I logged onto the TSA website a few days ago, when this was made knowing, to find out what parameters could be used to determine whether a person was a security risk. I haven't had a reply and after reading the above, I doubt if I'll be receiving one.
Much of the behaviour which might label one as a security risk is, of course, obvious, BUT there may be activities (and I gave the example of aviation photography, which the TSA/FAA frowns on) which are perfectly innocent but which the TSA deems a security risk. Moreover, the failure to set out exactly what causes an individual to have his/her livelihood taken away means that it (a) very difficult for others to avoid that behaviour in future, and (b) very difficult to know whether the "suspicious" activity is actually a constitutionally protected activity, e.g. freedom of speech/expression. If I say something against the TSA, what's to stop them moving against me and using what I said as a pretext, especially if they don't have to reveal their reasons.
Of course, the draconian and one sided nature of this law is such that it is highly likely that it will be subject to a constitutional challenge.
The sad thing about it is that it deflects attention away from the good and important work the TSA should be doing; by going to these extremes, the agency is simply going to turn those with whom it should be working - the public, the industry and airline employees - against it; can it REALLY be effective in these circumstances. Would you be inclined to report anything to such an agency?
Time for focus. Instead of fighting the real targets, the TSA has only succeeded in making new and unnecessary obstacles for itself.