I don't see that as relevant here for two reasons. First, I strongly doubt that what would be looked at were FICO scores, or much of the material used to derive. Secondly, you'd have to show a correlation between crime and terrorism and that's the part that I don't see how to do because of the small sample set.

(However, I would expect to see a correlation between crime and FICO scores simply because there's a correlation between FICO scores and income and another between income and crime. But, as I said, I don't see the relevance here.)

I've seen no evidence that that's indeed the claim. There's a lot of information in credit reports that has nothing to do with credit risk. The fact that somebody has had a credit card for 20 years shows stability no matter how much they own on it or how many times they've been late in payments, for example.

There may be a correlation between income and crime but I have known people who were so poor that they didn't know where their next meal was coming from that could be trusted to safeguard someone else's last dollar.

I think (interesting dialogue, BTW) that, in the purest sense, there wasn't a lot of deception that went into the pilot training. The deception they used was generally short-term and designed to keep them under the radar. Key to their success was the structured and disciplined compartmented security approach they used, and, as far as we could tell, still use effectively.

Sneaking someone into a trusted traveler program would take a sophisticated intelligence service capable of creating an identity. It would be much easier to pitch someone already in the trusted traveler program, which generally is how potential spies are pitched.

Sounds like it's the same method TSA uses to screen airport workers and its screeners.

After all, TSA reminds us background checks can't predict future behavior, but yet somehow it allows you to pass security with limited screening (or in workers' cases, none). It gives TSA an easy out either way.

Of course, TSA is right that they won't predict bombs and other items. So all they need is a "clean" terrorist to exploit the system and they're on.

I fail to see how giving your biometrics and opening your life to government inspections for the chance of less hassle is a win for anyone but Big Brother. Throw the sheep a bone, make it seem like it's easier while clamping down on them, and they'll bleat all the way to the slaughter.

If I'm going to get harassed anyway, they can do it WITHOUT my info.

Not just alienating our foreign guests, but also US citizens. Why should anyone be harassed in this manner in the "freest" country in the world?

It shows that that one person *may* be stable. But what if I am a savvy consumer who shops around for a new credit card at a lower rate when my current CC company raises my interest rate? I have done that several times.

How does that make me less stable than someone who has a 20-year-old account?

+1 ^

I'd go with 100% infallibility. TSA can't admit its mistakes or when it's wrong. In fact, it ups the stupidity ante to compensate.

Of course it will happen. Politicians always take any disaster and try to spin it to their benefit to show that their opponents didn't take care of the situation. Similarly, bureaucrats will dig in and play the CYA game so it's not their @ss on the line when it does happen. The net result is that everyone clamps down more tightly and works against the very thing they're trying to accomplish.

Ink's statement is correct. Just because stuff happens doesn't mean that it should, or that it's right. It just shows that we're not living in the free society we think we are.

You're kidding, right? There hasn't been enough incidents of airline terrorism to have "cold, hard, peer-reviewed research".

And no, I didn't say anything about what your credit score is.

But if you have a credit history that's 5 years long or whatever (just guessing) then I think it's less likely that you're a terrorist. Unless, of course, you prefer the TSA making the assumption that everyone is a terrorist and treating us all as such.

You're focused on your FICO score for some reason. That's missing the point. The point is that there is a LOT of data in your credit file about where you've lived that would be valuable to establish someone's identity. It has nothing to do with financial performance. And again - big difference between someone's "work history or involvement in crime" and terrorism.

Again, it's not at all about credit performance - good vs bad - it's about history. If you're someone who got their first credit card in college at the age of 20, 20 years ago, then I think it's unlikely that you're actually a member of al-Qaeda.

Yes. That is why I said "cryptographically-signed". Which a picture isn't (unless it's on the card in digital form).

Who is more likely to be a terrorist: a 30 year-old with a 5-year old credit history, or a six-year-old girl?

Who is more likely to be a terrorist: a 40 year-old with a 20-year old credit history, or an Alaska state representative with a breast prosthesis?

If they have to put their hands in the little girl's pants and grope Rep Sharon Cissna (because, you know, there might be a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that she's a terrorist ), do you think they're going to give someone a pass because they've had a credit card for 5 years?
I agree. But only because it's been estimated that there are few hundred al-Qaeda members out of 7 billion people on Earth. So by the same token:

If you are six years old, I think it's unlikely that you're actually a member of al-Qaeda.

If you're a young pregnant woman, it's unlikely that you're actually a member of al-Qaeda.

If you're a United States serviceman in full uniform, it's unlikely that you're actually a member of al-Qaeda.

If you're a middle-aged man with a briefcase, it's unlikely that you're actually a member of al-Qaeda.

If you're breathing, it's unlikely that you're actually a member of al-Qaeda.

I said had a credit card for 20 years. I didn't say (or mean!) the same one!

The point is that if you have evidence of credit going back multiple decades, one or more employers, one or more home address, and so on, that person is much less likely to be a terrorist than somebody in their 30's who just popped up "in the system" six months ago.

If I were implementing such a system, I would design a metric based just on the number of records (including inquiries) in a person's credit history and the number of years they span and not care anything whatsoever about the content of those records.

Thank you, Richard, for the clarification. The way it read, it seemed like you were indicating the same one. I appreciate you explaining.

The problem I have is that the system is being implemented by the TSA/DHS. They may determine that a credit check is necessary. But you will have to forgive me if I don't take their word that they are only looking at issues of "stability."

Their track record on veracity is pretty poor.

I bet I could talk a 6 year-old girl into carrying explosives without knowing it. So the real question is who are her parents?

They're likely to be the same person. In other words I'd find it unlikely that the politician doesn't have a credit record.

I think if they want access to my data they're going to have to do so.

So what's your solution?

Here's my point:

Right now the TSA has to screen EVERYONE at the SAME LEVEL because they have been given no tools to do any sort of threat analysis. That's what we're all objecting to, I thought? The scanners and the gropes?

We can't do any sort of profiling based on what someone looks like. That's racist/classist/bigoted, whatever. So yeah, the guy with the briefcase looks EXACTLY the same as a terrorist to the TSA. As does the 6 year-old. Because the moment the TSA starts to profile someone based on their race or religion then everyone freaks out.

However, I think that if we do want to profile folks then their credit history is a great place to start. There's a huge treasure trove of data there. And I bet it could be used to come up with a "threat score" (that wouldn't really be tied to your credit score - I could see someone with a bankruptcy and someone with an 800 score having the same "threat score"). Heck, I bet the government could come up with the algorithm, give it to the agencies, and have them generate the scores - the government wouldn't even need your credit data. (Just a way to verify your "score" with the bureaus.) If you don't want to give the government the data then fine - but then the TSA has no way to you know that you're NOT a terrorist, so they'll assume that you are.

This is assuming, of course, that we want to do any screening at all. If you want to say that the risk of a suicide bomber on a flight is low enough for you that all you want is WTMD, carry on x-ray machines, and stronger cockpit doors then I can understand that. It makes a lot of sense to me. But like so many things that make sense I don't think anyone will ever go for it.