TSA's here...

[Ryan]

But maybe that's just me.

Nope. Definitely not just you. Maybe just the two of us, though....

 

[jis]

That idea that your hands and eyeballs are all that stands between a criminal or a nutcase and his or her next heist or attack is rather alarming to me. Not to mention the continuing erosion of our civil liberties that these ever more invasive security procedures help promote. Yes it's still by choice, for now, but if this becomes the new standard then those who choose to opt-out are likely to find traveling through their own country more and more difficult over time. And for what benefit? Until terrorism becomes more than a statistical anomaly I don't see the benefit of spending such a large amount of money fighting it. It seems to me that far more Americans are being harmed by domestic abuse, gangland drug wars, everyday car collisions, and poor health than are being harmed by actual terrorists. I'd rather spend my tax money addressing problems like those. But maybe that's just me.

It's you hands or eyeballs and the fat dossier that they collect about everything that you have done so far, and an assessment based on a detailed interview at least for the CBP programs. Even the Israelis have a similar pre-clearance program, and they are the acknowledged best practice in this area. Note that they still occasionally put a person in the program through the regulr rigmarole at random or based on any hunches or tips. If one must have a program like this it might as well be better grounded on facts and techniques that are known to be effective than just a huge dog and pony show.

 

[Peter KG6LSE]

But maybe that's just me.

Nope. Definitely not just you. Maybe just the two of us, though....

make that 3

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's you hands or eyeballs and the fat dossier that they collect about everything that you have done so far, and an assessment based on a detailed interview at least for the CBP programs.

It looks as though you may have misunderstood my point. If there is any chance your unique eyes and hands could provide access to something important then your physical body just became a completely unnecessary target. If a sinister criminal or crazy person demands a key or password or smartcard or whatever I can choose to hand it over and possibly escape the situation without additional harm. However, if they instead demand my hands or eyeballs or the like in order to attempt to fool a biometric system then what exactly am I supposed to do to avoid permanent harm? Again, it doesn't even need to be possible to fool the system. The criminals and crazy people only need to think it might be possible to fool the system in order to make my body into a target for irreversible harm. As for Israel, I could be wrong but I don't believe their invasive security state would be able to pass all the limits and restrictions provided for in the US Constitution. Not to mention that at least in Israel's case terrorism is in no way a statistical anomaly.

 

[Lazy Z]

I won't fly because of the degrading security procedures but don't mind the department of homeland security with their dogs.

Agree! I am 100% positive that would put an end to our big trip (the pat downs). For me, not as big of a problem, for my little girl - no way!

 

[jis]

I won't fly because of the degrading security procedures but don't mind the department of homeland security with their dogs.

Agree! I am 100% positive that would put an end to our big trip (the pat downs). For me, not as big of a problem, for my little girl - no way!

Yeah, the problem is the unpredictability of it. I must admit, I have not been patted down even once in the last 5 years and I have flown close to 100,000 miles each of those 5 years. But then again they probably have a dossier a foot thick on me if they carefully record all my travels and my public/internet footprint should they be into such. I have heard that people who only fly occasionally stand a greater chance of receiving additional scrutiny, but I have no specific knowledge to that effct.

 

[trainman74]

I actually have a somewhat ethical issue with the TSA (a government agency) operating checkpoints and then allowing first class pax or those with airline status into a faster/shorter line. If the checkpoint is being funded by the government, why should some folks get into a faster/shorter line just because they paid more?

In my experience, the shorter lines are completely a construct of the airline and/or the airport, and only lead as far as the point where TSA screening begins (i.e., the boarding pass checker). Once you get into the part of the process that's actually controlled by the TSA/the government, first class/elite status passengers are treated the same as everyone else.

Actually, there are some airports that have checkpoints that are solely for first class/elite status passengers, but again, that's something that's set up by the airline and/or the airport (and in some cases, those checkpoints can actually move slower, since there may be fewer TSA agents on duty).

 

[bmorechris]

Clearly the TSA isn't perfect, but I do feel some things are blown out of proportion with respect to their screening practices. I've had all sorts of screenings at airports, and never have I felt degraded by the practices. That includes secondary metal detection screening (I had a steel rod in my leg), pat downs (Just as thorough as the one I, secondary baggage screening at the gate, full body scanner, explosive "sniffer" machine, and probably some I forgot. Yes its a pain, and can require more time at the airport, but for the vast majority of air travelers (about 2 million per day in the US) it's just an annoyance. I have found by acting polite the agents are typically polite back. There are always going to be bad employees, ones who don't follow procedure, and there will be procedures that do not work or are improper. Every organization regardless government or private has had to change policies and procedures at one time or another. And the TSA has to be in contact with a staggering number of people, so of course there are going to be problems. Personally, I can't see not flying because of the security. Sometimes its the best or only reasonable way to get places, and I enjoy traveling to new places much more than I dislike the security.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I must admit, I have not been patted down even once in the last 5 years and I have flown close to 100,000 miles each of those 5 years.

I receive the "enhanced physical search" government mandated grouping regularly solely as a result of declining to subject myself to Uncle Sam's naked x-ray machine. Did my last reply help explain what I was getting at earlier?

I actually have a somewhat ethical issue with the TSA (a government agency) operating checkpoints and then allowing first class pax or those with airline status into a faster/shorter line. If the checkpoint is being funded by the government, why should some folks get into a faster/shorter line just because they paid more?

In my experience, the shorter lines are completely a construct of the airline and/or the airport, and only lead as far as the point where TSA screening begins (i.e., the boarding pass checker). Once you get into the part of the process that's actually controlled by the TSA/the government, first class/elite status passengers are treated the same as everyone else. Actually, there are some airports that have checkpoints that are solely for first class/elite status passengers, but again, that's something that's set up by the airline and/or the airport (and in some cases, those checkpoints can actually move slower, since there may be fewer TSA agents on duty).

I've had status and I've been in the express lane from time to time. In smaller airports the difference isn't huge, but in a major hub it's like night and day. I got through the TSA in no time while others stood and waited an hour or more. So far as I could tell the TSA was a willing participant in all of this. Otherwise they'd make everyone go through the same line without regard for whatever airline's status perks and revenue streams. Instead they did their part to make sure none of the unwashed masses accidentally ended up in the fast lane. Considering how many billions of public funding has been spent on zoning, building, maintaining, and directing our air traffic I'm not sure there is any meaningful way to determine if a systematic inequity is privately or publicly funded. In other words, it's almost certainly a bit of both.

I've had all sorts of screenings at airports, and never have I felt degraded by the practices.

I'm more curious if you felt substantially safer after being irradiated, grouped, and sniffed. You never mentioned if you thought it actually accomplished anything, which seemed a little odd to me.

 

[GoldenSpike]

That idea that your hands and eyeballs are all that stands between a criminal or a nutcase and his or her next heist or attack is rather alarming to me. Not to mention the continuing erosion of our civil liberties that these ever more invasive security procedures help promote. Yes it's still by choice, for now, but if this becomes the new standard then those who choose to opt-out are likely to find traveling through their own country more and more difficult over time. And for what benefit? Until terrorism becomes more than a statistical anomaly I don't see the benefit of spending such a large amount of money fighting it. It seems to me that far more Americans are being harmed by domestic abuse, gangland drug wars, everyday car collisions, and poor health than are being harmed by actual terrorists. I'd rather spend my tax money addressing problems like those. But maybe that's just me.

Big Brother Government™ never gives up!

Homeland Security moves forward with 'pre-crime' detection

"...will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rateto "detect cues indicative of mal-intent [my emphasis]."

Think of the potential for abuse in the definition of 'cues.'

 

[leemell]

That idea that your hands and eyeballs are all that stands between a criminal or a nutcase and his or her next heist or attack is rather alarming to me. Not to mention the continuing erosion of our civil liberties that these ever more invasive security procedures help promote. Yes it's still by choice, for now, but if this becomes the new standard then those who choose to opt-out are likely to find traveling through their own country more and more difficult over time. And for what benefit? Until terrorism becomes more than a statistical anomaly I don't see the benefit of spending such a large amount of money fighting it. It seems to me that far more Americans are being harmed by domestic abuse, gangland drug wars, everyday car collisions, and poor health than are being harmed by actual terrorists. I'd rather spend my tax money addressing problems like those. But maybe that's just me.

Big Brother Government™ never gives up!

Homeland Security moves forward with 'pre-crime' detection

"...will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rateto "detect cues indicative of mal-intent [my emphasis]."

Think of the potential for abuse in the definition of 'cues.'

This is key to the El Al model of airline security coupled with multiple layers.

 

[Guest]

Oh one other htought on the matter - they don't appear to be checking people boarding MBTA trains at the exact same time - a train which is headed to the same location (BOS). Further demonstrating to me that this whole dog & pony show is "security theater."

Yeah, no one is outside of my unstaffed station on the Crescent's route. It would be pretty easy for someone to bring a bomb onboard and get off without doing the suicide bomber thing. They could set the bomb to go off at one of the major cities and voila, terror. I mean why would a terrorist try to board at a station that is known to have cops when they could board at an unstaffed station with pretty much a guarantee of nobody being there. Yep, its all still theatre.

 

[bobnabq]

Your thoughts?

I won't be satisfied until TSA look like Star Fleet.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Your thoughts?

I won't be satisfied until TSA look like Star Fleet.

Sky Fleet maybe? It would require far too much sharing and cooperation for a bunch of greedy, hairless apes to reach and colonize another planet. -_-

 

[trainman74]

I've had status and I've been in the express lane from time to time. In smaller airports the difference isn't huge, but in a major hub it's like night and day. I got through the TSA in no time while others stood and waited an hour or more. So far as I could tell the TSA was a willing participant in all of this. Otherwise they'd make everyone go through the same line without regard for whatever airline's status perks and revenue streams. Instead they did their part to make sure none of the unwashed masses accidentally ended up in the fast lane.

I'm interested in knowing which airports you're talking about -- at all the airports I've used while I've had elite status on United, the TSA couldn't care less whether or not I had elite status. As I indicated above, in airports where there is a special line for elite-status travelers, the lines leading up to the checkpoint are monitored by employees of AirServ or another contractor being paid by either United or the airport, not the TSA. And then once to the TSA's boarding pass checker, there's no special line for elite-status passengers -- some airports have the lines for "expert traveler," etc., but those are self-selecting.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm interested in knowing which airports you're talking about -- at all the airports I've used while I've had elite status on United, the TSA couldn't care less whether or not I had elite status. As I indicated above, in airports where there is a special line for elite-status travelers, the lines leading up to the checkpoint are monitored by employees of AirServ or another contractor being paid by either United or the airport, not the TSA. And then once to the TSA's boarding pass checker, there's no special line for elite-status passengers -- some airports have the lines for "expert traveler," etc., but those are self-selecting.

You didn't see huge differences at airports like ORD & SFO? This was several years ago and maybe things are different now, but my memory had the fast lane taking me all the way through the TSA. On those occasions when people tried to switch lines it seemed everyone was on them. I didn't go around asking who everyone was employed by so maybe I misunderstood who exactly was doing the corralling. In any case the new systems currently being tested are all about pay-to-play. Single airport implementations may not generate much revenue, but as soon as the TSA awards a large regional or nationwide contract somebody will be getting rich off this.