The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.
> The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.
I hope so but I wouldn't hold my breath. I remember initially the "enhanced" security pat down was "random" which meant they'd pull aside only brown people. Guess what if it is truly random then grandma on a wheel chair should also be subject to the same "enhanced" pat down. Then they did "enhanced" security pat down on grandmas on wheel chairs but I don't see the public demanding (at least not successfully) the removal.
The whole thing is an opaque mess and includes many false positives. I certainly don't feel any safer flying with the list in place than I would otherwise. To me it seems like another example of post 9/11 security theatre.
The problem is the asymmetry of costs of a false negative and a false positive. A false positive means some dude with an unlucky name has to drive instead of flying. A false negative means some terrorist gets on a plane, blows it up, and some politicians get blamed for it.
Though, yeah, it feels like a bit of security theatre. A more transparent process would probably help. Maybe the thinking is that it would jeopardise sources?
