posted
The British stopping the terrorist plot and the subsequent very tight restrictions brought this idea up for me again.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with applying profiling to security screenings in the ideal case. There could be some serious problems in implementation, however, and besides which, without some more vivid examples of why security that isn't hampered by things like treating my 84 year old grandmother as a potential terrorist is important, many people aren't going to go for it.
So, here's my suggestion. We have an opt-in system by which people can volunteer to get checked out for security risks. People can volunteer to be checked out to be considered "Not A Terrorist" and then will have a muh easier time at the airport (and potentially other places). Obviously there are some pretty big issues with this, but, to me, I can't think of a more workable system that doesn't involve profiling.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems suspicious to me. On the surface it might sound like a good deal, but it looks like a very slippery slope, when people are presumed if not guilty, then at least more likely to be guilty, simply because they haven't volunteered to have their privacy invaded.
I don't think it's a better way at all. I don't want to live in a country where you're presumed guilty and have to assert your innocence.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can think of only 3 major hurdles to a stream lined opt in system.
1) Making sure that those cleared as "Not a Terrorist" can not beat the system that clears them.
2) Make sure that those who have passed through the rigorous "Not A Terrorist" check are the ones who are on the plane. Identity theft could be a prelude to mass murder.
3) Make sure those who opt of the strenous test, but do not pass, are not marked against. If Joe Smith want to pass the test, but is decilined because there is another terrorist out there named Joe Smith, the good Joe Smith has a way of clearing his name, and isn't presumed guilty, bu the law and by his fellow passengers.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC, We're not talking about presuming people are guilty. We're talking about clearing out a large section of people from needing to be scrutinized at the airport.
Right now, everyone fits this list. I'm talking about taking people off it. I don't see how this fits what you're saying.
Dan, I figured some sort of bio-metric sensor would be in place for #2.
The others, yeah, I agree. I haven't given a whole lot of detailed thought to the proposal.
A lot of the problems I see is with the collection of personal information. I don't really trust anyone to do that and not put it to uses other than what was is strictly necessary.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, Because once a lot of people start getting taken off the list of possible danger, pretty soon there's pressure to join that safe group. It leads to the mentality of "All these other people have done the screening, why haven't you? What have you got to hide?"
Once you set up a situation where some people are presumed to be less dangerous, it naturally leads to the belief that anyone not in that group is more dangerous.
You're already in a situation where suspicion is high, where if someone thinks they heard you say the word, "bomb" the police can pull guns on you and detain you for questioning. I don't want to have to wear a colored "safe" armband, just to stay away from the high-risk zones. What happens if I forget to pack my armband?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if I were a terrorist I would do my best to get copies of the safe list and start trying to recruit from there.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sweet mahamba jamba MC, you sure took that ball and ran with it, didn't you? That's some awfully specific criticisms of the vague idea I presented.
Let me answer you with, 1) it's unlikely that a majority of air travelers would go into this program. For one thing, it would be kind of invasive. For another, it wouldn't be free. It would make sense for people who travel a lot, but not for occassional travelers.
2) I'm talking about a separate security check in, probably with a bio-metric scanner set up. The idea of an arm band as a means of identification would be incredibly stupid.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we need to be very, very careful not to give up little pieces of freedom and liberty because it seems like it might make things easier for the government and its representatives.
I want to suggest caution. I want to remind people that we should really think about things like this, because they seem innocent, but the repercussions might be more complex than we might first imagine.
There are too many dark times in human history which started out with just little things here and there. We should be cautious.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC, You may find that refraining from hysterical "They're going to tag us like cattle!" rants may serve your cause better than the opposite. Rational criticism is one thing. What you presented just makes you look like someone who can be dismissed, at least in my opinion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think we need to be very, very careful not to give up little pieces of freedom and liberty because it seems like it might make things easier for the government and its representatives.
Yep.
I don't mind waiting an extra hour to make sure that everyone getting on the plane is doing so with objects that won't kill me.
There's no need for lists, and no way to stop the "safe" list from being infiltrated eventually. If not through biometrics (which really scares me), through social engineering.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: MC, You may find that refraining from hysterical "They're going to tag us like cattle!" rants may serve your cause better than the opposite. Rational criticism is one thing. What you presented just makes you look like someone who can be dismissed, at least in my opinion.
I, for one, can't say that I noticed any of those rants in this topic. For the most part, I think that MC's concerns are at the very least things that need to be considered.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're already doing something similar to that. Orlando has about 20,000 people registered through it. I'm not a member since I don't fly nearly enough to justify the cost, but they have they're own lines that are much, much shorter. They still have to go through the metal detector and such, but they get through a whole faster than the rest of us.
posted
Thing is, current US law is that the government can deny you any *priviledge* it wants, as long as it does so equally (w/o regard to race, and a list of other things). "Priviledges" include travel and working -- that is, if the government yanks all your "priviledges," you can't function. "Priviledge" is too broadly defined here, and "right" is too narrow.
Slippery slope is relevant. Fast-track clearance can later be *required* for travel, and it can be denied to anyone at any time, since it's a priviledge. Columnist Cal Thomas knows what this is like. Apparently there's another Calvin Thomas that the government is suspicious of. Every time he flies, he gets the full search.
That said, if we can do a sort of call-ahead security thing -- like call-ahead seating at a restaurant -- why not? That would be open to anybody, right? Except I'm not sure the value of it. I'm pretty sure the only black marks on the 9-11 hijackers' records, that airport security knew about, was that they were Arabs, which isn't a crime. The things US airport security started screening for afterwards -- return tickets, paid by credit card, valid ID -- they were clean on each count. What do you check for? What would work? I think it would be trivial for a terrorist to get on the call-ahead list. Not a repeat terrorist, but then suicide bombers aren't repeat terrorists anyway.
Blessings on the cops who uncovered this plot before it was too late.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
That said, if we can do a sort of call-ahead security thing -- like call-ahead seating at a restaurant -- why not? That would be open to anybody, right? Except I'm not sure the value of it. I'm pretty sure the only black marks on the 9-11 hijackers' records, that airport security knew about, was that they were Arabs, which isn't a crime. The things US airport security started screening for afterwards -- return tickets, paid by credit card, valid ID -- they were clean on each count. What do you check for? What would work? I think it would be trivial for a terrorist to get on the call-ahead list. Not a repeat terrorist, but then suicide bombers aren't repeat terrorists anyway.
Mostly right, except that if INS had been doing its job, there would have been black marks on their records. I think 11 of them had serious mistakes on their visa applications, such as not including a U.S. residence.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a comment about the logistics involved in this: Note that I'm comparing heavily to the security clearance framework already in place because I see the two sides being very closely tied together. i.e. this would be like getting an "airport clearance" akin to secret, top-secret etc...
1) the government is rediculously inefficient with it's current background check system for various clearances. Massive amounts of paperwork, duplicate but slightly different forms for each type of clearance etc... most people don't want to bother filling out 60 pages worth of forms (but of course there would be many regular travellers who would be willing to, so we can ignore this point).
2) current background checks take a LOOOOOOOONG time, i.e. it's not at all uncommon to have to wait 6-8 months before hearing anything about your clearance. The agencies working on this are severely understaffed and overworked. Adding to their responsibility/backlog is just going to clog the system even more.
3) current background checks cost thousands of dollars to cover all the work necessary and all the bureacratic crap to go along with it
4) much of the delay in airports currently is more an issue of manpower/layout than anything else. Even if there was a special "cleared" line you still have to find people to man it, and space to put it in already crowded airports. When LAX's United terminal is routing people out on the sidewalk to stand in line for security you know there's more issues than just the special checks going on
5) there would still be need for at least some security checking (i.e. X-rays etc) if only to make sure that some other individual didn't slip a gun or whatnot into your carryon so that he can steal it back once on board.
There's something to the thought, but i think the logistics of it are rather impractical.
If you think a substantial portion of the population is willing to pay $25000 and wait 6 months before being allowed to skip 15 minutes worth of line every time they travel then it might work, but otherwise I think it would just be a waste of time and money to push the issue further.
On a side note: I wish having a security clearance would show up and save you some hassle at the airport, but such is not the case Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My 15 pound mini dachshund got randomly selected for special security last time I flew. I did not, though they did let me hold the little guy while they wanded him and such. The guards mostly laughed and thought it was funny. A few had done puppy searches before even. So, if I am on the safe list and fly with my puppy, do I have to put him on the safe list too?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'll create Ultimate Safe Airlines--USA Air.
Every passenger enters the private USA Pre-flight lounge, where you strip naked and put on our safety clothes--a generic jump suit with no pockets. You place your clothes in your luggage, then place your luggage to be loaded onto an airplane.
The only thing you can bring with you is your papers--passport, tickets, checkbook, and credit/debit cards.
Don't even think about your cel phone.
You are then escorted through security. Yes, we must go through the metal detector again just to make sure there are no body cavity surprises.
From there you are escorted to a private waiting room where you can purchase a nice assortment of overpriced foods, medicines, books and eats while you wait for your plane. That's why we let you keep those credit cards.
When you board your plane you notice it is more spacious than others. The reason is that there is no luggage compartment below, and only limited luggage compartments above.
Your luggage if flown by another airplane to your destination. There it is unloaded and placed in the USA Destinations Lounge.
Meanwhile, the pilot, crew, and attendants are all dressed similarly to you. They too, have gone through the same security system as you have.
You land and make your way to the USA Destinations Lounge. There you change back into your clothes, and go through customs if necessary, or out to whereever you are headed.
The cost of the ticket would only be about 5 times a standard one. (Two planes to get to the same location--one you and one for luggage, plus all the extra personell, cleaning and repair of the USA Safety Suits, etc.). Even then USA wouldn't clear a profit on the flight.
However we'd make a killing on the overpriced purchases forced on the flyers at the waiting lounges.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
