Tiered screening of passengers

[John R81]

Article here

Steptoe & Johnson LLP: Mobility Matters Bulletin - February 2011 (http://www.steptoe.com/publications-newsletter-112.html#page=1)

Basically, split travellers into "Trusted" - no screening, "Regular" - light screening, and "Risky" - everyone else, with security checks like today.

What do you think?

[N707ZS]

Have we got any definitions of "Trusted", "Regular" and "Risky".

Could it be suit "trusted", shorts T shirt sunglasses "regular", beard dark baggy clothes "Risky".

[John R81]

"Trusted" = has been subject to a background check (at your expense, one assumes) and is identified by fingerprint scan.

[MPN11]

I would happily pay for my additional background checks.

They would reveal, inter alia, that I am a OAP with a full military career behind me, and that I do not hold strong political or religious views. In addition, I always travel with my beloved wife, and have no desire to terminate that arrangement through an act of terrorism.

I am also not [insert nationality here] travelling long-haul from [insert location here] with hand-luggage only on a one-way ticket ;)

There has been much talk in recent years about "profiling" instead of mass screening. Perhaps this is the light at the end of the tunnel? But perhaps impossible to implement in my remaining lifetime.

[No RYR for me]

In addition, I always travel with my beloved wife, and have no desire to terminate that arrangement through an act of terrorism. Classic :D

[Three Mile Final]

Wouldn't that be a lovely plan .... as an airside pass holder in the UK I am sure I could be trusted anywhere so I wouldn't have to put up withy the horrid queues. Whether my wife would be as well regarded as she hasn't held an airside pass since 1999 is another matter.

BUT when I had an airside pass holder at a major middle eastern airport (2008 - 2010) I obtained it with no checks whatever and the large sum of money I paid was seemingly the only criteria.

So would you expect reciprocal arrangements between countries to apply ? And if not the whole plan would come to naught other than for internal flights.

[Entaxei]

WASP's are OK - everyone else gets turned over .....

White Anglo Saxon Protestants
(Note: Must be of US origin - does not include any sexual deviations.
but still having problems with Klu Klux Klan members)

Good at excluding potentially troublesome foreign tourists

:E

Please note: This is a tongue-in-cheek, lighthearted, joking, response and,
is not intended for any form of surface or indepth discussion.

For any viewers (or Voyeurs) of serious disposition or self important demeanour who are in any manner, insulted or belittled, please feel able to discuss offline in a computer literate format with anyone else of equal stature. In any event always feel free to spindlebiff. (ref: Arthur C. Clarke).
;)

[Guest 112233]

Triage - Or something like that , i.e. the Good, the Bad and the just plain un-washed, befuddled and badly in need of a strong cup of tea.- Who always find themselves at the back of a long que at immigration, like me.

CAT III

[PAXboy]

The cost of true profiling will prevent it in all regular 'western' carriers unless compelled by law. THAT will not happen because the carriers would ensure that it never happens!

So, will we get 'tiered' screening in the UK? I very much doubt it and, I have to say, I don't want it. Full profiling as per El Al or stay as we are. Anything between would be a compromise.

Who always find themselves at the back of a long queue at immigration, like me.Ah, CAT III, I know how it is when one's personal INS finds itself now a true NDB and you circle the area hoping to find a landmark that brings you to the correct gate ... ;)

[WHBM]

Have we got any definitions of "Trusted", "Regular" and "Risky".

Could it be suit "trusted", shorts T shirt sunglasses "regular".
Some years ago, at the time of the occasional IRA bombs in London, the police would suddenly spring up roadblocks, and select a proportion of vehicles to be diverted through them for checking.

After a while I noticed that when I was driving in my business suit to/from work, I was rarely stopped, but when in casual, I normally was.

However I had also noticed that whenever Gerry Adams, principal apologist for the terrorists at the time, appeared on the television (with or without voice), from some confidential location, he was always in a sharp business suit. I did wonder whether to write to the Commissioner for Police, to suggest that they had got their profiling back to front.

[MPN11]

If rumours are to be believed, Mr Adams was working part-time for both sides. :eek:

However, he was never at [insert location here] on [insert date here] ... and neither was Mr McGuinness, who was [insert location here] and wasn't carrying a weapon either, so there ;)


But we digress ... the fundamental point is that Granny Weatherwax and Corporal Carrot are not a threat to society, or Flight Safety. There are however those, who glow in the dark, that require more assiduous scrutiny.

The definitions aren't easy, but IMO they should be explored with a bit more vigour.

[Piltdown Man]

People who even consider that the theatre called airport security might be relaxed are deluded. Many years ago when Adams and McGuinness's friends were blowing the hell out of London, we had a certain security level. Then, in virtually every Government building it was "Black Special." Every day. It was was never relaxed. The same happens at airports. It sticks at the one just below the one needed to shut it. Since then we have had the 9th September attacks and in the meantime, the only ever relaxation of security - we were allowed our back our carry on bags. And that's it. There's too much money to be made in security so it can't be allowed to be relaxed. If anyone even dared suggest it, I say that "quiet" press briefings will be held all over, playing up the threats facing airport travellers. Notice, not rail travellers, football fans, water drinkers, Underground travellers, bus users - only airline travellers. It is a small lucrative market which can be nicely bled. The other targets are far juicier, easier to attack and just as sensational, but too expensive and the users would not be prepared to cough up.

PM

[MPN11]

Apart from the error on "Black Alpha" ;) ... I take your point.

However, any concept of screening the millions of pax using surface transport is simply unworkable. You do what you can, and rely on Int to cover the balance.

[reynoldsno1]

mrsr1 and myself have transitted Sydney airport 6 times in the past 18 months - during this process some pax are 'randomly' selected for an explosives trace check...

mrsr1 has been 'randomly' selected 6 times out of 6 - the last time the security lady dropped what she was doing and moved fast to intercept her...

mrsr1 is a middle-aged, Thai-born, NZ citizen. Concidence or racial profiling?

[MathFox]

I don't think the profiling is racial... I was randomly selected for the explosives scan twice at Canberra (the same day.) I am red-haired, with a spotty skin. I assume that carrying a backpack triggered the selection. (I am still *** that they did not have the explanation in Dutch.)

[Pohutu]

Some years ago, at the time of the occasional IRA bombs in London, the police would suddenly spring up roadblocks, and select a proportion of vehicles to be diverted through them for checking.

After a while I noticed that when I was driving in my business suit to/from work, I was rarely stopped, but when in casual, I normally was.

I worked in the City during that time, and my desk overlooked one of the Met's regular checkpoints aimed at protecting us from IRA bombers. The police appeared to have received intelligence that the IRA had adopted a racial diversity policy, since most of the people I saw them search were black:confused:. It didn't make me feel a whole lot safer.

Unfortunately, if you give security staff discretion, there is a risk that it will develop into stereotyping.

As far as tiered screening is concerned, I think that this could only ever be of limited use. It is simply an exercise in predicting somebody's future behaviour based on evidence of their past behaviour. Even if you could do this accurately, it would create a weaker security point which could be exploited by someone coercing a trusted traveller, eg with threats to their family. As I understand it, this is the argument that is used to justify flight crew having to go through security checks along with everyone else.

Not that I know what the answer is. I'm no fan of the current system which combines maximum inconvenience with minimum efficacy. I guess that behavioural profiling, with safeguards, is probably the least worst option.

[Rush2112]

I am pretty sure profiling happens at Changi and it seems to work OK there.

[Wyler]

Why not just stick with the current system?

You know, go round every inner city school and recruit those who failed at everything. Top them up with ex-hijackers and other minority groups and - bingo - 21st century UK airport security.
Embed an overblown sense of self worth in all of them and get them to religiously implement every little rule without even a hint of common sense or intelligent thought.
Those that fail to meet even this non existent standard can be employed as baggage handlers.
Those who cannot even do this, and specifically cannot speak any English, can be employed in one of the many shops and food outlets.

Thoroughly enjoyed my trip through Heathrow last Thursday thanks to all of the above.

Still, at least it's cheap. :ok:

[canard68]

Security check drink half of lager and eat a pork chop = passed (ask for seconds = upgrade)