Tiered security for airports

The New York Times reports that "a growing consensus" is emerging among certain stakeholders that the right way to address airport security is to "divide travelers into three groups — trusted, regular or risky — and apply different screening techniques based on what is known about the passengers."

The article paints an upbeat picture of the future as envisioned by groups like the International Air Transport Association, the U.S. Travel Association ("a travel trade group") and the Air Lines Pilots Association. Conspicuously absent from this list is any comment from a passenger association.

For "trusted" travelers, tiered-security advocates envision an expedited security process at the airport that would start long before, with a background check likely paid for by the would-be traveler. This sounds exactly like the Clear service, which was shuttered in 2009 in a dispute with creditors. Clear came out of bankruptcy with a new owner and restarted service in November 2010. Other companies are reported to be interested in getting into this market, too.

How are passengers to be sorted into the three groups?

Although many of the procedural details are still just proposals, the idea is to determine who may present a risk based on better use of government intelligence and watch lists as well as suspicious behaviors like checking in for a one-way international flight with no luggage.

Huh. Isn't that what is supposed to be happening today, modulo the (putatively) random enhanced screening process?

I don't care for being sized up according to some faceless bureaucrat's risk-assessment profile, but we put up with that kind of thing when we apply for life insurance. Neither is strictly necessary, though circumstances may prevent you from opting out.

The theory of the current randomized enhanced screening process, by the way, is that it avoids exactly the kind of profiling alleged by Arabs, Muslims, and anyone else who looks or sounds like the public's notion of a terrorist. They face the airport equivalent of "driving while black." It will be interesting to see if a move toward more objective risk-based assessment, which makes sense from a cost-effectiveness (not to mention a rationality) standpoint, swings the pendulum back toward headlines about unfair profiling. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how objective the risk assessments are.