Seeking viewpoints on profiling of suicide bombers

That argument is bullshit! Okay, lets try a simple test. Given the fact that neither system is perfect, which is more likely to find a terrorist:

a) subjecting someone to an FBI background check; or
b) dweebs rummaging through peoples junk. Did I mention that these fucking assholes have NEVER found a terrorist in 10 years.

I'm going with a) Originally Posted by pjorourke

I would say that if the terrorists groups know that both checks are being done, and they surely will, neither system is likely to find any terrorists. Finding some random Islamic extremist who can pass a FBI screening can't be that difficult. There are bound to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, on American college campuses. In fact, I'd wager it's a lot easier to find a extremist with a clean record than clandestinely getting weapons past airport security now.

Also, an FBI background check -- at least the types to are given to Federal Judicial nominees and folks seeking significant security clearances -- take many hours. I'd guess it would be measured in hundreds of hours per person. Let's say just 10 million people signed up for such a check. With the current number of FBI agents (13,821), it would take decades to clear that many people. Let's say each employee can clear one person per month in addition to their current duties (which I doubt). It would take 723 months, or over 60 years to approve all the applicants.

The number of, and training for, enough agents to actually do good background checks on this many people is staggering. And I'll bet that the number of folks that would ask for clearance, even at $1,000 a pop, would be closer to 25 million. It would certainly be the end of small government.

I would say that if the terrorists groups know that both checks are being done, and they surely will, neither system is likely to find any terrorists. Finding some random Islamic extremist who can pass a FBI screening can't be that difficult. There are bound to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, on American college campuses. In fact, I'd wager it's a lot easier to find a extremist with a clean record than clandestinely getting weapons past airport security now.

Also, an FBI background check -- at least the types to are given to Federal Judicial nominees and folks seeking significant security clearances -- take many hours. I'd guess it would be measured in hundreds of hours per person. Let's say just 10 million people signed up for such a check. With the current number of FBI agents (13,821), it would take decades to clear that many people. Let's say each employee can clear one person per month in addition to their current duties (which I doubt). It would take 723 months, or over 60 years to approve all the applicants.

The number of, and training for, enough agents to actually do good background checks on this many people is staggering. And I'll bet that the number of folks that would ask for clearance, even at $1,000 a pop, would be closer to 25 million. It would certainly be the end of small government. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

+1

And, TTH...nice dig!!!

Small government ended years ago.

The point is TTH, neither system will work 100% of the time. The whole concept is a total waste of time and money whose only purpose is to convince a gullible public that they "are doing something". Given that fact, I'm in favor of the least costly, least intrusive charade. (BTW, 25 million people getting screened at $1,000 a pop is chump change compared to TSA's real cost in money, time & productivity.

And a registered traveler program does not need a 100 hour FBI background check (that's a typical bureaucratic bullshit answer like closing the Washington Monument when pressed to save money.) Even a 15 minute record check would accomplish more than the current airport charade. Have I mentioned that TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist in 10 years?

I would say that if the terrorists groups know that both checks are being done, and they surely will, neither system is likely to find any terrorists. Finding some random Islamic extremist who can pass a FBI screening can't be that difficult. There are bound to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, on American college campuses. In fact, I'd wager it's a lot easier to find a extremist with a clean record than clandestinely getting weapons past airport security now.

Also, an FBI background check -- at least the types to are given to Federal Judicial nominees and folks seeking significant security clearances -- take many hours. I'd guess it would be measured in hundreds of hours per person. Let's say just 10 million people signed up for such a check. With the current number of FBI agents (13,821), it would take decades to clear that many people. Let's say each employee can clear one person per month in addition to their current duties (which I doubt). It would take 723 months, or over 60 years to approve all the applicants.

The number of, and training for, enough agents to actually do good background checks on this many people is staggering. And I'll bet that the number of folks that would ask for clearance, even at $1,000 a pop, would be closer to 25 million. It would certainly be the end of small government. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Such problems are where the entrepreneurial spirit kicks in. There are millions of people out there in the world who can tell you the problems, or “How not to get something done”. The much more unique individual can tell you “How to get things done”. I spend most of my life, kicking the one out of the way so I can get to the other.

No system will be perfect. There will be something that slips through the crack. The first group does not do anything until the system is perfect…as such, nothing gets done. The second group comes up with a plan and implements it…adjusting it as needed along the way. He’s humming the C&W song (That’s close enough to perfect, for me…) all through the process. I’ll go with that guy (or gal ).

And a registered traveler program does not need a 100 hour FBI background check Originally Posted by pjorourke

I wouldn't think a registered traveler would need more of a background check than an employee at an airport. $25 and and two days later an FBI check was done on me.

Have I mentioned that TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist in 10 years? Originally Posted by pjorourke

I take it you've created a two-key macro that types out this statement.

I wouldn't think a registered traveler would need more of a background check than an employee at an airport. $25 and and two days later an FBI check was done on me. Originally Posted by Ansley

Query: how long ago was this? My impression is that your stint at the airport was pre-9/11, but I could be wrong. And your cost was probably underwritten by the company for which you worked.

In any event, I think it is currently more extensive and more expensive than that. First of all, it is no longer ink style fingerprints. They're digital, which makes it quicker on the FBI side, but the technology is more expensive. Once you pass screening, there is the fairly expensive ID. Smart IDs (or whatever they're called) include a hard-to-hack ID picture and the embedded biometric chip. Passing the background check may be more streamlined, but making the ID is an expensive process. And to think all digital fingerprints are easy is a mistake. In some instances, fingers are so worn that prints aren't readable, in which case, the old-style ink pad method must be used, which adds lots of time to the process.

I wouldn't think a registered traveler would need more of a background check than an employee at an airport. $25 and and two days later an FBI check was done on me. Originally Posted by Ansley

Talk about slipping through the crack?...

What's next? Ban air travel unless you're a govt commisar.

I take it you've created a two-key macro that types out this statement. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Good idea. I can then quickly append it to everyone of your and TTH's posts without wasting a lot of time.

And I notice that nobody has yet refuted the point that: TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist.

I take it you've created a two-key macro that types out this statement.

Good idea. I can then quickly append it to everyone of your and TTH's posts without wasting a lot of time. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

PJ, add it to your signature; much easier.

And I notice that nobody has yet refuted the point that: TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Refuting that would be akin to admitting that TSA is worthwhile. It is not. (Although it may provide a place for terminated McDonalds employees to get a job.)

And, although I can't speak for TTH, I agree there has to be a better way. Whether or not that "better way" is a RT program is an open question.

The problem I have with any system (including the current one) is that terrorists will inevitably find the weaknesses and use them. And, I'm inherently suspicious of every system that gives one class of persons more "rights" than another. For instance, I dislike the "employee" entrances at airports. I think it is easily exploited...the terrorist just needs to be hired by the concourse McDonalds. I also dislike that pilots get to carry guns. To me, that's a real problem.

Query: how long ago was this? My impression is that your stint at the airport was pre-9/11, but I could be wrong. And your cost was probably underwritten by the company for which you worked. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Nope, I worked there after 9/11. Maybe the company did underwrite part of the cost, I don't know.

Talk about slipping through the crack?... Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Ignoring you.....

Query: how long ago was this? My impression is that your stint at the airport was pre-9/11, but I could be wrong. And your cost was probably underwritten by the company for which you worked. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Nope, I worked there after 9/11. Maybe the company did underwrite part of the cost, I don't know. Originally Posted by Ansley

I'm sure any Registered Traveler program is going to have to fall into line with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12.

Found here: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1217616624097.shtm.

I also dislike that pilots get to carry guns. To me, that's a real problem. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Are you afraid they might try to hijack the plane? You do realize that they are driving don't you?

I take it you've created a two-key macro that types out this statement.



Query: how long ago was this? My impression is that your stint at the airport was pre-9/11, but I could be wrong. And your cost was probably underwritten by the company for which you worked.

In any event, I think it is currently more extensive and more expensive than that. First of all, it is no longer ink style fingerprints. They're digital, which makes it quicker on the FBI side, but the technology is more expensive. Once you pass screening, there is the fairly expensive ID. Smart IDs (or whatever they're called) include a hard-to-hack ID picture and the embedded biometric chip. Passing the background check may be more streamlined, but making the ID is an expensive process. And to think all digital fingerprints are easy is a mistake. In some instances, fingers are so worn that prints aren't readable, in which case, the old-style ink pad method must be used, which adds lots of time to the process. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Survey says..... bzzzzzz, wrong answer. I have an airport badge and the bg investigation took 2 weeks, post 911, to get the badge back. There is no biometric chip in the badge, but there is an RFID chip. They do use the electronic fingerprints to get the investigation started though. Trust me when I tell you, they do a thorough investigation but it is not an ENTNAC or higher level bg check. The Feds don't get involved with man power unless someone is going for a TS clearence beyond a database query on the NICs by a low level clerk.

Are you afraid they might try to hijack the plane? You do realize that they are driving don't you? Originally Posted by pjorourke

LOL, stop being logical, you'll only confuse the people who don't comprehend common-sense.