Fuck it, let's just argue the other way and save some time.
What evidence is there that we should ignore the well-known design principles of encapsulation and separation-of-concerns and thus allow the TSA to access data held by other agencies?
What evidence is there that we should ignore the well-known design principles of encapsulation and separation-of-concerns and thus allow the TSA to access data held by other agencies?
If the TSA has MORE information then there will be LESS hassle and MORE accuracy. That, multiplied by the number of people currently affected and delayed by the security checks should also improve the experience by quite a lot.
So, what is their current accuracy? We already know that no TSA --> no hassle.
Yours is at least a testable hypothesis.
Don't assume that they don't carry.
Lungs are not code duplication any more than running two instances of an application to provide greater peak performance or hot-standby is code duplication. You are confusing duplication of elements of the real system with duplication of specification (programming is executable specification, not the real system.)
You should've suggested (in the DRY sense) removing extra copies of sequences in DNA--excepting, you know, that I don't think that we know that is safe (those may be there for redundancy as well).
Perhaps you work somewhere where the concept of redundancy is important?
Stop being obtuse; you clearly seem to see the point I was getting at.
If what you're saying is that the TSA should not perform some work because it's not simple to do that work in accordance with other system design principles, then I fear you have fundamentally misunderstood what those principles are for.
I withdraw my claim that the TSA should not seek to optimize according to design principles. I still believe that you are applying them too broadly, but it isn't a position I care to defend at the moment.
In part to alleviate this symptom, the responsibilities for 22 departments were thrown together under the DHS. So, at least the administration running things at the time thought they saw evidence that it was needed.
IIRC, Bush2 was initially against the formation of the DHS. After a week of everyone in Congress asking why he didn't care about teh Children, and also why was he so against spending in their districts, he caved.
Incidentally, I don't assume that Bush2 was against DHS because of the sound organizational principle that the best way to make a group of poorly performing orgs worse is to pack them all together under an additional management layer. He might well not have cared at all, so he could use the opportunity to extract concessions from other politicians.