability after over 25 to 30 years of service. This is different than a 22 year old specialist who also has a top secret security clearance because nothing was revealed in the background investigation to disqualify him or her from that clearance. The question of Senators, governors and other high officials being exempted is a matter of politics more than it is anything else. Soon after 9/11, one of the big media pings against the fledgling TSA was when a nail file was confiscated from former Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle. There have been other similar situations involving other politicians as well. So I don't have a problem with exempting these officials from routine airport security screening. As it is right now, a lot of them are either exempted or given special screening; so it's not really much a big change if it were to happen anyway.

Biggest change that I anticipate is either the modification or elimination of the shoe screening criteria. I predict it will be a modification rather than elimination. I support changing it not only for the reasons I've stated previously in other threads, but also because of a recent class (and I'm talking about a couple days ago as of this posting) that changed my view about shoe bombs. I still believe that shoe bombs are a real threat, but I would look for them in a certain type of footwear rather than, say for instance, dress shoes. I think TSA can ease up on that criteria. Not saying that it isn't possible to pack some explosives into the hollowed-out heel of a pair of dress shoes. But I am saying that I don't think that ALONE would take down an airplane. Big difference.

From this point, it's a wait and see. Publicly making a statement that appeals to a great number of travellers is one thing. Actually putting it into practice is somethinge else.

Interesting as it seems some common sense might be surfacing with these possible changes. However, I still believe that if a terrorist wants to bring down a plane, they will, not matter what we do to try and prevent such an event. We may make it a bit hard with real security, but not with window dressing security which is what we have at the moment.

I agree as well. There is definitely a big danger of forgetting or "forgetting" prohibited items, or perhaps not even being familiar with the rules. Also, making members of Congress deal with the same system as the rest of us gives them a personal incentive for making sure the system is fair and efficient.

Also, you never know when a flag officer or a federal judge is going to go off their nut. It's not like these guys are all of unimpeachable conduct--witness the impeachment of federal judges, and the occasional dismissal of four-star generals.

If this means exempt from SSSS then fine, but if we're talking a special 'WTMD bypass' lane for these categories then I have to agree with Laird. Do we expect every screener to memorize congressmen, governers, judges etc. ? If not then these folks will need some kind of foolproof ID, easier said then done (see various threads). As for airline pilots, does the name Frank Abignale ring any bells ? I have a pilot's license and something which would pass muster as a 'uniform', so I guess I'd start wearing that to travel

This is probably just a random suggestion. Politically it would not be good for Congressmen and Judges to automatically be exempt. They serve the people; but are not above the people. And simply being an elected or appointed official does not mean somebody has been vetted. Thoes with TS Clearances? Pah-leaze. Every tech contracter within a hundred miles of DC has one. Terrorists? No. But AFAIK there is no centralized database in place for adaquate tracking. Other agencies in the governmnet have a hard time accpeting and verifying clearances from each other. TSA allowing bypass on that basis can't and should not happen.

If it's only an exemption from SSSS -- well, SSSS shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place.

I don't think anyone on that list is going to be a terrorist. From a purely practical standpoint exempting them makes sense.

I don't think Congress should be exempted, though.