I much prefer the AP version which includes the following quote:

I am not concerned with the most secure way to prove identity, at least when it comes to air travel, and most other instances as well. The only time I would find it acceptable is for law enforcement purposes of id. There may be a few more examples as well, but that does not pertain to this subject.

The problem with your idea is that it is nearly impossible for the TSA, as a gov. entity, to do it smarter. It is counter to their existence in the realm of gov. finance. The TSA has to grow and spend more money, or they risk cutbacks due to surplus, so they do things that require more work and/or more money. A private company tends to look for ways to cut back on costs to increase profit or stocks for investors. Providing services or creating wickets efficiently and well is essential for private companies existence.

Just for a few examples. Does the TSA do any of the following well?

1. Hire, train, maintain, and manage the best employees needed for the service.
2. Manage risk, do risk assessment, and compare versus cost for effectiveness.
3. Provide the best tools and materials for the employees to do the job.
4. Provide a quality customer service.

I can't think of one thing that the TSA does well and is cost effective.

And how many years will it take? 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more?

You are making the assumption that the TSA/DHS would simply get a credit score from a third party rather than accessing your credit card history directly. That would be one way of doing this, and I agree that it might not be too invasive.

However, the media has reported (Washington Post, March 16 2011) that:
"Credit information, tax returns and other personal data" is a little more vague than a credit score, and allows for many other options. The statement also implies that the passenger would directly provide this information to DHS/TSA, not that a third party would provide a credit score.

That vagueness, coupled with TSA/DHS paranoia, leads me to believe that it would be more detailed than you are assuming. As I've said, I find it hard to believe that the organization could go, almost overnight, from patting down six-year-olds and war veterans and passengers leaving an Amtrak train "out of an abundance of caution" to "oh, yeah, you've got a good credit score, go on through."

Time will tell whether your assumptions or mine are correct.

+1

There are several types of magic invoked in the checkpoint-of-the-future concept. TSA couldn't get puffers to work with an enclosed booth (although other people manage ) but this involves an open, walk-through puffer. There's a magic x-ray that only images your bag (and your shoes) but doesn't irradiate you, and a magic metal detector that only alerts on scissors but not on laptops. TSA can't manage to implement ATR on the NoS or liquid scanners, despite (a) repeated promises that they're "exploring" these technologies, and (b) the fact that other airports have had them for some time. I'm not holding my breath on the c-o-t-f.

Do you think people should be allowed to fly anonymously? I suppose that's one way to go, but I would think that if you have no idea who the passengers are then you do have to treat them all as terrorists. Otherwise when the terrorist DOES get on board and blow the plane up I'm sure the people will scream "Why didn't the government do something?"

I see a huge difference between the "quality" of the front-office TSOs and the back off procedures and systems at the DHS. Knowing the type of folks in areas that I'm familiar with that the NSA has hired, for example, leads me to believe that there *are* intelligent people working there. The just aren't screening passengers.

I personally think we should allow machetes on planes. Yes, the folks locked in the plane could all die, but probably not. And the real thing we're worried about is turning the planes into missiles and I think the reinforced doors should be up to the task. At least long enough to get the plane down.

No, I'm saying we MAKE them do this. I'm not assuming anything. I don't think they could tell anything from a regular credit score. Even someone with no credit history has a credit store - and it can be higher than someone with really bad credit. Really bad credit doesn't make you a threat. I think they need to be required to construct an algorithm that, in the same way that a credit score uses your credit file to give a numerical representation of your credit risk, gives a score that can be used to determine if you can just waltz through the metal detector or if you are going to need to be looked at more closely.

Yes; as far as TSA is concerned, people should be allowed to fly anonymously if they so desire.

If TSA does its job to prevent passengers from bringing WEI aboard, what does it matter who you are?

~~ Irish

I fly anonymously several times/week. So far the US government has not fallen. And I dare say no one else at the TSA knows who are the passengers onboard those flights either.

Yes, I do. As far as the government is concerned, absolutely. Keep in mind that just because you deny the government the right to track your movement using id's, iris scanners, fingerprints, etc., the pax on the aircraft are not anonymous. The airline knows who you are, and has already matched your name against the NFL(something that needs an overhaul, but that's another topic) through the TSA.

How exactly is a terrorist without a gun or explosive device going to bring down an airplane anyways?

Lists exist for one primary reason: to deny or limit rights that would otherwise be protected by the Constitution. Especially when one can land on a list without due process.

Ok, but then realize that what you're saying is that you WANT the AIT/patdowns/whatever. EVERYONE gets treated as a potential terrorist. You don't get to complain when they pat down the baby or the nun or the 80 year old guy in a wheelchair or YOU. Make everyone anonymous is fine, but then everyone has to be screened as if they were OBL himself. And since we don't have the "Total Recall" type scanners yet that means you're saying you want the the continued level of TSA screening we currently have.

Which seems to be NOT what folks say in other threats. They complain about how they're not a terrorist, why do they have to go through it, etc.

It's like you're saying you want MORE screening, not less. Which makes me go

No, that's not what they're saying. This isn't an either-or scenario.

It's not clear to me that identity has much to do with airline security. Knowing who I am doesn't tell you much about what I intend to do on my next flight.

Furthermore, the terrorists know this. If something like this happens, all they'll need to do is recruit the next generation of suicide bombers from people who already have stellar past records and keep them clean until needed.

So ... if this particular check isn't going to thwart anyone intent on causing mischief, why bother?

That's not what's being said at all. You're making the Kip Hawley argument.

You can make two assumptions about a person coming into a checkpoint: everyone is a suspected terrorist until proven otherwise, or everyone is presumed to be good until given reason not to be.

The former gives rise to the type of idiocy we have now. The latter still has screening, but is much more sensible and risk managed. It acknowledges that the vast majority of people are good people, just trying to get from A to B. The statistics do not show that there was a significant amount of terrorists traveling to warrant that level of search. That's CYA. The latter acknowledges the reality that there are just a handful of idiots out there and they should be dealt with as they're found, not assuming that everyone is one of those idiots. You can still screen for the basics noninvasively: bag x-ray, WTMD and puffer or dog. If there's an alarm, you now have reason to think there is something worth looking at. You don't waste your time looking for every little thing on every person and then miss what you're really looking for.

People traveled for years before 9/11 without ID checks. Planes didn't fall out of the sky. We didn't go crazy over every little thing. We trusted security to did their job and they largely did an adequate job. Even with ID checks, nothing is being proven. All TSA sees is me producing something with my name and picture and it matches a piece of paper with my name on it. Now how does that improve security at all? It's not being compared to the NFL or harassment list right there. If someone wants to travel under a different name, it's not hard at all. Buy 2 refundable tickets under different names, show TSA the one with your name and matching ID, then travel under the other. Refund the former when you're done. I'll bet you the plane doesn't fall out of the sky.

If you're looking for every little thing, you're going to cast a net so wide you'll never find what you're looking for unless you get lucky. People are imperfect and they will miss stuff. If you narrow down what you're looking for, it's much easier to focus on the truly dangerous items and find those items. The vast majority of items currently banned could be allowed on with no net loss of security. I'd argue that narrowing that list would increase security. Instead of screeners focusing on the water bottle, they might actually find a WEI instead.

You're presenting the false choice of TSA security or no security, and that's not what's being argued. Knowing who a person is, especially with how TSA implements it, doesn't change the fact that security wouldn't change whether TSA required ID or not. Many people with background checks have abused security in the past (both in TSA, airport, and government environments). Knowing who they are, and "trusting" them doesn't mean they're not a bad guy. It just means they haven't done anything to violate the trust yet. And of course, a person can do that at any time for any reason. TSA is quick to point that out whenever one of their unscreened workers does something wrong.

So what level of screening is acceptable?

I'm willing to say that I will accept a lower level of security, fully acknowledging that it could very well lead to a situation where the plane lands with no one left alive but the pilots. I'm ok with that. I'm ok with saying, "WTMD is fine", knowing that ceramic blades with plastic handles could get on board and be used to kill several/all passengers. As long as they don't breach the cockpit then it's an acceptable risk.

What level of "incident" would you be willing to get up in front of the families of the victims and say: "We're sorry that this happened, but this is the sort of risk we were prepared to accept?"

Because WHEN something happens, not IF, folks will be wondering "how the system failed". No one seems to be willing to say: "The system did not fail." You can't tell me that hijacked planes being used as weapons were not an anticipated thread - Tom Clancy had it in one of his books. But no one was willing to say: "This was a risk we were willing to accept. And it happened. Bummer."

No one is ever willing to put their money where their mouth is. When something happens, be it a car accident, a crime, or a terrorist incident, no one ever says "This was a known risk, the person who died chose that risk when they decided to do <whatever>." Instead we get screaming, crying, and more stupid laws for things like "gun free zones", shoe carnivals, and more stupid security theater.

No check will. So we treat everyone the same. That's fine, but if you want to lower the level of screening on EVERYONE and not try to apply any sort of analysis towards threat identification then you're going to, by definition, let more through. I'm willing to say that in order to do that we, as a country, have to say that "Yes, we realize this has the following risks, and we're good with that" like when your doctor gives you a consent form before surgery. The problem is that we never ever seem to be willing to do that.

How is it any different on the ground than in the air in the scenario you propose? Madman with a weapon goes crazy, people die. Big aluminum tube, movie theater, sporting event, bus, train, all pretty much the same result. Airplanes only become a larger risk if the cockpit is breached, which would never happen in your scenario.

Based on your logic we'd screen people for ceramic knives before leaving their homes.