A better system is one that speeds up the boarding process for everybody by elimiating stupid security measures for everyone. I do not object to passenger prescreening in principle, but I do object to this "trusted traveler" nonsense because "It's OK as long as it doesn't happen to me" is simply not the way to approach a broken security system (and obviously it's broken or people wouldn't be looking for cards to avoid dealing with it).

Some security folks would say the people you know well are the ones you should keep the closest eye on because someone with bad intentions may try to take advantage of your complacency to defeat the security system.


So sad. I am consistently ashamed of the way my country treats non-citizen travellers; it is a reflection of the deep-seated fear many Americans have of anything outside their borders. But I digress... Rest assured Indonesian passport holders wouldn't qualify as "trusted travellers" (unless perhaps they also held a US passport) and your friend's wife would be subject to just as much Stupid Security (tm) even if this scheme was in place. That's why we need to get rid of the nonsense for everybody, not just the people who are most likely to complain vociferously.

So when you apply the faster process to pre-screened individuals it's a security hole but when you apply it to everyone it's an improvement?

And what kind of screening have the TSA people had? If you really want to defeat the system, that is where you put an agent(s).

I seriously doubt that lessened screening measures means not putting luggage throught the x-ray or not presenting ID or even not having to submit to a truly random search.

What I hope it means is that by submitting to a background check (that I would gladly pay for) I could avoid being subjected to the "random but not random" checks done by the Thousands Standing Around.

All security is based on some level of trust. Any system can be breeched with enough planning and forethought. Terrorists could get jobs working for TSA or even the airlines. There will always be a way.

I think that if this program is done right, it will speed up the process of boarding and could help with initial screening as well.

Remember the opening scene from Casino? The dealers are watching the players, the boxman is watching the dealers, the floorman is watching the boxman, the pit boss is watching the floorman, and the eye in the sky is watching everyone.

Beyond the automated checks, I'm sure the TSA staff is required to observe each other to make sure that there are searches are conducted when they are required.

Another procedure they should implement is to eliminate your ability to choose which line to go through at the security checkpoint.

No, no, no - I'm contending that the reason people are looking to get these "trusted traveller" cards is because the usability of the system has been reduced to intolerable levels by stupid rules. Getting rid of the stupid rules - for everybody - would be an improvement and would bring convenience back to a level that's suitable for everyone. Allowing only a select few to bypass the "random security" nonsense while still subjecting millions upon millions of equally trustworthy travellers to measures that do nothing to improve security - well, that's just making things worse.

That's certainly the popular mantra on these forums.

Many Americans are paranoid. They want to have a system that inconvenience millions because of this fear. They take the trouble and effort to target millions of travelers because they so happen to be holding passports from a Muslim country. Note that Americans commit many acts of violence and also from citizens of nations, which are non-Muslim. You fail to see that random checking won�t stop the acts because if so, then by the laws of probability, then after every 5 attempts one will succeed. So maybe they will advocate 100% checks next. Many months back I flew through US by United, and the way the ground staff were checking foreigners and the inconvenience caused, which akin to harassment to the foreigners, I predicted that the airline would fail. Many travelers with me vouch not to travel to USA again if they can avoid it. Indeed I was right. All the checks put the extreme fear factor into every single American traveler. Nobody wants to travel by air anymore because of the fear and also the massive inconvenience. Look, try flying through Heathrow and see if you are subject to the same crazy and useless checks. Not at all. The Brits are better at handling this than the Americans. All the checks do is to give you some psychological comfort, but in fact is quite ineffective. I am also appalled that some people prefer everyone regardless of prior vetting to go trough the same checks� Come on � concentrate on intelligence gathering, have less intrusive checks by having prior vetting, and remember that not all that holds foreign passports are potential terrorists. Maybe you should strip-search George Bush before he boards his plane. Give some scope to common sense. Americans tend to over-exaggerate and over simplify the problems. This is not a Hollywood movie that will end in 2 hours and everything will be well. You may have to contend and live with the fact that senseless violence is part of life. I don�t like it myself, but we do not live in Hollywood.

I don't know where to begin.

THe Truth hurt eh?

Right on, Hotel_lover!

By the way, IMHO the check that *everyone* goes through at Heathrow is better and performed with a LOT more professionalism than what we have in the US.

[This message has been edited by xyzzy (edited 12-10-2002).]

That's because we have the disadvantage of decades of experience

Nigel

The unfortunate experience of the Europeans past experience is what US should learn from. And I agree, this aint a hollywood movie and Bush should avoid acting and talking like John Wayne. The movie may not end in two hours and the viewers will become bored.

I was just commenting on the fact that the paragraph structure and attitude makes it difficult to agree with many of the good points, disagree with some generalizations, yet express some disapproval of my personal feeling of being lumped into the portion of the populace that has been whipped into frenzy by the media.

I would like to note that it seems like prior vetting would increase the bias against non-residents.

Also, maybe it is the times I fly or the stations I fly out of, but I don't think things have gotten that much more inconvenient. Maybe 1-10 minutes more inconvenient, but getting to the airport is still much more of a hassle for me than traversing the security checkpoints.

Lensman says "the paragraph structure and attitude makes it difficult to agree with many of the good points, disagree with some generalizations, yet express some disapproval of my personal feeling of being lumped into the portion of the populace that has been whipped into frenzy by the media."


Well, what do you agree and what do you disagree? Com'on - thats waffling. You are not telling us anything by your own statements....

Lensman says "I would like to note that it seems like prior vetting would increase the bias against non-residents."

On my humble view, if the Americans do the vetting as they have been doing so far, every non-resident has been and will be treated like a potential terrorist. :-( The american authorities should do their homework and check regardless of nationality only if the passenger has a history which may trigger such suspicion and the checks shd be done before the passenger lands/board and NOT to interrograte and cause agitation by checking toilet bags at every point. The point is made that other airports which are just as vulnerable do not do these irritating tests. The Americans shd remember that terrorists comes in all nationals. So, I SAY : (1) there shouldnt be a bias in the prior vetting. (2) Check if there is a reasonable suspicion, dont check if there is none. (3)Dont take foreigners as easy targets for checking and interrogation. (4) forget about random checking. Work on reasonable suspicion instead as a basis

Lensman says "Also, maybe it is the times I fly or the stations I fly out of, but I don't think things have gotten that much more inconvenient. Maybe 1-10 minutes more inconvenient, but getting to the airport is still much more of a hassle for me than traversing the security checkpoints."


Lucky you if you find security checks not much more inconvenient. I can tell you that many many are not so lucky to just being inconcenience and are quite fed up. Irritation and harrassment even for one minute should not be acceptable.

Sorry if my English not so good and fluent.