The assertion that random screening is ineffective is intriguing. I will have to think about it. The assertion that a lot of security has been put in place just to make people feel safer - that opinion has gotten a lot of bboard time, but is ultimately a question of whether we should elect new politicians, not whether any particular security process is effective.
I'm just saying that given my experience with security clearances, it will be much harder or more expensive to clear people who have spent a significant amount of time overseas because of the coordination required with foreign agencies.
If I think about it too much, doing anything but staying at home is irritating and inconvenient for me. I can sometimes take me over an hour to get to work - pretty annoying since it is supposed to take half an hour. Getting to the airport? anywhere between 30 minutes and two hours. Weather problems? 5 hours instead of the normal 55 minute flight. This happens with some regularity. Picked for random screening? I spend 5 minutes watching the TSA agent trying to figure out which doo-dad goes back into which pocket of my carry-on instead of 5 minutes sitting on the airplane. Is this a problem? No.

Regarding the harrassment - it bothers me more that it has become convention to have my belongings searched at retail stores because they think everyone is a shoplifter.

What is the lastest news on the Trusted traveler program?

More checks and more checks - how different or closer are we getting to become a police
State???

My point is there should be more viligence, and checks should be made only on reasonable suspicion. This means more behind the scene intelligence.

The Trusted Traveller Programme is the opposite of that - that program says the traveller has already gone through the vetting, and is free from the harrassment. However, I say that EVERYONE should be free from harrasment unless there's is a reasonable suspicion that he or she poses a threat. [Checks are OK with me, but the checks today are akin to harrassment - I am wary on what I carry in my toilet bag nowadays... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

Otherwise to go to extreme, why dont you pass a law that everyone allow the poilce to check their household every week so ensure they have no drugs or dangerous weapons? THat will surely cut down crime in the country. YEY you will say - hey - unless theres a reasonable suspicion I do have them, you should not be allowed to come into my house to do that. Precisely my point.... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Unfortunately if you did this with houses you'd probably see the same reaction as we saw with routine searches of cars. Most people say "I've got nothing to hide. Take a look around if you want to." Sad, very sad...

Hotel_Lover has it right that everyone should be free of unwarranted "security" checks. I might add that there are a lot more people who don't warrant particular attention than would qualify for a "trusted traveller" program.

There is a problem with the usability of the system (otherwise we wouldn't have so many people wanting cards to get around parts of it). This problem needs to be fixed by repairing the system, not by giving out cards to people and hoping they'll turn a blind eye. Fixing a cumbersome security system by handing out cards to a select few of its users is like fixing a hole in a wall by handing out blindfolds to one's most frequent houseguests. It's just plain silly, and there's no reason not to do things right.

-

xyzzy has it right about searches. A lot of people aren't particularly concerned about concepts like individual suspicion and probable cause: "Search anything you want! I've got nothing to hide! Only someone who has something to hide would oppose a search!" And yes, it is sad.

On my Delta Shuttle trip this weekend I was reading my complimentary copy of reason magazine and came across this:
Perhaps we're already closer to a police state than we think...

We're not closer than I think! Nice post, Factotum!

Bruce