9 ms·

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's l

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.

tehwebguy 12y ago
I vote to drop nearly all of it. The cockpit door is reinforced and locked, without the ability to take over the aircraft there is literally less risk than if someone just drove a bomb into an airport.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  There's a risk that an aircraft will be bombed in-flight, which doesn't require access to the cockpit. Before 9/11, such bombings were the primary security concern as hijackings usually resulted in a hostage situation. It'd probably be wise to keep explosives screening.
  - toufka 12y ago
    An in-flight bomb, though tragic, is much less of a threat, economic, social or otherwise, than an 'airplane-as-missile' into a populated area. So long as there is no access to the cockpit, the maximum effect of a terrorist's explosion is the downing of a plane, not the downing of a $1B 110 story building.
    - joelhaus 12y ago
      I don't think this conclusion takes into account the 'terror' part of the plan. Most everyone here assumes rational responses from the: media > public > politicians. This is incredibly naive. It reminds me of economic arguments used by libertarians.
  - tehwebguy 12y ago
    Sure, but without taking over the craft and turning into a significantly more dangerous missile (a la 9/11) there is only as much risk as bombing a parking garage, mall, school or any other place with hundreds of people and virtually no security. Not sure how much that logic actually applies to anyone trying to bomb stuff, though.
  - raldi 12y ago
    If you want to kill 300 people, you can just blow up five buses. It's much easier than trying to blow up a plane.
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      It doesn't have the same publicity quality, though. The groups that carry out these attacks do it for attention, and they're going to do whatever they can to maximize their press time. That results in worldwide publication of their message, often requiring their opposition to acknowledge and respond, and gives them outlet to advertise to potential new recruits. Airplane attacks and crashes get a lot more coverage than incidents involving similar loss of life due to the emotional factor of being isolated 35,000 feet in the sky, and that makes the cost involved in launching a more intricate attack on aircraft worthwhile. You can try to run away from a bomb at a parking garage after the initial explosion and an ambulance will be there to check things out and rescue people pretty quickly. If you're in the plane when it gets attacked, you have no recourse and virtually no chance for survival, which is not usually the case when a ground target is bombed with conventional explosives. Even if you survive the actual ground impact (zero chance if an event happens at cruising altitude, small chance if it happens at a more reasonable altitude during takeoff/landing), there's no guarantee you'll be anywhere near civilization that can give medical help or attention. This makes the risk of an airborne attack much more frightening, since death is virtually guaranteed. Passengers want a reasonable assurance that there's something more than chance protecting the flights they're boarding (and for whatever reason, they don't usually make the same types of demands from ground entities like parking garages or bus stops). That's why the airlines added their own security checkpoints in the 70s as hijackings became prominent. That's also the reason the TSA can exist at all. The TSA takes it too far, and we all acknowledge that some threats can't be screened out, but just going back to nothing isn't a plausible solution, at least not at first. There needs to be a more gradual transition if we're ever going to get there.
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago
        I agree that an airplane crash is more newsworthy than an attack on a bus. I'm not so sure about a campaign that takes out five buses. I'd expect that to get heavy coverage.
- gsnedders 12y ago
  > if someone just drove a bomb into an airport. Which is exactly what the 2007 attack on Glasgow airport was.[1] All major airports in the UK now have limited access to the front of the terminal building (typically, buses and taxis only). Most now have a drop-off zone in the car park. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Air...
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Does moving the "attack zone" make any sense? What if someone bombs the car park -- will the airport stop allowing personal cars into it? I know I'm not the first to say this sort of thing, and maybe it's cliche, but really, what is there to protect at the front of the terminal, that is not just as vulnerable now in the car park? (Edit: I recognize the poster I'm responding to hasn't necessarily endorsed the authorities' action in this case.)
    - iancarroll 12y ago
      I assume the theory is that there will be less people in the car park then in the terminal.
      - alistairSH 12y ago
        I imagine the front of the terminal is a place where groups of people can typically be found - drop offs, pick ups, waiting for baggage, etc. Also, blowing up the front of the terminal has the potential to shut down airport operations much longer than a remote car park.
        cmdkeen 12y ago
        It is also to do with glass windows. Terminals tend to have massive amounts of glass which a bomb will blow out massively increasing the casualties. Car parks are open at the sides and sparsely populated.
    - 12y ago
- dlp211 12y ago
  I vote to go back to the way it was pre-9/11. The 9/11 hijackings were a one time play, that is, they changed the rules by which the terrorists play by, and therefore the passengers have changed the way that they will react to a terroristic threat aboard a plane. We have seen passengers are more than willing to stand up to those that pose a threat on plane in post-9/11 air travel.
glenra 12y ago
I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. Let people run through the airport right to the gate without having to stand in a line at all. Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Then there won't be the sort of single points of failure we have now. If one airline wants to reinforce the cockpit doors or arm the pilots they can just do that without getting permission from a central authority and making that the new mandated standard. Get rid of one-size-fits-all security. Let "convenient security" be just one more attribute that airline companies compete to provide, along with "comfortable seating" and "frequent flights".
- jimmaswell 12y ago
  How exactly has airport security caused any deaths?
  - glenra 12y ago
    Airport security makes flying much more expensive (both in time and in money) and inconvenient and generally unpleasant than it would otherwise be. So many people who otherwise would take a plane on a short trip choose to drive instead. Some of those people die needlessly in traffic accidents, since driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying. That's the primary mechanism of harm. A common estimate I've seen is that roughly 500 extra people a year die due just to the added security costs post-9/11. A little googling finds a few relevant popular-press articles including these: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-... http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500-people-a-year/ http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500... One of the relevant academic papers is by Cornell University researchers Garrick Blalock, Vrinda Kadiyali, and Daniel H. Simon, “The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel,” published in The Journal of Law and Economics in November 2007. (pdf here: http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf )
raldi 12y ago
Same plan we use to prevent terrorism at bus stations, beaches, and little league games.
shamwao 12y ago
This is a ridiculous idea I've always wondered about, but... why not just drop everything, and allow open carry? Maybe keep the cockpit doors. I find it impossible to imagine any security threat to a flight where the passengers are packing and willing to defend themselves. Doesn't this make flying exactly as dangerous as being in a crowd? For zero dollars?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tharax 12y ago
  A fight occurring in a plane is more dangerous than on the ground, specially if people are firing guns.
- Hydraulix989 12y ago
  You're overestimating the marksmanship/ability to use firearms of the average (untrained) person, especially when under extreme stress.
  - gsnedders 12y ago
    And in an environment where people may well be panicking and moving around, making a clear shot difficult, even if your markmanship is good.
- mikestew 12y ago
  > I find it impossible to imagine any security threat to a flight where the passengers are packing and willing to defend themselves. I suspect the number of people who would carry is smaller than you imagine. I own some handguns, have had a CCW in the past, and I wouldn't carry on an airplane. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't see a reason to do so. Same as I don't see a reason to carry in my eastside Seattle suburb neighborhood when walking the dogs: it's probably the smallest risk I'll face all day. (Granted, I walk two pit bulls so a hand gun seems kind of redundant. <g>) My second, and largest objection is having a bunch of amateurs of varying abilities shooting in an environment where people are packed in like cattle. The singular time I have ever even considered drawing a handgun for defense, there were people in the area behind the potential target, with a non-zero chance of hitting them were I to miss. Too risky, found another way to resolve the issue. On an airplane? The background behind the target is almost guaranteed to have innocents. I might trust combat-experienced military personnel to take the shot, no way would I trust someone who has only put holes in paper at a shooting range with no adrenaline coursing through their veins (a group which would include myself).
a_c_s 12y ago
Yeah, all of this scrap-the-TSA talk makes me wonder how much people have flown internationally: in places I've been, security has been very similar to the TSA with minor variations. It seems like for every policy that had something a little less strict about it there was also something else it was a little more strict about: some care about liquids, some treat iPads as laptops, some make you remove your shoes. I've also been frisked by the TSA and at the Brussels airport and they were significantly more invasive in the latter. My experiences include flying in the following places in the past 5 years as a single male US citizen: USA (2x-4x year), Brussels, Budapest, Denpasar Bali, Jakarta, Singapore, Tokyo, UK.
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  How is that relevant? I don't want to suffer through TSA shenanigans on domestic US flights. What they do in Brussels has nothing to do with that.
  - a_c_s 12y ago
    The point is that the TSA model, with minor variations, seems to be the dominant model of airport security. So, aside from Israel (which has far more invasive procedures), there doesn't seem to be an alternative model to subscribe to.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  You're not factoring in just how much of this international security is driven by US interests(US imposed security requirements for airports servicing flights bound for the US). It's significantly driven by US interests. Domestic flights in several countries I've been to have much less security. Interestingly though, in Australia you can NOT opt out of the screening machines. They will quarantine and deport you if you refuse to go through them. But then, Australia isn't exactly a bastion of personal liberty when compared to the US.
- u801e 12y ago
  > Yeah, all of this scrap-the-TSA talk makes me wonder how much people have flown internationally: in places I've been, security has been very similar to the TSA with minor variations. It seems like for every policy that had something a little less strict about it there was also something else it was a littles more strict about: some care about liquids, some treat iPads as laptops, some make you remove your shoes. In my experience when traveling to south asia, once I was outside the US, they didn't care about liquids or shoe removal. The security scan just involved sending one's bags through the scanner and going through a metal detector. On the way back, though, it was much like the US with the shoe removal, taking the liquids out of carry-on bags, etc.
trop 12y ago
In Iceland (as of 2006) my recall was no security screening point for the airports besides Keflavik (the airfield for large international flights). Totally liberating and strange to walk right to the gate, then out the door and across the tarmac onto a small airplane. Am curious if this is still so. I took it as a sign of mutual trust in a small nation. I should also say that I remember even in the 1970s being able to walk to the gate without a ticket (albeit after passing through a metal detector). Both that and the Iceland experience had the romance of air travel which is lost during the humiliation of large airport screening procedures in the U.S.
- viraptor 12y ago
  I didn't think it was that different from European airports. Pretty much the same level of security in 2013 (Keflavik) and 2007 (Akureyri). Actually slightly more, since in Akureyri they got everyone into one room, closed it, and walked around with dogs sniffing for drugs (I guess). They were much nicer about it though than pretty much everyone at the airports in the US.
Canada 12y ago
Just get rid of it. What currently exists is like something from a police state. It's evil, tyrannical, and will fail stop a future attack against the traveling public inside the United States. If this gross violation of liberty and due process must continue for legitimate reasons of public safety, because the consequence of projecting power abroad is being targeted for reprisal, then at least grant immunity for offenses unrelated to aviation safety. But that will not happen, because the people who enable and profit from these checkpoints aren't subjected to them at all.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > But that will not happen, because the people who enable and profit from these checkpoints aren't subjected to them at all. Don't worry - you can pay ~$100 to have the privilege of being "randomly" selected for "reduced" screening (ie, pre-9/11, with a metal detector). Of course, this is certainly not random at all. I don't have a random sample, but based on what I can see, it's very unlikely that they actually select people randomly and fairly[0]. The existence of this program means that we're separating travelers into two groups - those who can afford the $100[1] to be exempt from these draconian checkpoints, and those who can't (or who can, but are still forced to go through them anyway). [0] https://twitter.com/nickgrossman/status/476745477430734848 https://twitter.com/nickgrossman/status/476745477430734848 [1] Not just the fee, but also the time (you have to go for an in-person "interview", which is really just so that they can fingerprint you... I don't remember them asking any real questions)
  - sib 12y ago
    I applied to - and was granted - the TSA Precheck clearance. Let's face it; it's $100 for five years. And the interview took well under an hour including waiting time. Works out to be an almost negligible increase in cost compared to the cost of the travel it covers. The fingerprinting is a different issue.
    - Canada 12y ago
      What kind of questions did they ask during your interview?
hawleyal 12y ago
There aren't fewer problems now. We are paying for nothing.

tehwebguy 12y ago

I vote to drop nearly all of it. The cockpit door is reinforced and locked, without the ability to take over the aircraft there is literally less risk than if someone just drove a bomb into an airport.

cookiecaper 12y ago
There's a risk that an aircraft will be bombed in-flight, which doesn't require access to the cockpit. Before 9/11, such bombings were the primary security concern as hijackings usually resulted in a hostage situation. It'd probably be wise to keep explosives screening.
- toufka 12y ago
  An in-flight bomb, though tragic, is much less of a threat, economic, social or otherwise, than an 'airplane-as-missile' into a populated area. So long as there is no access to the cockpit, the maximum effect of a terrorist's explosion is the downing of a plane, not the downing of a $1B 110 story building.
  - joelhaus 12y ago
    I don't think this conclusion takes into account the 'terror' part of the plan. Most everyone here assumes rational responses from the: media > public > politicians. This is incredibly naive. It reminds me of economic arguments used by libertarians.
- tehwebguy 12y ago
  Sure, but without taking over the craft and turning into a significantly more dangerous missile (a la 9/11) there is only as much risk as bombing a parking garage, mall, school or any other place with hundreds of people and virtually no security. Not sure how much that logic actually applies to anyone trying to bomb stuff, though.
- raldi 12y ago
  If you want to kill 300 people, you can just blow up five buses. It's much easier than trying to blow up a plane.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    It doesn't have the same publicity quality, though. The groups that carry out these attacks do it for attention, and they're going to do whatever they can to maximize their press time. That results in worldwide publication of their message, often requiring their opposition to acknowledge and respond, and gives them outlet to advertise to potential new recruits. Airplane attacks and crashes get a lot more coverage than incidents involving similar loss of life due to the emotional factor of being isolated 35,000 feet in the sky, and that makes the cost involved in launching a more intricate attack on aircraft worthwhile. You can try to run away from a bomb at a parking garage after the initial explosion and an ambulance will be there to check things out and rescue people pretty quickly. If you're in the plane when it gets attacked, you have no recourse and virtually no chance for survival, which is not usually the case when a ground target is bombed with conventional explosives. Even if you survive the actual ground impact (zero chance if an event happens at cruising altitude, small chance if it happens at a more reasonable altitude during takeoff/landing), there's no guarantee you'll be anywhere near civilization that can give medical help or attention. This makes the risk of an airborne attack much more frightening, since death is virtually guaranteed. Passengers want a reasonable assurance that there's something more than chance protecting the flights they're boarding (and for whatever reason, they don't usually make the same types of demands from ground entities like parking garages or bus stops). That's why the airlines added their own security checkpoints in the 70s as hijackings became prominent. That's also the reason the TSA can exist at all. The TSA takes it too far, and we all acknowledge that some threats can't be screened out, but just going back to nothing isn't a plausible solution, at least not at first. There needs to be a more gradual transition if we're ever going to get there.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      I agree that an airplane crash is more newsworthy than an attack on a bus. I'm not so sure about a campaign that takes out five buses. I'd expect that to get heavy coverage.
gsnedders 12y ago
> if someone just drove a bomb into an airport. Which is exactly what the 2007 attack on Glasgow airport was.[1] All major airports in the UK now have limited access to the front of the terminal building (typically, buses and taxis only). Most now have a drop-off zone in the car park. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Air...
- scintill76 12y ago
  Does moving the "attack zone" make any sense? What if someone bombs the car park -- will the airport stop allowing personal cars into it? I know I'm not the first to say this sort of thing, and maybe it's cliche, but really, what is there to protect at the front of the terminal, that is not just as vulnerable now in the car park? (Edit: I recognize the poster I'm responding to hasn't necessarily endorsed the authorities' action in this case.)
  - iancarroll 12y ago
    I assume the theory is that there will be less people in the car park then in the terminal.
    - alistairSH 12y ago
      I imagine the front of the terminal is a place where groups of people can typically be found - drop offs, pick ups, waiting for baggage, etc. Also, blowing up the front of the terminal has the potential to shut down airport operations much longer than a remote car park.
      - cmdkeen 12y ago
        It is also to do with glass windows. Terminals tend to have massive amounts of glass which a bomb will blow out massively increasing the casualties. Car parks are open at the sides and sparsely populated.
  - 12y ago
dlp211 12y ago
I vote to go back to the way it was pre-9/11. The 9/11 hijackings were a one time play, that is, they changed the rules by which the terrorists play by, and therefore the passengers have changed the way that they will react to a terroristic threat aboard a plane. We have seen passengers are more than willing to stand up to those that pose a threat on plane in post-9/11 air travel.

glenra 12y ago

I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. Let people run through the airport right to the gate without having to stand in a line at all. Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Then there won't be the sort of single points of failure we have now. If one airline wants to reinforce the cockpit doors or arm the pilots they can just do that without getting permission from a central authority and making that the new mandated standard. Get rid of one-size-fits-all security. Let "convenient security" be just one more attribute that airline companies compete to provide, along with "comfortable seating" and "frequent flights".

jimmaswell 12y ago
How exactly has airport security caused any deaths?
- glenra 12y ago
  Airport security makes flying much more expensive (both in time and in money) and inconvenient and generally unpleasant than it would otherwise be. So many people who otherwise would take a plane on a short trip choose to drive instead. Some of those people die needlessly in traffic accidents, since driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying. That's the primary mechanism of harm. A common estimate I've seen is that roughly 500 extra people a year die due just to the added security costs post-9/11. A little googling finds a few relevant popular-press articles including these: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-... http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500-people-a-year/ http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500... One of the relevant academic papers is by Cornell University researchers Garrick Blalock, Vrinda Kadiyali, and Daniel H. Simon, “The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel,” published in The Journal of Law and Economics in November 2007. (pdf here: http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf )

raldi 12y ago

Same plan we use to prevent terrorism at bus stations, beaches, and little league games.

shamwao 12y ago

This is a ridiculous idea I've always wondered about, but... why not just drop everything, and allow open carry? Maybe keep the cockpit doors. I find it impossible to imagine any security threat to a flight where the passengers are packing and willing to defend themselves. Doesn't this make flying exactly as dangerous as being in a crowd? For zero dollars?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tharax 12y ago
A fight occurring in a plane is more dangerous than on the ground, specially if people are firing guns.
Hydraulix989 12y ago
You're overestimating the marksmanship/ability to use firearms of the average (untrained) person, especially when under extreme stress.
- gsnedders 12y ago
  And in an environment where people may well be panicking and moving around, making a clear shot difficult, even if your markmanship is good.
mikestew 12y ago
> I find it impossible to imagine any security threat to a flight where the passengers are packing and willing to defend themselves. I suspect the number of people who would carry is smaller than you imagine. I own some handguns, have had a CCW in the past, and I wouldn't carry on an airplane. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't see a reason to do so. Same as I don't see a reason to carry in my eastside Seattle suburb neighborhood when walking the dogs: it's probably the smallest risk I'll face all day. (Granted, I walk two pit bulls so a hand gun seems kind of redundant. <g>) My second, and largest objection is having a bunch of amateurs of varying abilities shooting in an environment where people are packed in like cattle. The singular time I have ever even considered drawing a handgun for defense, there were people in the area behind the potential target, with a non-zero chance of hitting them were I to miss. Too risky, found another way to resolve the issue. On an airplane? The background behind the target is almost guaranteed to have innocents. I might trust combat-experienced military personnel to take the shot, no way would I trust someone who has only put holes in paper at a shooting range with no adrenaline coursing through their veins (a group which would include myself).

a_c_s 12y ago

Yeah, all of this scrap-the-TSA talk makes me wonder how much people have flown internationally: in places I've been, security has been very similar to the TSA with minor variations. It seems like for every policy that had something a little less strict about it there was also something else it was a little more strict about: some care about liquids, some treat iPads as laptops, some make you remove your shoes. I've also been frisked by the TSA and at the Brussels airport and they were significantly more invasive in the latter. My experiences include flying in the following places in the past 5 years as a single male US citizen: USA (2x-4x year), Brussels, Budapest, Denpasar Bali, Jakarta, Singapore, Tokyo, UK.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago
How is that relevant? I don't want to suffer through TSA shenanigans on domestic US flights. What they do in Brussels has nothing to do with that.
- a_c_s 12y ago
  The point is that the TSA model, with minor variations, seems to be the dominant model of airport security. So, aside from Israel (which has far more invasive procedures), there doesn't seem to be an alternative model to subscribe to.
Rapzid 12y ago
You're not factoring in just how much of this international security is driven by US interests(US imposed security requirements for airports servicing flights bound for the US). It's significantly driven by US interests. Domestic flights in several countries I've been to have much less security. Interestingly though, in Australia you can NOT opt out of the screening machines. They will quarantine and deport you if you refuse to go through them. But then, Australia isn't exactly a bastion of personal liberty when compared to the US.
u801e 12y ago
> Yeah, all of this scrap-the-TSA talk makes me wonder how much people have flown internationally: in places I've been, security has been very similar to the TSA with minor variations. It seems like for every policy that had something a little less strict about it there was also something else it was a littles more strict about: some care about liquids, some treat iPads as laptops, some make you remove your shoes. In my experience when traveling to south asia, once I was outside the US, they didn't care about liquids or shoe removal. The security scan just involved sending one's bags through the scanner and going through a metal detector. On the way back, though, it was much like the US with the shoe removal, taking the liquids out of carry-on bags, etc.

trop 12y ago

In Iceland (as of 2006) my recall was no security screening point for the airports besides Keflavik (the airfield for large international flights). Totally liberating and strange to walk right to the gate, then out the door and across the tarmac onto a small airplane. Am curious if this is still so. I took it as a sign of mutual trust in a small nation. I should also say that I remember even in the 1970s being able to walk to the gate without a ticket (albeit after passing through a metal detector). Both that and the Iceland experience had the romance of air travel which is lost during the humiliation of large airport screening procedures in the U.S.

viraptor 12y ago
I didn't think it was that different from European airports. Pretty much the same level of security in 2013 (Keflavik) and 2007 (Akureyri). Actually slightly more, since in Akureyri they got everyone into one room, closed it, and walked around with dogs sniffing for drugs (I guess). They were much nicer about it though than pretty much everyone at the airports in the US.

Canada 12y ago

Just get rid of it. What currently exists is like something from a police state. It's evil, tyrannical, and will fail stop a future attack against the traveling public inside the United States. If this gross violation of liberty and due process must continue for legitimate reasons of public safety, because the consequence of projecting power abroad is being targeted for reprisal, then at least grant immunity for offenses unrelated to aviation safety. But that will not happen, because the people who enable and profit from these checkpoints aren't subjected to them at all.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> But that will not happen, because the people who enable and profit from these checkpoints aren't subjected to them at all. Don't worry - you can pay ~$100 to have the privilege of being "randomly" selected for "reduced" screening (ie, pre-9/11, with a metal detector). Of course, this is certainly not random at all. I don't have a random sample, but based on what I can see, it's very unlikely that they actually select people randomly and fairly[0]. The existence of this program means that we're separating travelers into two groups - those who can afford the $100[1] to be exempt from these draconian checkpoints, and those who can't (or who can, but are still forced to go through them anyway). [0] https://twitter.com/nickgrossman/status/476745477430734848 https://twitter.com/nickgrossman/status/476745477430734848 [1] Not just the fee, but also the time (you have to go for an in-person "interview", which is really just so that they can fingerprint you... I don't remember them asking any real questions)
- sib 12y ago
  I applied to - and was granted - the TSA Precheck clearance. Let's face it; it's $100 for five years. And the interview took well under an hour including waiting time. Works out to be an almost negligible increase in cost compared to the cost of the travel it covers. The fingerprinting is a different issue.
  - Canada 12y ago
    What kind of questions did they ask during your interview?

hawleyal 12y ago

There aren't fewer problems now. We are paying for nothing.