Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TSA Considering Tiered Security  
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4016 times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/bu...rity.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

About time! Summary:

But in the wake of the furor last fall over pat-downs and body scanners, several industry organizations are working on proposals to overhaul security checkpoints to provide more or less scrutiny based on the risk profile of each traveler. Trusted travelers would undergo lighter screening, perhaps passing through a metal detector with their shoes on and laptops in their bags, whereas anyone flagged as potentially risky would receive more intensive scrutiny, using technology like the body scanners and interviews with officers trained in behavioral analysis.

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebluewhale18210 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4006 times:

Great Idea! Now wait for the ACLU to cry discrimination...


JPS on A300-600RF A319/320 B737-400/800 B757-200F B767-300F CRJ-200/900. Looking to add more.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4796 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3958 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 1):
Great Idea! Now wait for the ACLU to cry discrimination...

I like the idea, but I do see your point, especially if I am put in the "risky" line and then everyone eyes me for the rest of the trip through the terminal.

However we really do need profiling in assessing terrorist threats. The family going to disney, and the average business traveler are hightly unlikely terrrorists. The folks that buy one way tickets, and paid in cash.....they need a bit more scrutiny.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2):
However we really do need profiling in assessing terrorist threats. The family going to disney, and the average business traveler are hightly unlikely terrrorists. The folks that buy one way tickets, and paid in cash.....they need a bit more scrutiny.

Problem is that once any group officially becomes "trusted", the other side would immediately seek ways of (ab)using that trust.
I'm not saying that business flier should not be trusted - but one they become trusted, bad guys would try to pose as business fliers, and so on. Can you distinguish between a real businessman travelling for a good reason and a head of bogus startup company who travels just to look at airport security without doing anything real at their destinations?

I cannot see a fool-proof selection criteria, other than "big brother" approach when any anomaly would be detected and looked at right away.


User currently offlineAABB777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 613 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2):
The folks that buy one way tickets, and paid in cash.....they need a bit more scrutiny.

Wouldn't a "terrorist" simply start buying roundtrip travel, pay with credit cards, etc?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 1):
Great Idea! Now wait for the ACLU to cry discrimination...

Hah. because there could never be discrimination in airport screenings, could there?

It all depends on how "trusted" gets defined.

if it means "appears to be avoiding authority," the ACLU isn't going to get involved. If it means "not from a particular country" that could be troublesome. If it means "not of a particular race" then I would hope you would be amongst the legions on the same side as the ACLU.

Don't focus on what the ACLU does. This isn't about politics, and it isn't about the civil liberties group. It's about how to move millions of people through security quickly and effectively.



What I find funny is that with all the crying about "x-ray vision" and "gate rape" and other obnoxious exaggerations of the system, most of the people complaining will find it acceptable if we only use "x-ray vision" and "gate rape" on people who aren't trusted. That doesn't seem to offend us at all. Why? Because if it ain't happening to us, we don't get upset.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4796 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Quoting kalvado (Reply 3):
the other side would immediately seek ways of (ab)using that trust.

The other side is rather disorganized, and really lacks the organization to abuse the policy in a manner that would circumvent a good background check.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 3):

I cannot see a fool-proof selection criteria, other than "big brother" approach when any anomaly would be detected and looked at right away.

Big brother is hardly fool proof as it requires profiling of folks through the current pat down techniques. At some point it gets ridiculous, especially since the main point of traveling is to travel, not to disrupt it.

Quoting AABB777 (Reply 4):
Wouldn't a "terrorist" simply start buying roundtrip travel, pay with credit cards, etc?

Quite possibly, but once again, if this is thier first round trip ticket, then they wouldn't be a regular, or enough background checks by the airlines to escape the "Risky aisle".



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3704 times:

Let's also face it. The days of traditional "hijackings" are over--passengers would never allow it after 9/11. I think we as a society focus too much on preventing guns/knives, etc, and not enough time on common sense things like securing landside facilities. What happened at Moscow should be a wakeup call for us.

User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3665 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter):
interviews with officers trained in behavioral analysis

I see a problem already, TSA employees would need to be trained.  


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

BTW, I assume the tiered security will mean that scantily clad women of all nationalities continue to receive extra scrutiny? It is America, after all.

User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

From the linked article-
“Today we have T.S.A. agents looking at TV screens, but they don’t know anything about the person going through the system,” said Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association. “The idea is to take data that the government and the airlines are already collecting about passengers and bring it to the checkpoint.”

Why shouldn't the TSA consider "miles flown" and/or "number of flights flown" as a major factor for security risk assessment? If they did, frequent travelers wouldn't have to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as first-time or infrequent flyers every time they enter the secure areas of the airport, and flight crew would accrue enough miles/trips to be considered a minimal risk in short order.

[Edited 2011-02-08 08:18:29]


Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8379 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Definitely an improvement if they implement it. This plan isn't perfect, but security isn't perfect either. This is better than the broad-brush approach that they're applying now.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

“Today we have T.S.A. agents looking at TV screens, but they don’t know anything about the person going through the system,” said Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association. “The idea is to take data that the government and the airlines are already collecting about passengers and bring it to the checkpoint.”
Time to shutdown Facebook...
"So, I see you like facial hair and have a fear of tomatoes. Are you flying today to stalk that guy you met while hiking?"


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3610 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 11):
This is better than the broad-brush approach that they're applying now.

What makes it better than treating everyone equally?


Let's not forget this incident:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-bea...in-Teddy-Bear-at-DFW-79355102.html



[Edited 2011-02-08 08:04:08]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 13):
What makes it better than treating everyone equally?


Let's not forget this incident:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-bea...in-Teddy-Bear-at-DFW-79355102.html



[Edited 2011-02-08 08:04:08]

Yes but that was in CHECKED baggage was it not?



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8379 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 13):
What makes it better than treating everyone equally?

The fact that it acknowledges that some threats are greater than others and treats them as such. A teddy bear didn't bring down the World Trade Center towers.

Security still stops the gun in the bear because EVERYONE goes through it, by the way. Nobody is saying stop screening people, we're just saying acknowledge that not everyone is an equal threat.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 14):
Yes but that was in CHECKED baggage was it not?

It was, but I don't see why that matters. The point was that the gun was transfered from someone who was probably high risk to someone who was low risk.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 15):
Security still stops the gun in the bear because EVERYONE goes through it, by the way. Nobody is saying stop screening people, we're just saying acknowledge that not everyone is an equal threat.

Right. You're saying patting down and looking at some people naked is okay because they're not trusted. Is that a fair characterization of your position?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinemacsog6 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N766UA (Reply 11):
Definitely an improvement if they implement it. This plan isn't perfect, but security isn't perfect either. This is better than the broad-brush approach that they're applying now.

I concur. The division of pax into groups based upon the potential for threat makes a great deal of sense to me. I fly regularly, five flights this week as an example, and were I going to take some sort of action of a dangerous nature, I likely would have done it already based upon the several million miles I have flown. On the other hand, someone who has not flown - even a family with kids heading to Mouseburg - should probably be screened based upon their lack of opportunity if for no other reason.

Someone in a higher pay scale than mine would need to figure out the details, but I see this as a step in the right direction, unless of course TSA fouls it up.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8379 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Is that a fair characterization of your position?

In the same way that saying "I'm going to let the Saudi national with a criminal record through and grope the elderly nun so as not to offend anyone" is a fair characterization of yours.

[Edited 2011-02-08 10:35:15]


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 18):
In the same way that saying "I'm going to let the Saudi national with a criminal record through and grope the elderly nun so as not to offend anyone" is a fair characterization of yours.

Easy man, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just pointing out that most people who are so vehemently against the pat downs and/or scans do not mind their existing when they only apply to someone else. It's not a matter of fairness either - people who are fine with patdowns and scans when they only happen to other people do not care how often innocent people are patted down and scanned.



And for what it's worth, that is hardly a fair characterization of my position. My position is that the new system they are trying in Vegas right now seems like the way to go. Computer Artificial Intelligence looks at the scan (as opposed to a human), and if it finds something, then a human does a pat down. Use that system for everyone, regardless of what a background search may turn up. (BTW, I hope people understand that background searches are expen$ive. Profiles would be used instead, and yes, I have a problem with that.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21881 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 1):
Now wait for the ACLU to cry discrimination...

They absolutely should, depending on how the determination of who is trusted is made. That's really what makes or breaks this plan.

Quoting macsog6 (Reply 17):
I fly regularly, five flights this week as an example, and were I going to take some sort of action of a dangerous nature, I likely would have done it already based upon the several million miles I have flown.

Or you could have been using those flights to build a very good picture of how the security operates in order to find a sound way to defeat it, and the next time you fly will be the time you're actually doing something.

Background checks would be the proper way to go, but then you start dividing people into those who can afford to pay for them and those who can't. And that just doesn't sit well with me.

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
My position is that the new system they are trying in Vegas right now seems like the way to go. Computer Artificial Intelligence looks at the scan (as opposed to a human), and if it finds something, then a human does a pat down. Use that system for everyone, regardless of what a background search may turn up.

   And if someone doesn't want to go through the scanner, then I have no problem with them being patted down.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20365 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):

It was, but I don't see why that matters. The point was that the gun was transfered from someone who was probably high risk to someone who was low risk.

Even "low-risk" screening should catch a gun. Between a metal detector and X-rays of baggage, a gun is hard to miss.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2959 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 1):
Great Idea! Now wait for the ACLU to cry discrimination...

It is not just the ACLU. It does not fit with conservatism either. It is expanded governmental powers to judge people not accused of a crime and it undermines the notion that the U.S. is a "meritocracy" where all people are measured primarily by their ability.

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 1):
The folks that buy one way tickets, and paid in cash.....they need a bit more scrutiny.

Perhaps, but none of the 9/11 hijackers did those things. They purchased round trip tickets (because they were cheaper) with credit cards in their own names.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21):
Even "low-risk" screening should catch a gun. Between a metal detector and X-rays of baggage, a gun is hard to miss.

You missed the point Doc. It's not the type of weapon that is the concern. It's that a weapon that would not be caught by a low risk seach (whatever that may be, perhaps a ceramic knife) may be unwittingly passed to a low risk patron from a high risk patron as a way to get the weapon around the high risk search.

When you're looking at security, you can't just look back to the past. That's how you end up not catching box cutters.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFURUREFA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

What about a "trusted traveler" system, like Customs and Border Protection operates with "Global Entry"? It's tough to pose as a "trusted" traveler when Homeland Security and CBP run fairly thorough background checks on you, in addition to a personal interview...

25 skymiler : Absolutely! This is voluntary, and eliminates any accusations of "profiling". I have a NEXUS card for the US/Canada border, which is issued by DHS, a
26 vgnatl747 : Spot on! Despite what the air travel industry would lead to to believe, today's computer based selection criteria is far from objective. Yes it rando
27 ckfred : Exactly. For business people who do fly all over the country, or the globe, most tend to travel to the same group of cities over and over. When my fa
28 enilria : I can tell you, though, that the Global Entry program is quite invasive and when one of the people in my interview group asked, "will this data be ke
29 Post contains images mayor : In regards to this, I found this little satirical tidbit on the internet: "Year to date statistics on airport screening from the Department of Homelan
30 enilria : That was before or after the pat down?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Coke Cans - A Hole In Security The TSA Overlooked posted Wed Nov 17 2010 18:06:40 by GymClassHero
Stricter Private Security Before TSA Checkpoint posted Tue Sep 7 2010 08:12:40 by washingtonian
Big TSA And AA Serious Of Security Flaws posted Mon Feb 8 2010 08:17:47 by tonytifao
60 Minutes Report: "TSA & Security Theater" posted Tue Dec 23 2008 04:26:31 by Elite
TSA Tipped Off Screeners About Security Test posted Sat Nov 3 2007 08:04:30 by Halls120
Security Breach At STL. TSA Screws Up Again posted Sat Feb 3 2007 05:28:36 by TransWorldSTL
TSA Security Measures & Delta Anger Irish Pax posted Tue Aug 29 2006 11:08:32 by Toulouse
My Experience With TSA Security. posted Mon Jan 30 2006 21:26:52 by Speedbirdcrew
Huge TSA Security Gap posted Thu Jun 23 2005 04:29:49 by Brido
What Not To Bring Through Cleveland TSA Security. posted Thu Jun 16 2005 03:35:50 by LorM