Technology Aims to Address Existing Liquid Threat
TSA is aware that the current liquid restrictions are a pain point for the public. That is one reason why the agency is working aggressively to deploy technology that can detect liquid explosives. The primary reason is: better security.As the Middle Seat blog column stated yesterday, widespread deployment of new multi-view x-ray systems with an enhanced algorithm that detects specific liquids remains about a year away. But the multi-view x-ray itself is a significant improvement over the standard x-ray that’s been at the checkpoint since its inception in the 1970s.
It is worth emphasizing TSA’s checkpoint security operations are based on Intelligence and information sharing with partners here and around the world. Liquids are banned today in the U.S. and in 80 other countries not only because of the foiled August 2006 plot but because of continued interest by terrorists to use liquids and other novel explosives to make bombs.
Even the U.S. papers are picking up on open source information much more readily reported in Europe about active terror suspects with large amounts of explosive chemicals that are still traveling freely in Germany and other countries.
The bottom line is the threat hasn’t diminished on liquid explosives.
Ellen Howe
posted by Bob at
2:11 PM
Subscribe in a reader
157 Comments:
Who is Ellen Howe?
Please support your claims!
Evidience please.
I say BS!
October 3, 2008 2:22 PM
Ellen,
Saying "Liquids are banned today in the U.S. and in 80 other countries" is misleading. In my country, liquids are limited IF YOU ARE GOING TO THE USA. There is no other limitation. More ridiculously, liquids are checked by flight attendants (yes, they become pseudo-security officers) as you board the plane, and they basically ask you to show you the "freedom baggie" and glance over it for about 0.1 second. They do not look into your stuff at all (this is not a complaint, just a statement of lack of internal logic). You cannot take water aboard a US bound flight here (unless it is hidden inside your backpack), no matter where you purchase it. It is a pain, but still preferable to having all our flights liquid-free like in the US.
Stop the war on liquids. Either you have the technology to take care of the problem rationally or you should not bother the vast, vast majority of honest fliers with this stupidity.
October 3, 2008 2:35 PM
Since you asked so nicely:
Ellen Howe
http://tinyurl.com/47luk7
October 3, 2008 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...
Since you asked so nicely:
Ellen Howe
http://tinyurl.com/47luk7
...........................
Howe also developed communications strategies for the limited liquids policy "3-1-1" and "SimpliFLY" pack-smart public awareness campaigns.
So Ellen is respopnsible for mistating 3.4-1-1 as 3-1-1.
This same mistated information is still found to be incorrect on any number of TSA web pages. Good job for an Exectutive Communicator!
October 3, 2008 3:10 PM
Liquid baggies do nothing. A real terrorist could still take more than 500 mL liquids in something as simple as breast "fillers", or within body cavities that not even your fancy strip search machines can see into.
The best way to limit liquid threats, in addition to following terrorist activities (as was done in Germany) is to test for trace chemicals. It catches the 1 in a billion "bad guy" without inconveniencing and embarrassing everyone else. Either you have this technology, or you should not do anything at all.
October 3, 2008 3:20 PM
Ah, the war on liquids, pastes, and gels continues unabated with the only casualty being the wallets of passengers.
Bad science coupled with bag politics makes for bad decisions.
October 3, 2008 3:32 PM
Ellen,
I realize you're only a public affairs gonk, and that your job is to spin the party line. I also understand that you job is to ensure that the TSA maintains a sufficient fear level in the public in order to ensure continued funding.
However, Anonymous @ 2:35 already identified a factual error. Perhaps a retraction is in order?
I suggest you do a literature search on the War on Water. There are well-documented and peer-reviewed articles describing that it is nearly impossible to create an explosive combination of liquids in an airplane in flight under operational conditions. I'm not just talking about posts on FlyerTalk from scientists. I'm talking about peer-reviewed science. I don't have the time to provide you with the documents -- heck, that's your job to do the research.
I know there's no way that Kippie would simply 'fess up, state that the threat is overstated, and end the War on Water. We taxpayers are going to get stuck with the bill for these new machines anyway.
Here's a homework assignment for you. It's in two parts:
1. Convince us that these new machines cannot and will not be used to search for pot and other drugs that have nothing to do with civil aviation security.
2. Show us the money. Provide a link or a .pdf of the page out of the FY2009 DHS budget submittal that shows us that you are actually going to fund these machines.
October 3, 2008 4:24 PM
Bob, there's no real threat from liquids. The London plotters had no liquid explosives of any kind. There's no way to mix binary liquid explosives on a plane. Any single liquids are too unstable to survive the ride to the airport. There's no threat there, and yet you make millions of citizens' lives miserable and waste millions of hours every day because you people are afraid of a nonexistent boogeyman. There;s no liquid threat. You know it, we know it, Kip Hawley knows it. Please stop lying to us.
October 3, 2008 4:29 PM
Schneier on Security
The Two Classes of Airport Contraband
Airport security found a jar of pasta sauce in my luggage last month. It was a 6-ounce jar, above the limit; the official confiscated it, because allowing it on the airplane with me would have been too dangerous. And to demonstrate how dangerous he really thought that jar was, he blithely tossed it in a nearby bin of similar liquid bottles and sent me on my way.
There are two classes of contraband at airport security checkpoints: the class that will get you in trouble if you try to bring it on an airplane, and the class that will cheerily be taken away from you if you try to bring it on an airplane. This difference is important: Making security screeners confiscate anything from that second class is a waste of time. All it does is harm innocents; it doesn't stop terrorists at all.
Let me explain. If you're caught at airport security with a bomb or a gun, the screeners aren't just going to take it away from you. They're going to call the police, and you're going to be stuck for a few hours answering a lot of awkward questions. You may be arrested, and you'll almost certainly miss your flight. At best, you're going to have a very unpleasant day.
This is why articles about how screeners don't catch every -- or even a majority -- of guns and bombs that go through the checkpoints don't bother me. The screeners don't have to be perfect; they just have to be good enough. No terrorist is going to base his plot on getting a gun through airport security if there's decent chance of getting caught, because the consequences of getting caught are too great.
Contrast that with a terrorist plot that requires a 12-ounce bottle of liquid. There's no evidence that the London liquid bombers actually had a workable plot, but assume for the moment they did. If some copycat terrorists try to bring their liquid bomb through airport security and the screeners catch them -- like they caught me with my bottle of pasta sauce -- the terrorists can simply try again. They can try again and again. They can keep trying until they succeed. Because there are no consequences to trying and failing, the screeners have to be 100 percent effective. Even if they slip up one in a hundred times, the plot can succeed.
The same is true for knitting needles, pocketknives, scissors, corkscrews, cigarette lighters and whatever else the airport screeners are confiscating this week. If there's no consequence to getting caught with it, then confiscating it only hurts innocent people. At best, it mildly annoys the terrorists.
To fix this, airport security has to make a choice. If something is dangerous, treat it as dangerous and treat anyone who tries to bring it on as potentially dangerous. If it's not dangerous, then stop trying to keep it off airplanes. Trying to have it both ways just distracts the screeners from actually making us safer.
What's with this? Is he correct? How hard is this to reconcile?
October 3, 2008 4:29 PM
Ellen, you clearly made a mistake in your final link, since it's an article about a plot that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking airplanes, and was stopped by law enforcement, not phony rentacops with tin badges. I'd HATE to think that TSA was needlessly trying to scare people with bogus information, Ellen.
October 3, 2008 4:33 PM
The only way you can say "the threat hasn't diminished on liquid explosives" (which of course do not exist in any fashion that an airplane passenger could use to harm a plane) is if you admit that the threat is zero. Since a risk can't go lower than zero threat, I suppose your statement could technically be considered true.
Congratulations! You inadvertently told the truth about something!
October 3, 2008 4:35 PM
There is no logical reason to limit the quantity of liquids per passenger, but not check what KIND OF LIQUIDS they are. Stop the nonsense now!
Just a few of the senseless, pointless, things of the current liquid policy are:
1. The zip lock bag. Why must it be a zip lock? Do zip locks stop explosions? Is the TSA trying to prevent leaks in our carry on? Why would they care about that?
2. The 3 oz limit. Is it a volume or weight limit? Is it really 3 oz or 100 mLs (or 100 grs)?? Unless there is a REAL definition, you can never enforce it. Unless of course you had officers with common sense, but we all know that is not the case...
3. What on earth does the TSA consider a liquid? It is not the Chemical definition of a liquid - that would include glass, but not tooth powder (it pours, according to the TSA!). It seems to be whatever the TSO du jour decides. Please explain how your definition of liquids can exclude chocolate and grapes but include peanut butter, solid deodorant and ice. Is cheese a liquid? Is a peanut butter or jam sandwich allowed?? Am I allowed (human beings are mostly liquid)?
4. Why was my freedom baggie barred because it also contained a toothbrush? Are solids and "liquids" not allowed to mingle? Why then are liquids to be restricted in solid 3 oz containers?
5. Why are glass liquid flasks not allowed? Do you not know some of the most corrosive chemicals can only be stored in plastic (like strong bases).
I could go on all day...
October 3, 2008 4:51 PM
So instead of dealing with important matters, the TSA Bloggers decide that they must roll out a 'Friday Funny' entry. What? No pictures of fuzzy puppy dogs? I'm shocked!
October 3, 2008 6:16 PM
To continue on some of the comments, especially the Schneier column, having two levels of threats (guns, bombs, knives) and others (liquids, gels) makes no sense. Either the liquid is a danger, or it isn't. When an agent takes away a liquid, they throw it in the trash. But would you put a bomb in the trash? Throwing the liquid in the trash is an implicit admission that the liquid is safe. It's a clear contradiction.
Security needs to be black or white, up or down, pass or go to jail. Either the person/substance/object is a danger, or not.
Schneier is right, anything in the middle is a distraction and bad security.
October 3, 2008 7:52 PM
I think that one of the above comments is very good. If you get caught bringing in liquids that are not allowed there should be penalties. Then maybe all these passengers would start getting a clue (two years after this started) that they shouldn't be bringing this stuff on. The signs posted all over and the we pages and articles don't seem to sink into their skulls.
Leave your gallons of waters, hair sprays etc in your checked bags or at home.
Its pretty sad that everyone thinks TSA is being stupid all the time. The traveling public is just as stupid to not realize that the TSA doesn't allow you to have a huge bottle of water.
October 4, 2008 6:29 AM
TSO's do not confiscate anything, they give you options to take care of the items.
If you constantly arrive late for your flight, don't care enough or feel libes are to long to go through with those options, then thats on the traveler.
October 4, 2008 6:30 AM
I agree with the above post saying that there should be consequinces for bringing in all the prohibited items that are not necessarily illegal to the point of the police being called in.
If TSA started sending the passengers back to the end of the lines to take care of their prohibited items on their own, then passengers might start actually thinking about whats in their bag. Instead, everytime I see someon get caught with something, they always say, "Oh I forgot it was there!" or "I didn't know that was in there!"
Of course if TSA started adding fines or consequences, everyone here would start saying TSA was being mean and rude and that it was awful of them to make that lady carry out her water and go to the end of line or for making that guy go back and take care of his cologne.
Instead, the TSO's have to take time to dispose of the items for the traveler when they are too lazy to just pack their bag properly.
October 4, 2008 6:36 AM
I am a TSO. I just want to set the record straight...TSA does NOT CONFISCATE or "take your items" from you. You have several options for taking care of your prohibited items (including large volumes of liquids)
1) you may take your bag and items back to the airline counter and have them fly with you as checked baggage
2) you may hand them off to whoever brought you to the checkpoint to see you off
3) You may take them out and put them in your car (if you drove yourself)
4) You may take them to the post office or use the mailers located at many checkpoints to mail the items to yourself
5) Or you may SURRENDER the item at the checkpoint.
Believe me when I tell you, we get sick and tired of hearing snide remarks from passengers for doing our job. And we just have to smile and continue to be professional and let it roll off our backs.
I am proud of what I do. I feel that in some small way I am making travel safe for me, my loved ones as well as the public in general. I will NOT appologise for doing my job well. And I will NOT make an exception and let you take your liquids because you are somehow
"special"
Maybe some day the powers that be will decide to try out a new idea...how about this...we have two types of flights...one type of flight is screened by security just like it is now, and the other type of flight is a free-for-all. No one gets screened, anyone (and I mean anyone since we wont have to check Id's or anything) can take anything they want to on the plane. I wonder what flight YOU would take given those two options.
The American public has a very short memory. I am a firm believer that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
I choose to never forget.
October 4, 2008 9:15 AM
The threat also hasn't diminished from: rigid plastic knives, ceramic knives, solid explosives, multiple terrorists colluding to combine all their 3.4-oz bottles post checkpoint, improvising weapons from broken glass or torn aluminum cans, items smuggled in body cavities, defeating watchlists with the "carnival algorithm," bribing or otherwise coercing trusted parties like crew or TSA agents, improvised thermite grenades, release of highly toxic volitile compounds, biological agents, suicide bombers near checkpoints, MANPADS, or about fifty other things I could name off.
But hey, TSA, good job on making everyone "feel safe" with the War on Moist Things.
October 4, 2008 9:39 AM
I second the anonymous commenter that said that you were being misleading in your commenting. For example, in Japan liquids are only banned for international flights (they have the screening technology that you're talking about here, but apparently it isn't acceptable to certain countries until they decide to think about using it, else Japan wouldn't have this ban at all) and in China exemptions are provided for most reasons. Oh, and in China they're actually reasonable about it; my mother's medication was permitted by Chinese security but stopped by the TSA in transit because the TSO on duty at the domestic terminal apparently didn't understand Chinese herbal medicine and thought we were bringing coffee because that's what it looked like.
October 4, 2008 11:46 AM
Ellen,
The bottom line is that liquids are the most annoying and pointless TSA policy. Get rid of the war on liquids.
October 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Anonymous said:
3. What on earth does the TSA consider a liquid? It is not the Chemical definition of a liquid - that would include glass, but not tooth powder (it pours, according to the TSA!). It seems to be whatever the TSO du jour decides. Please explain how your definition of liquids can exclude chocolate and grapes but include peanut butter, solid deodorant and ice. Is cheese a liquid? Is a peanut butter or jam sandwich allowed?? Am I allowed (human beings are mostly liquid)?
The definition of a liquid would basically be something that could not hold its form outside of its container. If its not a solid or a gas, it is a liquid. Also, its what form the item in question would be at room temperature. So sure, ice is a solid, but becomes a liquid at room temp. Also, things that you think would not be considered a liquid like peanut butter or cheese (just a couple examples) have the same consistency as some explosives. Also, we do not take away solid deodorant, and if someone did, then yes, they have no common sense. Glass and tooth powder as anonymous mentioned would be good to go. Glass is a solid at room temperature and powder is made up of solid particles. So yes, I understand that this is annoying, but just please use your "common sense" about liquids and not take things so literally. I do seriously hope you were joking when you asked if a grape is considered a liquid!!!!!
October 4, 2008 2:10 PM
So ...
Everyone points out that the ban makes no sense. Everyone points out all the flaws with it. Everyone points out all the disadvantages of it, both in terms of practical disadvantages and public relations. Nobody is fooled by your party line anymore, and we won't stop pressuring you about it.
And the TSA's response is "we're looking into it, we're working on it."
Why didn't you look into it and work on it years ago? You're all but admitting your critics are right, although you never admit you are wrong which is why you won't use those words. This is an attempt to admit error without admitting error, no wonder the blog entry has such a clunky flow.
Just give it up. Whether or not you have the explosive sniffers (which you should have had six years ago INSTEAD of the 3-1-1 rule) you should give up what everyone knows is a useless, terrible, and counter-productive policy.
But that would mean admitting you were wrong. So you won't give up what you know doesn't work until you have the sniffers, right?
And then you'll keep the policy so that you can have "layers", right? Otherwise it might mean admitting you were wrong six years ago when you gave us 3-1-1 instead of sniffers.
October 4, 2008 6:04 PM
Anonymous wrote...
Since you asked so nicely:
Ellen Howe
http://tinyurl.com/47luk7
Ah! THAT Ellen Howe! :o) The one who thought that demanding the "voluntary surrender" of a traveler's external battery pack for his DVD player after it had been determined to be just and external battery pack was enough of a high point for the TSA's week that she ever wrote and published an article featuring that event and praising the stalwart defenders of out flying safety for preventing that perfectly safe and legal item from entering US Airspace.
THAT Ellen Howe.
(Sorry Ellen, it will be a while yet before you live that one down entirely.)
Tom (1 of 5-6)
October 4, 2008 6:43 PM
I am a chemist; I hold a Ph.D. in chemistry from a well known research university.
Let me say this as plainly and unequivocally as I know how: there is absolutely nothing that makes a liquid inherently more volatile than a solid or gas.
Whoever came to the wrong conclusion that liquids are somehow dangerous by virtue of their physical state should be fired or at least should have to complete a freshman level chemistry class.
Continuing to insist to the contrary is damaging the reputation of the TSA and causing the public to hold TSA in the same light as the IRS.
October 4, 2008 8:54 PM
I fail to understand why my post of 3 Oct 2008 commenting on why 3-1-1 errors still exist and that with Ellen Howe being one of TSA's chief communicators must be held responsible for those errors.
So it's ok to mention a specific TSO's first and last name when it is favorable yet to mention the name of a senior TSA official in a less than warm manner is not ok and the post is censored even though it complies (Ellen published her name here first) with your standards.
This statement from Ellens bio, "Howe also developed communications strategies for the limited liquids policy "3-1-1" and "SimpliFLY" pack-smart public awareness campaigns." places the confusion over 3-1-1 or more correctly 3.4-1-1 directly in Ellens camp.
So why was my post censored? What posting standard was challenged?
When will Ellen and TSA correct all of the incorrect 3-1-1 statements found not only at TSA.GOV but on signage at all airports across the country?
As a side note, I saw that 93% of people questioned found TSA methods to be unfavorable and in the wrong direction as reported in Parade magazine on 10/5/2008.
http://tinyurl.com/6g48kb
I have to wonder in how many ways must TSA be told that what they are doing is not acceptable with the public? The public whose tax monies fund this excuse for a welfare work program!
October 5, 2008 9:19 PM
Let me start by thanking the person who posted the "Schneier on Security" text.
Ellen,
Saying there is an "existing liquids threat" does not make the threat real. It also does not make the current liquid restrictions an effective measure against a hypothetical liquid threat.
October 6, 2008 6:22 AM
Ronnie said...
I am a TSO. I just want to set the record straight...TSA does NOT CONFISCATE or "take your items" from you. You have several options for taking care of your prohibited items (including large volumes of liquids)
1) you may take your bag and items back to the airline counter and have them fly with you as checked baggage
2) you may hand them off to whoever brought you to the checkpoint to see you off
3) You may take them out and put them in your car (if you drove yourself)
4) You may take them to the post office or use the mailers located at many checkpoints to mail the items to yourself
5) Or you may SURRENDER the item at the checkpoint.
Sorry Ronnie, but that is wrong. Pop on over to Flyer Talk.com and see what has recently happened to passengers who crossed your fellow TSOs. Things are confiscated by TSOs.
Believe me when I tell you, we get sick and tired of hearing snide remarks from passengers for doing our job. And we just have to smile and continue to be professional and let it roll off our backs.
Your choice. Don't like the work environment then quit. When dealing with humans you must use your brains. Blindly following orders results in snide comments from those you're attempting to protect.
I am proud of what I do. I feel that in some small way I am making travel safe for me, my loved ones as well as the public in general. I will NOT appologise for doing my job well. And I will NOT make an exception and let you take your liquids because you are somehow
"special"
Never claimed I was special. Do you really feel proud supporting what has turned out to be mostly security theater?
Maybe some day the powers that be will decide to try out a new idea...how about this...we have two types of flights...one type of flight is screened by security just like it is now, and the other type of flight is a free-for-all. No one gets screened, anyone (and I mean anyone since we wont have to check Id's or anything) can take anything they want to on the plane. I wonder what flight YOU would take given those two options.
When you can do better than 50% detection on your red tests then you're moving in the right direction. Until then expanding into new security realms detracts from your main mission.
The American public has a very short memory. I am a firm believer that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
I don't. Little of today's security theater makes the flights more secure. The war on shoes - failed. The war on liquids - failed. Nearly everything TSA touches has proven to be an abject failure.
October 6, 2008 10:28 AM
Hi. This is a message to all the TSOs who keep parroting the "But we don't confiscate anything! We give you a choice" line.
That is absolutely the most DISINGENUOUS thing I have ever heard in my entire life. If would be like a mugger saying, "Hey I didn't take your wallet. I gave you a choice: give it to me or let me shoot you."
Let's take ronnie's list of "choices" for example:
(1) Check your bag.
FAIL - First of all if I were carrying that bag aboard, there was a damn good reason. Either it has valuable stuff that I don't want broken or stolen, or critical stuff like medication or papers. Checking it is not an option. (Plus, now the airlines want to charge me for that.)
(2) Hand them off to whomever dropped you off.
FAIL - I take a taxi/public transportation to the airport. Have you priced airport parking lately? On the rare occasions my wife drops me off, she drops me at the curb. Why would she want to wait in a security line with me? You think people who aren't traveling want to submit themselves to the indignity of the "security" line? (Not to mention the fact that only ticketed passengers are supposed to be in those lines.)
(3) Put them in your car.
FAIL - See above. Have you priced airport parking lately? Sometimes I rent a car to drive to the airport, returning it there. That's a cheaper option.
(4) Mail them
FAIL - It's the TSA's arbitrary rules that want me to mail them back, so do you think the TSA is gonna foot the bill? No. Just another way to bleed more money out of your pocket.
(5) SURRENDER them
EPIC FAIL - Let's play semantics! It's not "confiscating," it's "surrendering"! It's like saying you weren't fired or even downsized, you were "right-sized." It all boils down to the same thing.
Ronnie, please, please PLEASE, I beg of you, tell me your address. Because I really want to come over to your house so you can give me all your valuables. No, I'm not going to rob you, silly. I'm giving you a choice: you can willingly "donate" your stuff to me, or I can burn your house down. See how that works???
October 6, 2008 12:33 PM
I hope TSA senses the degree of anger the public has towards it's efforts.
Parade magazine asked readers if TSA was doing thing right and 93% of responders said no. 93%!!! Now that cetainly says something.
How much evidence does TSA need before understanding that a re-evaluation of methods is needed?
How effective is your security when the "Kettles" actively work against your mehtods?
How much more effective would the methods be if the "Kettles" cooperated with TSA?
I have to question the leadership of TSA when programs are put in place without regard to the needs of the public. It seems that TSA can't buy a clue and are inept in understanding what really needs to be done.
I have traveled by auto on my last long distance trip and will do so again later this year. The hassels of flying thanks to TSA makes the increased travel time a favorable trade-off.
Airlines will demand change when enough travelers stop purchasing tickets on their aircraft. Passenger bookings are down already. Several factors are responsible but TSA has certainly played a starring role!
It's time for new leadership at TSA. The current crowd has failed!
October 6, 2008 12:40 PM
Ronnie said...
I am a TSO. I just want to set the record straight...TSA does NOT CONFISCATE or "take your items" from you.
...............................
Look at it from the eyes of the traveler.
We are under duress and "confiscate" is how we define the event.
In other cases where the traveler was compelled to "surrender" something, such as breast milk, ice packs to cool breast milk, or the battery pack from a few weeks back. Those are in fact cases of confiscation since TSA had no right to prevent those items from passing the checkpoint.
In all cases the traveler, if they wish to make their flight, has to comply with TSA even when "you" are wrong!
You can parse the words anyway you like, but travelers will continue to call it "confiscation" because that is what it is!
October 6, 2008 1:31 PM
Ronnie said...(abridged)
Maybe some day the powers that be will decide to try out a new idea...how about this...we have two types of flights...one type of flight is screened by security just like it is now, and the other type of flight is a free-for-all. No one gets screened, anyone (and I mean anyone since we wont have to check Id's or anything) can take anything they want to on the plane. I wonder what flight YOU would take given those two options.
Let's modify the second one; Let's add screening by having plain clothed and uniformed TSA agents wander around and analyze behavior. Other than that, anything can be brought on the plan which doesn't physically endanger the plane and passengers. Don't bring, as an example, full propane tanks.
You can bring your gun, knife, whatever. It's your responsibility to be within the laws of where you left from and are going to.
I would certainly take that flight every time. I would feel much more secure than if I flew today.
I do not fly anymore because I cannot stand how flying works in the USA now.
October 6, 2008 1:51 PM
The liquids policy has major problems that are obvious to anyone with a working pair of eyes and a brain.
First, supposedly "dangerous" liquids being dumped in trash cans, allowed to leak, mix, and sit there at the checkpoint. Not only is this an unthinkably stupid way to treat potential hazmat, it also gives the impression that TSA is perfectly aware your shampoo, water, and coke are perfectly harmless.
TSA is asking us to simultaneously believe that that trash can is perfectly safe to be lining up next to, but also that it's filled with potential bombs.
TSO ronnie, your job is to make people afraid and docile. Not safer. The travelers that give you a hard time are merely thinking for themselves, a skill you'd do well to acquire. And to propose a more realistic and useful alternative to your fascist security vs. no security argument, I propose an alternate thought experiment. How many people do you suppose would board flights with no liquid restrictions given the choice between liquids allowed and no liquids allowed? I'm pretty sure your checkpoint line would be empty ronnie. Your trash can full of "bombs" too.
October 6, 2008 1:55 PM
Let me expand a bit on the post re: Parade Magazine:
"Is the U.S. Taking the Right Approach to Airline Security?
6% YES
“TSA could never interview every passenger like the Israelis do—we’d never get out of the airport.”
94% NO
“TSA’s efforts may make passengers feel safe, but they are ineffective. I’ve accidentally carried all sorts of banned items onto planes and never been stopped.”
October 6, 2008 2:11 PM
"There is no logical reason to limit the quantity of liquids per passenger, but not check what KIND OF LIQUIDS they are. Stop the nonsense now!
Just a few of the senseless, pointless, things of the current liquid policy are:
1. The zip lock bag. Why must it be a zip lock? Do zip locks stop explosions? Is the TSA trying to prevent leaks in our carry on? Why would they care about that?
2. The 3 oz limit. Is it a volume or weight limit? Is it really 3 oz or 100 mLs (or 100 grs)?? Unless there is a REAL definition, you can never enforce it. Unless of course you had officers with common sense, but we all know that is not the case...
3. What on earth does the TSA consider a liquid? It is not the Chemical definition of a liquid - that would include glass, but not tooth powder (it pours, according to the TSA!). It seems to be whatever the TSO du jour decides. Please explain how your definition of liquids can exclude chocolate and grapes but include peanut butter, solid deodorant and ice. Is cheese a liquid? Is a peanut butter or jam sandwich allowed?? Am I allowed (human beings are mostly liquid)?
4. Why was my freedom baggie barred because it also contained a toothbrush? Are solids and "liquids" not allowed to mingle? Why then are liquids to be restricted in solid 3 oz containers?
5. Why are glass liquid flasks not allowed? Do you not know some of the most corrosive chemicals can only be stored in plastic (like strong bases).
I could go on all day..."
October 3, 2008 4:51 PM
___________________________________
Well first of all you sound like a really smart person.
A zip lock bag is used for one reason. So that your liquids are out and together so the TSA can see them. People are told what exactly to put them in so that no one brings a black bag with there liquids. The reason is simple. So that the liquids are visable right there in front of the TSO. And it is quart size because that is the amount of liquid allowed. Its just the rules. So follow them.
Is it 3.4 oz or 100 mls? I think those are the same thing. Great question though.
It is liquids, creams and gels. You figure it out. Its not brain surgery. If you don't know what a liquid, cream or a gel is, I don't know how you were even smart enough to purchase your own ticket. If you have a solid peice of chocolate, I am not sure who would consider that liquid. Unless it was chocolate syrup, then it is obviously a liquid, or cream, I don't know you choose. Grapes.... Last time I checked a grape didn't come in a container that was sealed to hold it back from spilling all over the place. Peanut butter I think most people would consider it a cream. If not why don't you explain to me what you think it is. Solid deo is not a liquid and anyone who says it is is wrong. Now ice.... Once a liquid, now its not. Can you freeze an explosive? You tell me.
Is cheese a liquid? Well I would have to say nacho cheese and cheese wiz. That was tough.
I am sure that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich does not contain over 3.4 oz of the delicious sandwich filling, so sure go ahead and have your mom pack one for your next flight.
No bag should be barred because it has something in it that is not a liquid. If that was the case the person who took it was wrong.
Why are glass liquid flasks not allowed. Because if there are liquids in them then you are not following the rules. Its as simple as that.
I could go on all day...
October 6, 2008 2:43 PM
Let me say this as plainly and unequivocally as I know how: there is absolutely nothing that makes a liquid inherently more volatile than a solid or gas.
___________________________________
No one said it is. The TSA checks for everything that could be an explosive. It just made it easier to eliminate the liquids. If I had it my way passenger would not be allowed to have any carry ons what so ever. Hey, I should be in charge!
October 6, 2008 2:59 PM
Ronnie said, "how about this...we have two types of flights...one type of flight is screened by security just like it is now, and the other type of flight is a free-for-all. No one gets screened, anyone (and I mean anyone since we wont have to check Id's or anything) can take anything they want to on the plane. I wonder what flight YOU would take given those two options."
OOH! OOH! I know the answer! The other one! The one with no security! I'd take it in a heartbeat.
For the chance not to have to deal with the fascist little tin-badge dictators in the TSA, to be able to bring a beverage from home rather than pay $4 behind security for one, to cruise through security in no time, not have my stuff pawed through, and maybe even be able to bring a pocket knife with me--you BET YER BUTT I'd be willing to take the security-free flight! What's the risk? None, really. It's just as easy to blow up either kind of flight with a solid explosive, and nobody's ever again going to take over a plane without a passenger revolt, so yeah--EASY CHOICE, dude.
Please tell me this is something the TSA is considering....
October 6, 2008 3:02 PM
TSA is probably responsible for the decline of the stock market also!
October 6, 2008 3:11 PM
TSA Week at a Glance (September 29, 2008 - October 5, 2008)10 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
19 firearms found at checkpoints
3 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
8 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach
................................
Regarding the Week at a Glance info.
I think it would be helpful to seperate supecious behavior from fraudulent travel documents.
The two have no bearing on each other.
I would also like to see how many traveling with fraudulent documents are in this country illegally. Why else would someone need fraudulent documents unless perhaps they were fugitives from justice?
Just wondering if a little more information could be supplied to the public.
October 6, 2008 3:18 PM
You know, I'm sitting here thinking that no matter what TSA does, people are going to complain. Right now, unfortunately, our nation is forced to do things differently and more cautiously due to current circumstances stemming off 9/11. If TSA sat here and did nothing b/c passengers didn't want to have to go through this procedure or that procedure, then we would be blamed when something DID happen. So, since mistakes do happen, the least we can do is learn from them and we do our best to update existing practices to prevent something from happening again OR do things we think may prevent something from happening even once. So just b/c they may not make sense to the traveler, doesn't mean these rules should just be thrown out the window. And I just love how those complaining think TSA was brought about just so we could hire a cult of people to take people's stuff away and tick people off. I understand security isn't a nice slice of american apple pie, but come on, I have better things to do than sit around and think.."What rule can I come up with next that i just pulled out of thin air to make this a miserable day for someone." I myself and 95% of the workforce I work with at SDF are doing our jobs and maintain a professional work ethic and treat passengers with respect. Only when a passenger gets rude with me just b/c I explain THEY brought something through that can't go, I might get a little more stern, but for the most part, I remain calm and courteous. I apologize on the part of those who do not treat you fairly.
SDF TSO
October 6, 2008 3:41 PM
kellymae81 said...
You know, I'm sitting here thinking that no matter what TSA does, people are going to complain.
No, if TSA thought things through then this wouldn't be a problem. The problem comes when people have, what they think is a good idea and make that idea policy before fully thinking what the ramifications of that idea really are.
Right now, unfortunately, our nation is forced to do things differently and more cautiously due to current circumstances stemming off 9/11.
I will give you that. So where is 100% cargo screening that was promised us?
If TSA sat here and did nothing b/c passengers didn't want to have to go through this procedure or that procedure, then we would be blamed when something DID happen.
Security at any cost? Cover every threat? Neither one of those options are viable. You can't cover every possible threat because if someone just a little bit smarter than you sees an opening then they will take advantage of it.
So, since mistakes do happen, the least we can do is learn from them and we do our best to update existing practices to prevent something from happening again OR do things we think may prevent something from happening even once.
Again you're doing defense. Prove that you consistently score better than 50% on your basic responsibilities of keeping weapons, explosives and incendiaries off of aircraft and we might cut you some slack. Yet, because that's been shown to be pretty much a failure you expand into new responsibilities. Not good Kelly.
So just b/c they may not make sense to the traveler, doesn't mean these rules should just be thrown out the window.
Uh, it isn't just not making sense to travelers. It isn't making sense to security experts. See above.
And I just love how those complaining think TSA was brought about just so we could hire a cult of people to take people's stuff away and tick people off.
Cult of people? No a knee jerk reaction by our politicians who didn't fully appreciate the full ramifications of their collective actions.
I understand security isn't a nice slice of american apple pie, but come on, I have better things to do than sit around and think.."What rule can I come up with next that i just pulled out of thin air to make this a miserable day for someone." I myself and 95% of the workforce I work with at SDF are doing our jobs and maintain a professional work ethic and treat passengers with respect.
So what of the other 5% who act out and make your life difficult?
Only when a passenger gets rude with me just b/c I explain THEY brought something through that can't go, I might get a little more stern, but for the most part, I remain calm and courteous. I apologize on the part of those who do not treat you fairly.
SDF TSO
The policy is in place for you to bring civil fines against people who offend you for interfering with the security process. How many times have you done that because a person didn't respect your authority?
October 6, 2008 4:04 PM
Quote from Ronnie: "
The American public has a very short memory. I am a firm believer that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
I choose to never forget."
I agree that the American public has a very short memory. Go back about 60-70 years or so to some of the restrictions on travel such as papers being required, permission to travel, etc, employed by repressive regimes.
Many Americans, including many of those at TSA forget this and focus on something that happened only a few years ago. While that event was horrible, we needn't revert back further and repeat the mistakes of those repressive regimes in an effort to make us feel safer.
I haven't forgotten what happened a few years back. I also haven't forgotten what happened longer than that and am upset that we're starting to repeat that history. And it's even more disgusting to see those inside TSA thinking that repeating that awful history is a Good Thing®.
Robert
October 6, 2008 4:36 PM
Kellymae81
Just one thought:
How many people complained about running the security gauntlet? And how many planes fell out of the sky because of airport security?
Compare that to today.
I very rarely ever heard any complaints about security prior to 9/11 and TSA's creation. Flyertalk didn't even have a Travel Safety and Security forum until after TSA was created - it was a nonissue. Air travel was still just as safe then as it was now, only we didn't have the idiocy and madness about every little thing like we did now.
Airport security didn't fail on 9/11. Could it have been improved? Sure. I'm still waiting for those improvements 7 years later. What caused 9/11 was the SOP for airline crews to comply with hijacker demands.
I want TSA to provide real security without the show and hassle. If this could largely be accomplished by low paid security guards that spoke little English prior to 9/11, it's pretty clear to me that TSA is doing something wrong if it's spending all this money and hassling people this much and STILL not doing any better.
I think Ronnie's false choice is disingenious at best. How about this for a better choice: travel with TSA's security or travel with pre-9/11 security without all the hassles. How much do you want to bet that the vast majority of people will head to the pre-9/11 line?
October 6, 2008 4:42 PM
@ "I am a TSO. I just want to set the record straight...TSA does NOT CONFISCATE or "take your items" from you. You have several options for taking care of your prohibited items (including large volumes of liquids)"
The TSA supervisor in STL who took the gel-pack that was intended to cool my wife's breast milk didn't offer any options. After the slowdown of the x-ray visual inspector noticing it, the white-shirted guy looked it over, pulled out the gel-pack with his own gloved hands while several feet from me, and dangled it over his trash can as he told me gel-packs were only allowed for medical items, not infants. (wrong because breast milk is medication). My wife cried when we later poured 13 oz of spoiled breast milk down the drain. Thanks for a miserable day, TSA.
Maybe the supervisor didn't "confiscate" it, in the same way a shakedown isn't really extortion.
And Kelliemae81, just because you and your fellow employees work hard doesn't guarantee that you are useful. Wasting the time of 2,000,000 passengers per day while sniffing shoes and confiscating water causes more damage than it could solve. If those 2,000,000 passengers run into the bad-apple 5% of your co-workers, you're apologizing for 100,000 encounters. We'd all be safer if y'all were out fixing roads.
October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
kellymae81 said...
You know, I'm sitting here thinking that no matter what TSA does, people are going to complain. Right now, unfortunately, our nation is forced to do things differently and more cautiously due to current circumstances stemming off 9/11. If TSA sat here and did nothing b/c passengers didn't want to have to go through this procedure or that procedure, then we would be blamed when something DID happen. So, since mistakes do happen, the least we can do is learn from them and we do our best to update existing practices to prevent something from happening again OR do things we think may prevent something from happening even once. So just b/c they may not make sense to the traveler, doesn't mean these rules should just be thrown out the window. And I just love how those complaining think TSA was brought about just so we could hire a cult of people to take people's stuff away and tick people off. I understand security isn't a nice slice of american apple pie, but come on, I have better things to do than sit around and think.."What rule can I come up with next that i just pulled out of thin air to make this a miserable day for someone." I myself and 95% of the workforce I work with at SDF are doing our jobs and maintain a professional work ethic and treat passengers with respect. Only when a passenger gets rude with me just b/c I explain THEY brought something through that can't go, I might get a little more stern, but for the most part, I remain calm and courteous. I apologize on the part of those who do not treat you fairly.
SDF TSO
October 6, 2008 3:41 PM
Another TSO who admits to using retalitory actions when miffed at a traveler.
TSO's proving the publics claims!
October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
Anonymous said... Stop the war on liquids. Either you have the technology to take care of the problem rationally or you should not bother the vast, vast majority of honest fliers with this stupidity. October 3, 2008 2:35 PM
We are working on the technology.
Cut and pasted from this blog post:
“As the Middle Seat blog column stated yesterday, widespread deployment of new multi-view x-ray systems with an enhanced algorithm that detects specific liquids remains about a year away.”
Anonymous said... The best way to limit liquid threats, in addition to following terrorist activities (as was done in Germany) is to test for trace chemicals. It catches the 1 in a billion "bad guy" without inconveniencing and embarrassing everyone else. Either you have this technology, or you should not do anything at all. October 3, 2008 3:20 PM
We do have technology that checks for trace amounts of explosives. However, could you imagine the gridlock that would ensue if we conducted these tests on each and every liquid that came through our checkpoint? That’s the whole idea behind 3-1-1. It was a fix to address the liquids problem without banning them altogether until we can provide our checkpoints with the proper equipment.
It’s a simple approach that when correctly followed by passengers and TSOs allows for a much smoother operation than the alternatives would provide.
The alternatives are to ban all liquids, or create much longer lines. I don’t think anybody wants those.
Anonymous said... So instead of dealing with important matters, the TSA Bloggers decide that they must roll out a 'Friday Funny' entry. What? No pictures of fuzzy puppy dogs? I'm shocked! October 3, 2008 6:16 PM
Yawn. The puppy thing is sooo last summer. We’re moving on to ferrets soon. They’re pretty cute too.
Tomas said... Anonymous wrote...Since you asked so nicely: Ellen Howe http://tinyurl.com/47luk7 Ah! THAT Ellen Howe! :o) The one who thought that demanding the "voluntary surrender" of a traveler's external battery pack for his DVD player after it had been determined to be just and external battery pack was enough of a high point for the TSA's week that she ever wrote and published an article featuring that event and praising the stalwart defenders of out flying safety for preventing that perfectly safe and legal item from entering US Airspace. THAT Ellen Howe. (Sorry Ellen, it will be a while yet before you live that one down entirely.) Tom (1 of 5-6) October 4, 2008 6:43 PM
Tom, just in case some folks reading this haven’t seen Ellen’s statement on the matter, I am going to provide the link for them to follow.
Anonymous said... Hi. This is a message to all the TSOs who keep parroting the "But we don't confiscate anything! We give you a choice" line.
That is absolutely the most DISINGENUOUS thing I have ever heard in my entire life. If would be like a mugger saying, "Hey I didn't take your wallet. I gave you a choice: give it to me or let me shoot you." October 6, 2008 12:33 PM
So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to being shot?
Anonymous said... Ronnie, please, please PLEASE, I beg of you, tell me your address. Because I really want to come over to your house so you can give me all your valuables. No, I'm not going to rob you, silly. I'm giving you a choice: you can willingly "donate" your stuff to me, or I can burn your house down. See how that works??? October 6, 2008 12:33 PM
So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to a house burning down?
October 6, 2008 5:34 PM
Blogger Bob, the "link for them to follow" in response to my earlier post doesn't go anywhere... :o(
Tom (1 of 5-6)
October 6, 2008 6:02 PM
So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to a house burning down?
It's called a "metaphor," Bob.
October 6, 2008 8:59 PM
Anonymous said:
Another TSO who admits to using retalitory actions when miffed at a traveler.
TSO's proving the publics claims!
October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
When did I say I retaliate? If someone is yelling at me b/c I am enforcing rules they KNOW are in place, I go from smiling and politely explaining to just a more "stern" voice...not a "retaliating" one. I'm not going to be a stepford TSO and just have my permanent grin while saying "have a nice day" when someone is treating me with no respect. And I mean respect as a person, not as an authority figure. So if we are'nt suppose to get "miffed" as you say, what gives YOU the right to yell at ME for doing my job? People want to get rude just for the simple fact that we are TSA and don't treat us as human beings. Would you speak that way to someone you know if they are just trying to do their job? NO! I am an honest and good person even underneath that uniform and whether not I am wearing it, I would like to be treated as I treat others. Passengers just have so much anger when it comes to TSA and I can even understand why. But when you come to the airport and have an ugly attitude before you even get to security, you are looking for something bad to happen and when you do that, yea, you're probably not going to have a good experience b/c the second even the slightest thing goes wrong, you are going to blow it way out of proportion just b/c "you just knew this would happen." When you make up your mind that you are going to have a bad expierence with TSA, you probably will b/c you are focusing so much on that fact you forget what you're suppose to do going through security (ex. liquids out) that's going to get you "pulled over." And even though I'm saying these things, I know it doesn't matter, b/c people want to have something to complain about and TSA is a good target for you folks, I guess. Good luck with all the anger.
SDF TSO
October 6, 2008 9:42 PM
Bob said...
Anonymous said... Stop the war on liquids. Either you have the technology to take care of the problem rationally or you should not bother the vast, vast majority of honest fliers with this stupidity. October 3, 2008 2:35 PM
We are working on the technology.
Working for such a quality agency must be wearing on you Bob.
Quite the Snarky comments?
October 6, 2008 9:48 PM
Bob:
Please understand that some of the individuals harping about the semantics 'confiscation vs. surrender' are slightly correct. They do not see themselves as having any options when presented with the notification that the item in question is denied entry to the sterile area. It is partially the fault of the TSA in that the phrase 'confiscated at security' is used heavily in their early press releases.
You individuals harping about the semantics of 'confiscation vs. surrender' need to realize that Bob is partially correct. The TSA does seriously believe that a person possessing an item denied entry to the sterile area does have options of what to do with it.
I look at the whole thing and realize just how depressing it is not being able bring back a decent bottle of whiskey from overseas for my liquor cabinet when I fly. Do you have any idea what the mark-up on a reasonable bottle of legal-aged limited casking scotch is around here? And forget about even suggesting that I pack a high-value bottle in my checked luggage!
October 6, 2008 10:51 PM
Thanks Tom. Let's try this again...
Clicky
October 6, 2008 10:57 PM
"So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to being shot?"
Pretty much. This is more likely to be the case transiting from international flights (for example, you're bringing over something too expensive to store in checked luggage, which could easily mean a $1K+ loss) or like Mr. Gel Pack (breast milk takes time to pump and store; losing it all at the checkpoint due to the TSA is going to be painful).
October 6, 2008 11:52 PM
kellymae81:
"The definition of a liquid would basically be something that could not hold its form outside of its container. If its not a solid or a gas, it is a liquid."
Could you please provide our studio audience, along with those viewers playing at home, with the name of a gas that holds its form outside of its container? Dry Ice doesn't count.
October 7, 2008 1:10 AM
It seems like a stupid rule and i hope will be changed before i next fly to the US.
October 7, 2008 4:35 AM
im prity sure a real terrorist would be smarter than to use a liquid in the current climate, i agree with the post above this rule should be changed.
October 7, 2008 4:36 AM
Kellymae: "If someone is yelling at me b/c I am enforcing rules they KNOW are in place, I go from smiling and politely explaining to just a more "stern" voice...not a "retaliating" one."
We do not know what rules are in place. As discussed extensively here, we have not yet received a full set of rules to follow to be able to pass a TSA checkpoint.
AND,
I would like to chime in with the Chemist here: There is nothing liquid and explosive that can't be made solid. Remember dynamite? Checking freedom baggies is doing more than inconveniencing us, it is distracting TSOs from spotting what they should be looking for.
October 7, 2008 4:39 AM
Bob sayeth: "So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to being shot?" and "So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to a house burning down?"
There is a wonderful, delicious irony in Bob--a TSA employee--making these statements. My point was that the TSOs are under the mistaken impression that nothing is "confiscated" because we have "choices." I was explaining that there isn't really a choice, because all the options provided by the TSA are unworkable/stupid.
But that analogy completely sailed over Bob's head. Instead of focusing on the larger point, he keyed only on the erroneous belief that "confiscating a 4-oz bottle of shampoo" = "shooting someone" in my argument.
He missed the big picture, by focusing on a misunderstood, trivial point.
Just like TSA misses the big picture (there's lots of ways to bring down an airliner without liquids) while focusing on a misunderstood trivial point (the belief that liquids are a deadly threat--the belief is incorrect).
Bob has ably demonstrated much of what is wrong with TSA's philosophy. Good job, Bob.
October 7, 2008 8:21 AM
Hmm I can't help feeling that the whole liquid threat is a little blown out of proportion. There are so many ways a terrorist could cause problems, if determined enough- they could find a way. People are pretty creative.
October 7, 2008 8:23 AM
kellymae81 said...
Anonymous said:
Another TSO who admits to using retalitory actions when miffed at a traveler.
TSO's proving the publics claims!
October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
When did I say I retaliate? If someone is yelling at me b/c I am enforcing rules they KNOW are in place, I go from smiling and politely explaining to just a more "stern" voice...not a "retaliating" one.
Wow, sounds like someone needs an anger management class!
With an atitude like yours no wonder travelers get abused all to often!
October 7, 2008 9:29 AM
Oh come on people, I put a link to this on USA today with the promise that this was a healthy debate of safety vs. privacy. This is something that really concerns many people, and there are valid points to both sides. I appreciate the TSAs efforts in reaching out to the public for our opinions. Please don't turn the comments section into a juvenile name-calling troll fest.
October 7, 2008 9:36 AM
kellymae81 said... If someone is yelling at me b/c I am enforcing rules they KNOW are in place, I go from smiling and politely explaining to just a more "stern" voice...
Kellymae81, would you please point me to the location of all the rules I must comply with when moving through your checkpoint.
It would be so helpful that I really knew what the rules were so you would not have to use a stern voice with me when I violated one of TSA's secret rules! You know one of those rules I could not possibly know yet must comply with since they are secret!
October 7, 2008 9:38 AM
I notice Bob, while he makes snarky comments, conveniently ignores those of us with the tough questions.
Why are we allowed to line up next to trash cans full of "bombs" Bob? Why are "potential explosives" treated so casually Bob?
I also notice a lot of talk about inconsistent application of the rules (breast milk, etc), where can we download a handy printable PDF Bob, that we can bring to the airport and quote at TSOs who get drunk on the power of their new blue shirts ?
October 7, 2008 9:44 AM
Much of the griping here from the general public could be stopped if you all would take a little PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Check the website here and find out exactly what the rules and limitations are.
Pay a little attention when you are at the airport...READ the signs posted. LISTEN to the constant audio instructions. WATCH the video about how to get through the line quicker (simpliFLY, seen in many security lines).
To "Anonymous" who claims the options for disposing of items "fail", I say too bad. You didn't bother to take the time to find out the rules, well, that's on you. (Not our fault)
1)Check the bag...can't help it that airlines charge for a checked bag. (Personally I wish the airlines would just jack up the ticket prices accross the board and stop the charge for baggage. Then maybe you all would check your bags and stop trying to shove over-stuffed bags into the x-ray machine and then have the nerve to cuss US out because we cant make out all your crap in the bag and have to search it anyway)Not TSA's problem.
2)Hand the item off...no one to see you off? Not TSA's problem
3)Put in your car? Didn't drive? Not TSA's problem.
4)Mail it to yourself...Too cheap? Not TSA's problem.
5)Surrender the item...if the other 4 options don't work, thats all thats left to do.
One of the snide remarks I got one day was "I guess TSA stands for toothpaste stealing a**hole". I had to force a smile and go on. Later that day I told that to another TSO and he passed on some wisdom to me... he told me TSA also stands for 'tough s**t a**hole'. So now when I get rude passengers griping about me 'taking' their items I just say "well, that's TSA" and I have a very REAL smile on my face.
I would like to take a second here to say thank you to the folks who run this blog. Since I am still a 'rookie' TSO, I really appreciate this place as a chance to see what people really think and feel. It also gives me a great place to vent. You might think of a blog for TSO's ONLY, because here in this forum, we can't REALLY say what we want to for fear of offending the (obviously) tender sensibilities of the general public. Even tho they have no such limitations on offending us.(like the guy who wants to burn down my house) Great Job EoS!!!
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 9:48 AM
kellymae81, who hates paragraphs, said, "what gives YOU the right to yell at ME for doing my job? "
An excellent question. I'll help you find the answer. KellyMae, who employs you? That's right! The TSA. Now, the TSA is a what? Correct, a Federal Agency, very good. And Federal Agencies belong to the? Begins with "G"...Right! The Government. Now the final question...the Government works for? No, not the President, try again...I'll give you a hint, it's one of the first three words of the Constitution...No, Kelly, not "the"...That's right! People. The people!
You work for the people. We own you. We pay your salary. This is why we get to yell at you when you do your job poorly.
For the record, the judges also would have accepted the answer "The Fourth Amendment," which as you recall, forbids warrantless searches, and thus explains why nearly everything the TSA does is evil.
Thanks for playing, KellyMae!
October 7, 2008 10:22 AM
Blogger Bob (diligently ignoring me) wrote:
Anonymous said... Hi. This is a message to all the TSOs who keep parroting the "But we don't confiscate anything! We give you a choice" line.
That is absolutely the most DISINGENUOUS thing I have ever heard in my entire life. If would be like a mugger saying, "Hey I didn't take your wallet. I gave you a choice: give it to me or let me shoot you." October 6, 2008 12:33 PM
So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to being shot?
Anonymous said... Ronnie, please, please PLEASE, I beg of you, tell me your address. Because I really want to come over to your house so you can give me all your valuables. No, I'm not going to rob you, silly. I'm giving you a choice: you can willingly "donate" your stuff to me, or I can burn your house down. See how that works??? October 6, 2008 12:33 PM
So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to a house burning down?
No, they're comparing the loss of items to the loss of items Bob. The first is comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to the loss of a wallet, the second is comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to the loss of the items in the house.
The "being shot" and "house burning down" parts are comparisions to the threats TSOs are legally capable of making in order to enforce confiscation, not "voluntary surrender" but confiscation. The comparisons are how giving your wallet to a mugger is voluntary because he gave you a choice between giving him your wallet or getting shot, and since you had a choice it's not involuntary.
You're deliberately mixing the contexts of the analogies. Bad form, Bob. I expect better from the only blogger who actually responds to people here.
October 7, 2008 10:42 AM
"The definition of a liquid would basically be something that could not hold its form outside of its container."
So, according to you, toothpaste is not a liquid, neither is peanut butter, or lipstick, but air is.
Stop the war on liquids. It is unproductive and unnerving!
October 7, 2008 10:50 AM
Gee, I wonder why some people may feel animosity towards TSA and may be less than civil when going throuh a checkpoint.
Maybe they have had articles stolen from their checked bags, and never got compensated.
Maybe they did nothing wrong, and were yelled at by a TSO for not doing something the TSO thought they should be doing.
Maybe they feel humiliated by having to remove their jackets, hats, belt, shoes, etc.
Maybe they dislike being treated like a criminal, when all they want to do is get on an airplane.
Yes, I can see why someone may be a bit rude when going through a checkpoint.
October 7, 2008 11:07 AM
But when you come to the airport and have an ugly attitude before you even get to security, you are looking for something bad to happen and when you do that, yea, you're probably not going to have a good experience b/c the second even the slightest thing goes wrong, you are going to blow it way out of proportion just b/c "you just knew this would happen."
Kelly, out of the hope of hopes when I travel I really hope that this time it will be different, in that TSA will have gotten its collective act together. Unfortunately, that never proves true. So am I at fault for wanting my luggage secured after screening? Am I at fault for not wanting my carry on luggage trashed by a TSO then handed back for me to repack?
TSA manages to bring out the worst in passengers by treating them and their belongings with contempt. We are not 'civilians,' Kettles, self loading freight, or what ever term you use to describe us. We are the reason you have a job. No passengers then no TSA with its byzantine/unwritten rules and regulations.
October 7, 2008 11:13 AM
Ronnie said...
Much of the griping here from the general public could be stopped if you all would take a little PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Check the website here and find out exactly what the rules and limitations are.
Ronnie, would you mind pointing out the rule that states TSA can confiscate breast milk, or the gel packs to keep breast milk cold, or a battery pack, or OTC medicines or... should I go on?
Please point to these rules you talk about!
October 7, 2008 11:58 AM
Just to be clear, the TSA supervisor in StL did not confiscate my wife's breastmilk, only our means of keeping it cold. I certainly could have been smarter and saved it somehow, begging some ice behind the checkpoint, for instance. But travel with children is hard and uncertain, and TSA makes it worse. A couple unplanned travel delays, and our milk spoiled for lack of the gel-pack "surrendered" at the direction of TSA supervisor ignorant of the "rules".
Sure, I could have done better, but my wife cried. I blame TSA for its inconsistencies in policy, training, enforcement, communication, and ultimate results, which is a systemic problem that is worse than any one particular incident.
Even if you issue a memo and no TSA takes a gel-pack out of a cooler of breastmilk ever again, your lousy management will screw up another way.
I'll bet a beer that when you eventually deploy your high-tech liquid testers, you'll do harmful things like dip some dirty swabs into places they shouldn't go.
October 7, 2008 12:03 PM
One of the snide remarks I got one day was "I guess TSA stands for toothpaste stealing a**hole". I had to force a smile and go on. Later that day I told that to another TSO and he passed on some wisdom to me... he told me TSA also stands for 'tough s**t a**hole'. So now when I get rude passengers griping about me 'taking' their items I just say "well, that's TSA" and I have a very REAL smile on my face.
Ronnie, you've become part of the problem. You despise the travelers and consider anyone who gives you 'trouble' to be an a**hole. You really should find another line of work.
October 7, 2008 1:03 PM
I am just going to clarify things as best I can..man you guys take things so literally.
Brian said:
Could you please provide our studio audience, along with those viewers playing at home, with the name of a gas that holds its form outside of its container? Dry Ice doesn't count.
October 7, 2008 1:10 AM
I never said gas DOESN'T hold its form. I was explaining liquids at that moment in time.
Anonymous said:
We do not know what rules are in place. As discussed extensively here, we have not yet received a full set of rules to follow to be able to pass a TSA checkpoint.
I understand that the TSA website can be unclear or interpreted differently by each person, but 99% of the times someone gets stopped at the checkpoint is for something that EVERYONE knows is a prohibited item. (liquids over size, guns, knives, etc)
Wow, sounds like someone needs an anger management class!
With an atitude like yours no wonder travelers get abused all to often!
October 7, 2008 9:29 AM
I guess you can't read b/c in no way, shape or form did I say I get angry. Maybe I'm using a word too difficult for you to understand. Stern does not mean angry, yelling or disrespecting someone. I treat people with respect, but if a passenger is yelling at me and completely unwilling to even try to listen to what I'm trying to explain to them, I'm not going to have a smile plastered on my face, sorry.
You work for the people. We own you. We pay your salary. This is why we get to yell at you when you do your job poorly.
I understand that someone pays my salary, why do you guys think we don't understaned that, but I pay taxes too so as far as I'm concerned, I pay myself!! Everyone gets paid by someone, that does not give them the right to just yell at them on that fact alone. And how is me not allowing a prohibited item through the checkpoint "doing my job poorly"? I guess I should just let a little TNT go through the next time I see it, according to your standards of security. Oh no wait, then you'll just add that to the statistics of what TSA did poorly.
Am I at fault for not wanting my carry on luggage trashed by a TSO then handed back for me to repack?
I'm sorry, but in the two years I've been with TSA, I have NEVER, not even once, seen a TSO rummage through someone's stuff and trashing it. We go in only to find the item in question and I always repack unless the passenger specifically requests they do it themselves. I love this image you guys have built up in your head that we go through things like a robber looking for something to steal. If you have seen this, I apologize on behalf of all TSA b/c I can't even imagine that happening on a busy checkpoint in front of other passengers and co-workers without it being stopped.
SDF TSO
October 7, 2008 1:09 PM
"We do not know what rules are in place. As discussed extensively here, we have not yet received a full set of rules to follow to be able to pass a TSA checkpoint.
AND,
I would like to chime in with the Chemist here: There is nothing liquid and explosive that can't be made solid. Remember dynamite? Checking freedom baggies is doing more than inconveniencing us, it is distracting TSOs from spotting what they should be looking for."
___________________________________
The basic rules are given to you. And I am guessing that is all that you are going to get. Quit whining about it and use common sense. Thats it. With a little common sense and basic knowledge you can get farther than you think.
And your second paragraph is wrong. But thanks for asuming that the liquid bags are distracting TSO's from doing their jobs. They do just fine thanks. They check every bag as thorough as the next, whether there is a baggie in it or not. They are quite aware that there is more to check for than just liquids.
__________________________________
P.S. I had a great post on here yesterday that never went through. I always monitor what I say I know it was fine to be posted. Thanks!
October 7, 2008 1:43 PM
Mr. Gel-pack said...
Just to be clear, the TSA supervisor in StL did not confiscate my wife's breastmilk, only our means of keeping it cold.
.................................
There have been reports of others having breast milk and food for babies confiscated by TSO's.
Also a report of a sterile feeding tube opened by a TSO even with the person protesting. The travelers life was placed in danger by a TSO.
Reports of children being frisked by TSO's out of sight of the parents.
And the famous TSO NY who stated that if a medicine did not have a prescription it did not go plus other outlandish statements that TSO NY made that were never corrected by the Blog Team.
The horror stories just never end when TSA is part of the mix.
You have just joined the crowd of people TSA has abused and had their rights violated.
TSA and it's TSO's deserve the lack of respect they have earned!
Given the effort TSO's have put forth to abuse travelers how can they expect more?
The process is broken, not by the travelers, but by the enforcers!
October 7, 2008 1:46 PM
"The definition of a liquid would basically be something that could not hold its form outside of its container."
So, according to you, toothpaste is not a liquid, neither is peanut butter, or lipstick, but air is.
Stop the war on liquids. It is unproductive and unnerving!
___________________________________
Maybe you didn't read this correctly. It says the definition of a liquid. Creams and gels are also not allowed. So there is your peanut butter and toothpaste. Lipstick is none of the above. Use your brain people!
October 7, 2008 1:49 PM
I am confused. If I am allowed to take an empty bottle of any volume, and as many 3.0 oz. bottles as I can cram into a ziplock bag, does that not mean that I can effectively take (say) 12 or 16 ounces of a liquid onto a plane, then just pour it all into my empty bottle? How does breaking the total amount of liquid into reconstitutable portions improve security?
October 7, 2008 1:53 PM
So I"M part of the problem???
Even tho I smile and politely say "thank you for your patience" after doing a bag check. SO WHAT if I/we have our little coping methods like saying "well, that's TSA" (with a smile). I wish the general public had such civil coping methods and spare us the outright rude and abusive coments as you have shown here as well as at the security checkpoints.
Should we be allowed to speak to you as you speak to us? You wouldn't stand for it would you?
God knows as TSO's we have talked amongst ourselves and vented on each other and dreamt of speaking our mind. And don't bother getting your panties in a bunch over me saying that, because I am sure you have the same gripe sessions at your place of employment as well. Everyone does. I will at least admit it. (And not hide behind 'anonymous' I might add)
I noticed you had nothing to say about the 'personal responsibility'
part of my comment. Go figure.
Ronnie TSO DEN
October 7, 2008 1:59 PM
"You work for the people. We own you. We pay your salary. This is why we get to yell at you when you do your job poorly.
For the record, the judges also would have accepted the answer "The Fourth Amendment," which as you recall, forbids warrantless searches, and thus explains why nearly everything the TSA does is evil.
Thanks for playing, KellyMae!"
___________________________________
Ha, thats fun. You must be a very special person.
Heres a game for you......
Why does everyone cry about warrantless searches at the airport? Oh because they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Right. Right.
Just like when police shows up at your house without a warrant and you invite them in. They don't need a warrant, you let them into your house. Okay here is the relation..... When you submitt your bags and self (key work submitt) for screening, you are giving permission to the TSA to search your things if needed. If you do not want to submitt your things you don't have too. You have the option to fly or not to fly. Also there are signs posted before security that state that you and your items are subject to search. Therefor giving you the option not to come through the checkpoint.
And the "we own you" thing. Posting on the internet and thinking you have the right to treat TSA how ever you like, I hope you get the most horrible treatment everytime that you step foot in a checkpoint and everytime that you get a "warrantless" search.
Game over.
October 7, 2008 2:02 PM
kellymae81 said...
I guess you can't read b/c in no way, shape or form did I say I get angry. Maybe I'm using a word too difficult for you to understand. Stern does not mean angry, yelling or disrespecting someone. I treat people with respect, but if a passenger is yelling at me and completely unwilling to even try to listen to what I'm trying to explain to them, I'm not going to have a smile plastered on my face, sorry.
.................................
I may have a little trouble with big words every once in awhile but I fully understand when a low level government employee is being condescending to the people they work for.
October 7, 2008 2:05 PM
I'm sorry, but in the two years I've been with TSA, I have NEVER, not even once, seen a TSO rummage through someone's stuff and trashing it. We go in only to find the item in question and I always repack unless the passenger specifically requests they do it themselves. I love this image you guys have built up in your head that we go through things like a robber looking for something to steal. If you have seen this, I apologize on behalf of all TSA b/c I can't even imagine that happening on a busy checkpoint in front of other passengers and co-workers without it being stopped.
Lid closed on cables, destroying the cables. Forcing the lid closed when it wasn't forced shut when I packed it. Yep. It happens every time I fly. Talk to the TSO and I get ATTITUDE. Can't tell them what I think for fear of 'interfering' with security. Yes, it does happen around 2x a week.
October 7, 2008 2:06 PM
Some other 'anonymous' said: "... as many 3.0 oz. bottles as I can cram into a ziplock bag, does that not mean that I can effectively take (say) 12 or 16 ounces of a liquid onto a plane, then just pour it all into my empty bottle? How does breaking the total amount of liquid into reconstitutable portions improve security?"
Well, of course, it doesn't. But you make the classic error of assuming that the TSA intends to make things safer. Of course they can't actually do this. If someone really, really wants to blow up a plane, there's lots of ways to do it. Especially if they're willing to die in the process, sooner or later, guaranteed, they will be able to accomplish their task.
As you point out, you can carry a lot of liquid through. I can get about 10 3-oz containers in a Freedom Baggie, so that's 30 ounces, and if I collude with others, I can bring an arbitrary amount of liquid through security. Basically, if my Dastardly Deed requires n ounces of explosives, I need round(n/30,0) terrorists to accomplish it.
But the TSA isn't there to make you completely safe (which is impossible), or even to make you feel safe. They're there to scare you. It's much easier to keep the populace in line by instilling them with a low grade, constant fear. The TSA is just the new millennium's version of the fnord.
That slight bit of menace you feel from having some jack-booted thug in a cheap security costume paw through your belongings, molest your shoes, and feel you up keeps you afraid of "the terrorists," and willing to surrender your rights. "Oh go ahead and search my stuff," you say, "I don't have anything to fear. I wasn't using that Fourth Amendment right anyway." You're happy to shell out for more Patriot Act, more intrusion, more loss of privacy, more control over your life. All because of fear. Baseless fear.
The TSA isn't about safety. They're about fear.
October 7, 2008 2:11 PM
I hate to say this but, SUCKERS.
You guys have allowed yourselves to be side tracked by the hope of the end to the current liquids policy.
Seriously, is being able to bring a bottle of water or soda more important than the huge security hole being created by the new no screen policy for TSOs and pilots?
Is water and soda convenience more important than the TSA illegally forcing an ID verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area?
As it looks right now the majority of the posters to this blog don't care about rights, security, cost or accountability as long as they are not inconvenienced.
If the TSA lets you keep your shoes on and a Coke in your hand you don't care how much money they waste on worthless technology, or if they violate your Constitutional rights by requiring your ID to fly. You don't really care how secure the aircraft is as long as it doesn't slow you down.
Enjoy the liquids victory, a few more victories like that and we are defeated.
October 7, 2008 2:39 PM
The basic rules are given to you. And I am guessing that is all that you are going to get.
.............................
So some of the rules are in fact not given to us, is that right?
Since when did the United States of America, the Land of the Free, start having secret rules and laws?
That sounds like something other than democracy. Is that what TSA is about, overturning our democracy? Sure sounds like it to me! If this turns out to be the case then I would think all who work for TSA are an enemy to the country.
October 7, 2008 2:42 PM
Ronnie, I actually do believe you have a smile on your face as you confiscate safe prohibited items and legal items that you prohibited on your own.
Kelly, why do you have to get yelled at for doing your job?
I was in the military, and one of the things they taught us is that "I was only obeying orders" is not an excuse for illegal conduct. It is called the "Nuremberg Defense" and it is not a valid defense. We are specifically trained to disobey unlawful orders. It may be hard to distinguish between lawful orders and unlawful ones at times, but the principle stands and one can attempt defense based on that principle. It's not easy, but the court has to allow that argument to be made.
The highest law in the land is the constitution, and any law that contradicts the constitution should not be enforced because that law is unconstitutional.
I view the TSA as enforcing unconstitutional laws, and also as enforcing nonsensical laws.
Just as if I had obeyed an unlawful order I would have gotten in trouble, your enforcement of rules that are problematic at best and treasonous at worst earns you all the disrespect you get from your unwilling "customers". To say "I was just following orders" is not an excuse that anyone should ever accept for malfeasance by the TSA as represented by the TSOs.
If you dislike that you get treated poorly when you enforce unconstitutional laws or illegal rules. Stop enforcing illegal rules or unconstitutional laws. Following orders is no excuse.
October 7, 2008 3:18 PM
Anonymous said "I am a chemist; I hold a Ph.D. in chemistry from a well known research university.
Let me say this as plainly and unequivocally as I know how: there is absolutely nothing that makes a liquid inherently more volatile than a solid or gas.
Whoever came to the wrong conclusion that liquids are somehow dangerous by virtue of their physical state should be fired or at least should have to complete a freshman level chemistry class.
Continuing to insist to the contrary is damaging the reputation of the TSA and causing the public to hold TSA in the same light as the IRS."
Ummmm, the current info is not that "A liquid" is inherently more dangerous than a solid. The information is that certain elements (liquid, solid, paste, gel, etc) are more dangerous than others. You are technically correct in stating that liquids are no more unstable than solids. We are not indicationg that "liquid" per se is more volatile. We are stating that "CERTAIN" elements are more dangeous than others. Your statement is correct, but it is the wrong argument. Liquids are banned because the technology is limited in testing them. The newer technologies are quite expensive and budgeting for them is not something we can do easily. HQ is working on solutions, but like others will tell you, it takes time and it will take a ton of money.
October 7, 2008 3:59 PM
kellymae81 said on October 7, 2008 1:09 PM...
I understand that someone pays my salary, why do you guys think we don't understaned that, but I pay taxes too so as far as I'm concerned, I pay myself!!
**************************
Yes, you pay taxes, Kelly, but how many '9/11 Security Fees' have or do you pay? THAT is where much of the TSA's funding comes from so unless you are buying as many plane tickets as some of us on this board do, then you're not really paying what we do.
kellymae81 then went on to say...
I'm sorry, but in the two years I've been with TSA, I have NEVER, not even once, seen a TSO rummage through someone's stuff and trashing it. We go in only to find the item in question and I always repack unless the passenger specifically requests they do it themselves. I love this image you guys have built up in your head that we go through things like a robber looking for something to steal. If you have seen this, I apologize on behalf of all TSA b/c I can't even imagine that happening on a busy checkpoint in front of other passengers and co-workers without it being stopped.
********************************
You just hit the proverbial nail on the head w/your first sentence-you have never seen what has been described, repeatedly on this blog, in the media, & elsewhere, on YOUR shift, at YOUR checkpoint, or in YOUR airport, therefore to you, what has been reported must be made-up.
First off, most of us have been dealing w/the TSA for far longer than you have been employed by it & second, we see far more screeners, checkpoints, & airports than you do. THAT is the difference. That is why behavior reported by passengers is given much more credence than comments like yours. I personally HAVE seen screeners rummaging thru checked baggage, pulling out different items, waving them around for everyone in the vicinity to see & then making rude comments (LAX T4, btw). I've also seen a screener in the same airport & same terminal sneeze into his hands, pick his nose w/his gloved finger, & go right back to rummaging thru a checked bag. How do you explain the 400+ screeners fired for stealing from passengers Ellen Howe (your agency's own spokesperson, btw) will actually admit to? Do you think she's making that up, too? If anything, that number is likely low given it's now at least a year old. Do you even know about the screener in Denver who tried to bring a gun thru the checkpoint w/him? Or the screeners in ATL who were smuggling drugs? You, the TSA, have the reputation you have because you have EARNED it.
On behalf of the traveling public who fund this nonesense, by all means, I beg of you, prove me wrong. The problem is that, until the TSA is changed fundamentally, & from the top, you can't & for that, I do feel badly for you personally, but no one is forcing you to remain part of the TSA-that is your choice.
October 7, 2008 4:14 PM
Anonymous writes:
The basic rules are given to you. And I am guessing that is all that you are going to get. Quit whining about it and use common sense. Thats it. With a little common sense and basic knowledge you can get farther than you think.
As Voltaire said ... common sense is not so common.
We hear complaints in this blog all the time about people who obey the written rules on TSA's website, but then are denied their items by TSOs who do not know the rules as well as their passengers do. (A passenger is denied ice packs for breast milk, even though such items are expressly permitted. A passenger is denied their unlabeled medication, even though TSA's website states that medication need not be labeled. And so on.)
We hear complaints in this blog all the time about passengers who exercise their common sense, and yet are hassled by TSOs who have even less. (Like the passenger who was denied access to a checkpoint because he was flying to Hawaii and didn't have a passport for international travel. Or the passenger who was denied their DVD player battery, even after TSA determined that the item was safe, because it "looked suspicious".)
The point that many of us have tried to raise here is that, if there's a dispute between a passenger and a TSO about whether a particular item is permissible, it's not common sense that wins. It's the TSO. Even if the TSO is wrong, or not exercising common sense. And the passenger has no effective recourse, other than filing a complaint after-the-fact.
If there was a single, authoritative list of rules that passengers must follow, and if that list was available to both passengers and TSOs alike, then problems like this could be resolved fairly and equitably. But such a list doesn't exist.
Now, to be fair, probably 95% of the interactions between passengers and TSOs are calm and uneventful. But bad news travels faster than good news. And hearing the nice stories about TSOs finding weapons in bags doesn't have as much of an impact on the public perception of TSA as the picture of a woman sobbing in an airport because TSA confiscated her ice packs for her breast milk.
This blog is supposed to be about making the screening process better. You don't make the screening process better by patting oneself on the back for the 95% of the things you do right. You make the process better by focusing on the 5% of things that go wrong, and figuring out a way to make them right again.
October 7, 2008 4:33 PM
Kellymae81, you defined a liquid thusly:
"The definition of a liquid would basically be something that could not hold its form outside of its container."
By that definition, a gas is a liquid.
I was trying to point out the illogic of your comment, admittedly in a sarcastic manner, and you responded with:
"I never said gas DOESN'T hold its form. I was explaining liquids at that moment in time."
This still doesn't change the fact that your definition of a liquid - something that doesn't hold its shape when outside of its container - also applies to a gas. The definition applies equally to both, yet you were trying to use it as an absolute definition for a liquid and I was trying to point out that you can't consider it an absolute.
It would be like trying to state that a metal is something that can be melted in a furnace; there are many non-metal solids that fall under the same description.
October 7, 2008 4:35 PM
Continuing to lie to the public, huh? Japan has had the technology for quite some time. And evidently your X-Ray machines are good enough to allow vendor liquids airside. What gives?
October 7, 2008 4:39 PM
Anonymous wrote: "...also notice a lot of talk about inconsistent application of the rules (breast milk, etc), where can we download a handy printable PDF Bob, that we can bring to the airport and quote at TSOs who get drunk on the power of their new blue shirts ?"
***********************************
Right Here:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/prohibited_and_permitted_items_10-24-07.pdf
October 7, 2008 5:06 PM
"Liquids are banned because the technology is limited in testing them. The newer technologies are quite expensive and budgeting for them is not something we can do easily. HQ is working on solutions, but like others will tell you, it takes time and it will take a ton of money."
How about technology for testing for solid explosives? Why do you not consider that inadequate? Why don't you ban all solids, or limit them to a second "freedom baggie"? Sorry, but you don't have an argument that holds water.
Worst, I count two Chemistry professors on this blog (someone else and I) who are stating that the liquids policy makes no sense. I dare the TSA to find two Chemistry professors from well established institutions to show solid Science that supports these policies.
October 7, 2008 5:08 PM
Anonymous wrote:
...also notice a lot of talk about inconsistent application of the rules (breast milk, etc), where can we download a handy printable PDF Bob, that we can bring to the airport and quote at TSOs who get drunk on the power of their new blue shirts ?"
TSO Jason replied:
Right Here:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/prohibited_and_permitted_items_10-24-07.pdf
Aye, but there's the rub. Right at the top of the brochure, it says:
The prohibited and permitted items list is not intended to
be all-inclusive and is updated as necessary. To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that
an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
So, in English:
* Everything on the permitted list is permitted, except when the TSO says it's not, in which case it's prohibited.
* Everything not on the prohibited list is permitted, except when the TSO says it's not, in which case it's prohibited.
* Everything on the prohibited list is prohibited.
So ... the list is pretty much useless. It says that the TSO at the checkpoint can prohibit anything you bring to the checkpoint from going through, and you have no practical recourse.
October 7, 2008 5:33 PM
"Since when did the United States of America, the Land of the Free, start having secret rules and laws?"
When the neocons acomplished their their coup in 2000.
We need the sekret laws to keep us safe from the terrists.
Welcome to neo-America comrade.
May I see your identity papers. please?
October 7, 2008 5:45 PM
"the huge security hole being created by the new no screen policy for TSOs and pilots?"
Didn't you mean yet another huge security hole?
October 7, 2008 5:47 PM
TSO Jason said...
Anonymous wrote: "...also notice a lot of talk about inconsistent application of the rules (breast milk, etc), where can we download a handy printable PDF Bob, that we can bring to the airport and quote at TSOs who get drunk on the power of their new blue shirts ?"
***********************************
Right Here:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/prohibited_and_permitted_items_10-24-07.pdf
........................
TSO Jason, think you can get all of the TSO's to read it?
October 7, 2008 5:54 PM
"When you submitt your bags and self (key work submitt)"
Sigh.
"I hope you get the most horrible treatment everytime that you step foot in a checkpoint"
I hope you continue to work on your language skills.
I hope you are not employed by us.
October 7, 2008 6:02 PM
A different anonymous spewed forth thusly: "Just like when police shows up at your house without a warrant and you invite them in. They don't need a warrant, you let them into your house. If you do not want to submitt your things you don't have too. You have the option to fly or not to fly. Also there are signs posted before security that state that you and your items are subject to search. Therefor giving you the option not to come through the checkpoint."
Oh dear. What can I say to that? Well, for starters, I'd never let the police into my home without a warrant. I'd never allow them to search my vehicle, nor would I allow them access to anything other than my driving license through a crack in the window at a random DUI checkpoint.
Do I have anything to hide? Nope. I don't EVER drink (any amount) and drive, and I get reinvestigated for my TS/SCI every 5 years. Trust me, I'm a good guy.
But I don't let any authority search anything without a warrant...except for the TSA, because they've been given extraordinarily unconstitutional powers.
And as for saying I have a choice because I can always choose not to fly...Really? Did you type those words with a straight face? Do you understand how that's NOT a choice? You're being every bit as disingenuous as the others who claim there's a choice.
Why are you so willing to give up your liberty for pretend security? Do the terrorists really scare you that much?
October 7, 2008 6:28 PM
TSO Jason said:
[quote]Anonymous wrote: "...also notice a lot of talk about inconsistent application of the rules (breast milk, etc), where can we download a handy printable PDF Bob, that we can bring to the airport and quote at TSOs who get drunk on the power of their new blue shirts ?"
***********************************
Right Here:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/prohibited_and_permitted_items_10-24-07.pdf
October 7, 2008 5:06 PM[/quote]
So, TSO Jason, how then do you respond to the WELL-DOCUMENTED REPORTS of TSOs (and supervisors!) denying travellers the ability to carry through items which are clearly permitted by the webpage you listed, as well as other sections of your agency's website (like, say for instance, the section on prescription and OTC medications, or the section on medical devices, or the section on medical exceptions to your normal list of prohibited items, or...), using the excuse that "Well, that web page is not up to date." Doesn't matter if the page clearly shows a last-updated date of yesterday and a print date of this morning - it's OBVIOUSLY out of date and superceded by some supersecret set of "rules" which the passenger can't have access to, because they're "SSI".
If you're going to hold us accountable to a set of rules, we ***REQUIRE*** the ability to know what those rules are, what the consequences are, and what the rules are for redress of greivances when YOUR people break the rules - or you guys are doing nothing more than power-tripping.
Which is it, Jason? Bob? Kip?
October 7, 2008 6:54 PM
Jin Huggins wrote...
Aye, but there's the rub. Right at the top of the brochure, it says:
The prohibited and permitted items list is not intended to
be all-inclusive and is updated as necessary. To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that
an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
So, in English:
* Everything on the permitted list is permitted, except when the TSO says it's not, in which case it's prohibited.
* Everything not on the prohibited list is permitted, except when the TSO says it's not, in which case it's prohibited.
* Everything on the prohibited list is prohibited.
So ... the list is pretty much useless. It says that the TSO at the checkpoint can prohibit anything you bring to the checkpoint from going through, and you have no practical recourse.
====
You missed one point, Jim... "...the TSO may also determine that
an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.
That means that even if an item is totally benign and is actually listed on the TSA published list as being permitted, if any of the lowest level employees of the agency decide for any reason (or none) that they don't want to allow an item through, you will lose the item to their "coerced voluntary surrender" routine.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
October 8, 2008 2:31 AM
Trollkiller-
How are you so sure that no one's complaining? I wonder if the people that used to complain just gave up and left...
October 8, 2008 4:46 AM
Yangj08, I still post here but do it anonymous.
Still grinding exceedingly fine.
Miller.
October 8, 2008 9:47 AM
But I don't let any authority search anything without a warrant...except for the TSA, because they've been given extraordinarily unconstitutional powers.
__________________________________
Maybe you didn't understand me. When you submitt your things for screening you are giving TSA permission to search your belongings. Its that easy.
October 8, 2008 1:11 PM
"When you submitt your bags and self (key work submitt)"
Sigh.
"I hope you get the most horrible treatment everytime that you step foot in a checkpoint"
I hope you continue to work on your language skills.
I hope you are not employed by us.
__________________________________
Who is this exactly and what is the problem?
October 8, 2008 1:14 PM
How about technology for testing for solid explosives? Why do you not consider that inadequate? Why don't you ban all solids, or limit them to a second "freedom baggie"? Sorry, but you don't have an argument that holds water.
___________________________________
Well Mr. Chemist, solids are checked all day long at the checkpoint. We know what we are looking for, and if something is not right we do check solids. There are many Explosive trace machines at every checkpoint. Thanks for your concern.
October 8, 2008 1:19 PM
Hey when we have nothing better to say, lets pick apart someones grammer and spelling.
I sure know how to spell, but sometimes when I am in a hurry or writing a lot, I mess up. And so does everyone else in the world.
October 8, 2008 1:36 PM
Eric wrote: So, TSO Jason, how then do you respond to the WELL-DOCUMENTED REPORTS of TSOs (and supervisors!) denying travellers the ability to carry through items which are clearly permitted by the webpage you listed, as well as other sections of your agency's website (like, say for instance, the section on prescription and OTC medications, or the section on medical devices, or the section on medical exceptions to your normal list of prohibited items, or...), using the excuse that "Well, that web page is not up to date." Doesn't matter if the page clearly shows a last-updated date of yesterday and a print date of this morning - it's OBVIOUSLY out of date and superceded by some supersecret set of "rules" which the passenger can't have access to, because they're "SSI".
***********************************
My intent in posting what I did was to answer anonymous' request for a printable list. I was trying to be helpful. If it helps them by having that document when traveling than that is a good thing. So I do not respond to the well documented reports of TSOs and STSOs denying allowed items. I hold myself and other TSOs that I work with accountable for what I have control over. If a TSO and STSO took something from you that they shouldn't have then you have my sympanthy but I do not have any power over accountability or disciplinary actions for said TSOs.
October 8, 2008 5:54 PM
Anonymous worte: TSO Jason, think you can get all of the TSO's to read it?
***********************************
Little cog, big machine.
October 8, 2008 5:57 PM
"Well Mr. Chemist, solids are checked all day long at the checkpoint. We know what we are looking for, and if something is not right we do check solids. There are many Explosive trace machines at every checkpoint. Thanks for your concern."
If you are going to be ironic, at least respect my titles and call me Prof. Dr. Chemist. The question is why limit quantities of liquids but not solids? Also, why contain liquids in a sealed baggie? You are decreasing the chances of picking up trace chemicals! And if you really know what you are looking for, why do you fail so dismally when tested?
October 8, 2008 6:06 PM
"There are many Explosive trace machines at every checkpoint."
And these can't be used for liquids because...?
October 8, 2008 6:59 PM
Ronnie said, "how about this...we have two types of flights...one type of flight is screened by security just like it is now, and the other type of flight is a free-for-all. No one gets screened, anyone (and I mean anyone since we wont have to check Id's or anything) can take anything they want to on the plane. I wonder what flight YOU would take given those two options."
The answer is that if the second option were available, everyone ould take it.
That's why the TSA is looking into performing screenings of private airplanes at private airports.
October 8, 2008 7:10 PM
""how about this...we have two types of flights...one type of flight is screened by security just like it is now, and the other type of flight is a free-for-all. No one gets screened, anyone (and I mean anyone since we wont have to check Id's or anything) can take anything they want to on the plane. I wonder what flight YOU would take given those two options."
I'd take the second in a heartbeat. I'd pay extra to take the second, in fact.
October 9, 2008 10:28 AM
@tso jason:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/prohibited_and_permitted_items_10-24-07.pdf
That's the list of prohibited items, it's a list full of SPECIFIC items, but doesn't contain the general rules. For instance, my Leatherman Micra is not listed, and falls under multiple categories. It's a knife, so it's not allowed in carry-on, but it's also a tool and only about 3.5 inches long when opened so under that rule it's allowed. Frankly, I could do more damage to a person with the cutlery in the inflight meal, but I can't count on a TSO to understand that or be reasonable. I need a document that I can point to that says I'm allowed to fly with this tool. I've gone through security with it a bunch of times (even at Logan, where they're all nutbars) so I'm fairly comfortable flying with it, but I dread the day some moron TSO gets it into his head that I'm gonna kill someone with it and takes it away from me. I bought it on my first trip to NYC as a teen and it has sentimental value. The "options" you have in the fate of confiscated items don't really comfort me.
Also, what I was requesting is a PDF of THE RULES not a list of prohibited items. Like, for instance I'd like the PDF to say how long TSA can legally detain me for various reasons, what my rights are when stopped at the checkpoint, how invasive a search TSOs are allowed to do... you know, relevant stuff to know when your rights are being violated with impunity.
October 9, 2008 1:13 PM
"Well Mr. Chemist, solids are checked all day long at the checkpoint. We know what we are looking for, and if something is not right we do check solids. There are many Explosive trace machines at every checkpoint. Thanks for your concern."
If you are going to be ironic, at least respect my titles and call me Prof. Dr. Chemist. The question is why limit quantities of liquids but not solids? Also, why contain liquids in a sealed baggie? You are decreasing the chances of picking up trace chemicals! And if you really know what you are looking for, why do you fail so dismally when tested?
___________________________________
Well Mr. Chemist, how could we limit the amount of solids. Everything carried is a solid. The bag is a solid. The papers inside are a solid. And so on. Things are done just fine. Thanks for asking.
And about the failing tests thing.... Why does everyone always bring that up. Do you really know the statistics? Do you? Are you a part of the agency? I didn't think so. There for everyone asking about failed tests really has no clue how many test are being failed. Unless you are reading up on our results and you would have to be in the agency to do so.
Thank you.
October 9, 2008 1:19 PM
"There are many Explosive trace machines at every checkpoint."
And these can't be used for liquids because...?
___________________________________
What are you talking about?! This doesn't even make sense.
Someone was asking about why solids were not tested. I simply pointed out the fact that they are. You can test a liquid with this machine too.
October 9, 2008 1:21 PM
TSO Jason said...
Anonymous worte: TSO Jason, think you can get all of the TSO's to read it?
***********************************
Little cog, big machine.
October 8, 2008 5:57 PM
The finest example of a "Rube Goldberg" machine ever invented!
October 9, 2008 2:31 PM
"There are many Explosive trace machines at every checkpoint."
And these can't be used for liquids because...?
........................
That's what the xray machine is for, you know checking those liquids.
October 9, 2008 2:33 PM
Ayn R. Key wrote
...That's why the TSA is looking into performing screenings of private airplanes at private airports.
Sadly it is actually quite true that I can walk into my local FBO and rent my favorite small plane (four seats) to fly someplace maybe 300 miles away than it is to buy a ticket and get on an airliner to get to fly between the same places.
TSA has made it so difficult to fly commercially anymore that ground time getting past the federal chokepoints at airports often takes longer than many of the flights.
A very popular, almost "commuter" flight in my area was the short flight Seattle - Portland. I used to use it frequently to visit our engineering offices in Portland to coordinate projects, etc. Now days, it is faster and easier to drive the 160 miles (and cheaper...).
October 9, 2008 2:43 PM
Quoted
"For instance, my Leatherman Micra is not listed, and falls under multiple categories. It's a knife, so it's not allowed in carry-on, but it's also a tool and only about 3.5 inches long when opened so under that rule it's allowed. Frankly, I could do more damage to a person with the cutlery in the inflight meal, but I can't count on a TSO to understand that or be reasonable. I need a document that I can point to that says I'm allowed to fly with this tool. "
Uh, it's NOT allowed! It has a blade. No tool, knife, other item with a blade is allowed in carry-on. And there is a document. It says "No blades". It's on the TSA website. If TSOs are allowing this one to go, they are wrong.
October 9, 2008 6:11 PM
"Well Mr. Chemist, how could we limit the amount of solids. Everything carried is a solid. The bag is a solid. The papers inside are a solid. And so on."
You could, theoretically, limit bags, papers, etc. Not saying you should, just that you could. If you can limit solids, and they can be just as explosive as liquids, and both can be tested for with trace scanners, there is no logical reason to limit solids. Except, of course, for security theater.
"Things are done just fine. Thanks for asking."
I didn't ask, and saying things are fine does not make them so.
"And about the failing tests thing.... Why does everyone always bring that up."
We bring it up because it shows you are failing at what you propose to do!
"Do you really know the statistics? Do you? Are you a part of the agency? I didn't think so. There for everyone asking about failed tests really has no clue how many test are being failed. Unless you are reading up on our results and you would have to be in the agency to do so."
You fail on independent tests. It is widely published. Since your internal tests are not, I can only imagine how dismal they are.
Oh, and finally, I would gladly fly on a free of security flight. In fact, I would pay extra for that!
October 9, 2008 6:22 PM
"And about the failing tests thing.... Why does everyone always bring that up."
Because it's a clear demonstration of TSA's utter failure and incompetence. Please pay attention.
October 10, 2008 8:28 AM
the simply written statement reguarding the state of the war on liquids and how the threat hasn't diminished, in what? All the research shows that there never was a threat to begin with. The government and the Department of homeland security simply isn't willing to admit the momentus blunder this whole situation has been.
Congrats DHS, you've made flying not only more of a pain in the rear end, but you've also made it more expensive (having to buy toothpaste, shaving cream, overpriced airport water, etc...).
I simply live being told that my 3.7 oz of toothpaste could be an explosive as they toss it into the PLASTIC trash can.
I feel safer already.
October 10, 2008 8:36 AM
"What are you talking about?! This doesn't even make sense.
Someone was asking about why solids were not tested. I simply pointed out the fact that they are. You can test a liquid with this machine too."
So we have to bother with 3-1-1 because...?
October 10, 2008 12:36 PM
Anonymous wrote:
"Also, what I was requesting is a PDF of THE RULES not a list of prohibited items. Like, for instance I'd like the PDF to say how long TSA can legally detain me for various reasons, what my rights are when stopped at the checkpoint, how invasive a search TSOs are allowed to do... you know, relevant stuff to know when your rights are being violated with impunity."
********************************
I'm sorry but I can't help you with that one. TSA management needs to get the ball rolling on that one.
October 10, 2008 12:45 PM
So we have to bother with 3-1-1 because...?
___________________________________
Because Yeng, there is a limit to liquids, period. The bag is simply so that the passenger can keep all of their small liquids together and the TSO's can see all of them.
October 10, 2008 1:50 PM
Oh, and finally, I would gladly fly on a free of security flight. In fact, I would pay extra for that!
__________________________________
Dont care what you would do.
You fail on independent tests. It is widely published. Since your internal tests are not, I can only imagine how dismal they are.
___________________________________
What exactly is an independent test? You tell me where you got these results, besides from the other mouths on this web page.
People talk so much but can not back anything up.
Please give examples, web pages, etc.
And I don't know if people hear things on the news, but I would barely find that to be relavent. They know what they are talking about as much as the people posting on here.
October 10, 2008 1:58 PM
Because it's a clear demonstration of TSA's utter failure and incompetence. Please pay attention.
___________________________________
I garuantee that you have no idea if TSA is really failing tests or not.
I googled TSA failing tests. The results I got were news pages and a web page called homeland stupidity. First off, I wouldn't believe a thing I heard from a web page titled homeland stupidity. Second the news will say anything to get people worked up. They word things so that they sound worse than they really are. Unless there is a rep from The Department of Homeland Security that wants to come forward and let the world know that all of these tests are being failed, I don't believe it! And all the comments on here are nothing but aligations with nothing to back them up.
Please pay attention!
October 10, 2008 4:51 PM
Abelard said... So you’re comparing the loss of an item at a checkpoint to a house burning down? It's called a "metaphor," Bob. October 6, 2008 8:59 PM
___________________________________
Thanks Professor
___________________________________
RB said... Quite the Snarky comments? October 6, 2008 9:48 PM
___________________________________
Wow, calling me snarky on this blog is like calling Gandhi a war monger.
___________________________________
Anonymous said... You individuals harping about the semantics of 'confiscation vs. surrender' need to realize that Bob is partially correct. The TSA does seriously believe that a person possessing an item denied entry to the sterile area does have options of what to do with it…I look at the whole thing and realize just how depressing it is not being able bring back a decent bottle of whiskey from overseas for my liquor cabinet when I fly. October 6, 2008 10:51 PM
___________________________________
I feel for the passengers who are not regular travelers the most. The last thing they do before flying (in some cases for funerals or emergencies) is go to the TSA web page to see what they can and can’t bring. I actually feel for everybody that has to abandon something, but I would think the regular flyers would know what to bring and what not to bring. Personally, as a former TSO, I honestly hoped folks could take advantage of one of the options I gave them, but the sad part was that in most cases, people are running late and will miss their flight.
I’ve read some comments from folks about not being given any options. This should not be happening. If it happens, ask for a supervisor or manager. If you don’t feel comfortable with that, take advantage of ”Got Feedback?” and contact the customer support manager from that specific airport. You’ll be doing your fellow passengers a favor. You’ll also be helping out the TSOs that work hard and take pride in their mission. The good folks that get a black eye every time something like this happens.
___________________________________
Anonymous said... I was explaining that there isn't really a choice, because all the options provided by the TSA are unworkable/stupid. Good job, Bob. October 7, 2008 8:21AM
___________________________________
As a former TSO, I used to see these “unworkable/stupid” options work all the time. Most of the folks who didn’t use the options either arrived at the airport too late and would miss their flight, or they simply didn’t want to take the time to salvage low dollar items like toothpaste and bottles of water.
___________________________________
Anonymous said... Good job, Bob. October 7, 2008 8:21 AM
___________________________________
Hey… any time! Thanks!
___________________________________
Ayn R. Key said... You're deliberately mixing the contexts of the analogies. Bad form, Bob. I expect better from the only blogger who actually responds to people here. October 7, 2008 10:42 AM
___________________________________
I simply thought it was a bad analogy. That’s all…
___________________________________
Mr. Gel-pack said... Just to be clear, the TSA supervisor in StL did not confiscate my wife's breastmilk, only our means of keeping it cold. I certainly could have been smarter and saved it somehow, begging some ice behind the checkpoint, for instance. But travel with children is hard and uncertain, and TSA makes it worse. A couple unplanned travel delays, and our milk spoiled for lack of the gel-pack "surrendered" at the direction of TSA supervisor ignorant of the "rules". Sure, I could have done better, but my wife cried. I blame TSA for its inconsistencies in policy, training, enforcement, communication, and ultimate results, which is a systemic problem that is worse than any one particular incident. Even if you issue a memo and no TSA takes a gel-pack out of a cooler of breastmilk ever again, your lousy management will screw up another way. I'll bet a beer that when you eventually deploy your high-tech liquid testers, you'll do harmful things like dip some dirty swabs into places they shouldn't go. October 7, 2008 12:03 PM
___________________________________
I as well as others already stated this was an unfortunate event that should not have happened. I personally contacted the airport to have them investigate the matter and make sure it didn’t happen again. You have good reason to be angry, but I also sense that you weren’t too fond of the TSA prior to this incident. I also sense that no matter what we do, you’ll always have the same opinion of us. That’s truly unfortunate, but I understand why you’re angry. While the actions of a few may be wrong, there are many of us trying our best to balance the job of being thorough, safe, and professional. I hope the next time you travel, you encounter some of these folks and might find a little place in your heart for some forgiveness.
___________________________________
Anonymous said... Since when did the United States of America, the Land of the Free, start having secret rules and laws? October 7, 2008 2:42 PM
___________________________________
In order to do our job, and not let those who wish to do us harm know exactly what we do and why we do it, we have to keep some things under wraps. This is a challenging topic to discuss because we just can’t tell you certain things. And in case you really didn’t know, we’re not the only Govt. entity that does this.
___________________________________
Ayn R. Key said... Ronnie, I actually do believe you have a smile on your face as you confiscate safe prohibited items and legal items that you prohibited on your own.
October 7, 2008 3:18 PM
__________________________________
You often ask why I ignore your comments. It’s comments such as these. You have never met Ronnie, and yet you state here in a public forum that he wrongly confiscates items that he prohibited on his own.
___________________________________
Jim Huggins said... So ... the list is pretty much useless. It says that the TSO at the checkpoint can prohibit anything you bring to the checkpoint from going through, and you have no practical recourse. October 7, 20085:33 PM
___________________________________
Jim, I understand the frustration travelers have. You want to have a definitive checklist of what and what not to do. What to bring and what not to bring. The best we can do is give you guidelines. There has to be discretion. Sometimes you have to throw out the “by the book” approach in order to use the “common sense” approach. I can respect that that’s not what folks want to hear, but we would be doing a disservice to everyone we’re protecting if we followed a “checklist” approach.
___________________________________
yangj08 said... "There are many Explosive trace machines at every checkpoint." And these can't be used for liquids because...? October 8, 2008 6:59 PM
___________________________________
Let’s say we did away with the baggie rule and decided to simply use our explosive trace machines on all liquids. I forget the exact amount of time, but from the time a sample is taken, it takes 10 seconds or so for the test to complete. Multiply 10 seconds for each liquid that comes through the checkpoint. Plus, we would also have to go into the bag to locate these liquids. Until we get the proper technology at our checkpoints to screen liquids, this is the fastest way to keep things moving.
___________________________________
Anonymous said...""how about this...we have two types of flights...one type of flight is screened by security just like it is now, and the other type of flight is a free-for-all. No one gets screened, anyone (and I mean anyone since we wont have to check Id's or anything) can take anything they want to on the plane. I wonder what flight YOU would take given those two options." I'd take the second in a heartbeat. I'd pay extra to take the second, in fact. October 9, 2008 10:28 AM
___________________________________
You and many others may want to take the risk, but what about the folks in your flight path who have no choice where the wreckage would land if something were to happen?
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 10, 2008 5:34 PM
"What exactly is an independent test?"
Sigh. It is a test conducted by a third party. Not by the TSA.
"You tell me where you got these results, besides from the other mouths on this web page.
People talk so much but can not back anything up.
Please give examples, web pages, etc."
Here are a few sites that took me less than a minute to google:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/10/31/tsa-screeners-still-fail-to-find-guns-bombs/
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-07-01-airport-security.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/security-staff-at-us-airports-miss-24-of-fake-weapons-in-tests-647044.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E6D81331F932A25750C0A9609C8B63
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/28/tsa.bombtest/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/04/19/airport.screeners/index.html
October 10, 2008 6:22 PM
Bob writes:
Jim, I understand the frustration travelers have. You want to have a definitive checklist of what and what not to do. What to bring and what not to bring. The best we can do is give you guidelines. There has to be discretion. Sometimes you have to throw out the “by the book” approach in order to use the “common sense” approach. I can respect that that’s not what folks want to hear, but we would be doing a disservice to everyone we’re protecting if we followed a “checklist” approach.
With all respect, Bob ... if this is the approach that TSA is going to take, then TSA needs to completely rework its public communication plan.
Right now, certain TSA publications give a list of "permitted items". The average person reading such a list takes TSA at its word; if I see something on the list of permitted items, I think I'll be able to take the item with me. That is, after all, the plain meaning of the word "permitted".
But, as we both agree, an item being on the permitted list has absolutely no meaning, because any TSO can refuse to allow me to carry any item through the checkpoint, based on the TSO's belief that my item constitutes a security threat. And I have no recourse, because the TSO has no obligation to explain the security threat my item may present. (After all, the threat may be based on SSI.)
Of course, the TSO might be completely wrong about the threat, or whether the item presents a threat. But I have no meaningful way to contest that decision. Sure, I could ask for a supervisor. But that increases the tension, and creates potential for much worse problems.
Other TSA double-speak offends me in similar ways ... such as TSA asking travelers to "know the rules", or telling passengers that they should "own the screening experience". I can't "know the rules" if TSA won't tell me (all of) them, and I certainly don't "own the screening experience" if a TSO can change the rules without my knowledge or consent.
The truth is much simpler. Certain items are always prohibited by TSA. Everything else may be prohibited at the sole discretion of TSA, without notice or warning.
Isn't that simpler? You don't create expectations that you can't uphold. And you don't need fancy slogans or posters, either. Just the facts.
October 10, 2008 7:01 PM
Blogger Bob wrote:
You often ask why I ignore your comments. It’s comments such as these. You have never met Ronnie, and yet you state here in a public forum that he wrongly confiscates items that he prohibited on his own.
Your choice of comments on what to respond to is always an interesting one with me. I make many comments asking the legal basis of the MMW scans taking place outside of the terminal enterances. I make many comments asking about how the fines issued by the TSA are in accordance with the administrative procedures act, and how doubling the fines of those who dare challenge the fines is in accordance with that same act. Then I make a snarky comment to Ronnie, and that's the one comment you respond to and use it as an example of why you never respond to me.
October 10, 2008 8:01 PM
Anonymous said... Since when did the United States of America, the Land of the Free, start having secret rules and laws? October 7, 2008 2:42 PM
___________________________________
In order to do our job, and not let those who wish to do us harm know exactly what we do and why we do it, we have to keep some things under wraps. This is a challenging topic to discuss because we just can’t tell you certain things. And in case you really didn’t know, we’re not the only Govt. entity that does this.
...........................
Your just making excuses Bob. A person has a right to know what they must do to go through security, at an airport, a courthouse or any other location that has a secuity screening.
What TSA is doing and what you apparently support is against the constitution of this country.
You don't have to tell us what the makeup of a threat item is, you don't have to tell us what an image on the xray looks like but you do have to tell us what we must do to sucessfully move through a TSA checkpoint.
I really have a hard time understanding how you fail to understand this comcept.
Take a step back, try thinking like a free citizen for a change!
October 11, 2008 11:02 AM
TSA is doing a wonderful job. While it is rare, some things are missed. Americans should appreciate someone who is rarely recognized that cares enough to keep them safe. These men and women put up with our whining, and rude comments each day and still
manage to smile. Go to the website educate yourself before you take your
trip,and make traveling easier for all of us. Thank you TSA!
October 11, 2008 11:30 PM
Bob @ "I as well as others already stated this was an unfortunate event that should not have happened. I personally contacted the airport to have them investigate the matter and make sure it didn’t happen again. You have good reason to be angry, but I also sense that you weren’t too fond of the TSA prior to this incident. I also sense that no matter what we do, you’ll always have the same opinion of us. That’s truly unfortunate, but I understand why you’re angry. While the actions of a few may be wrong, there are many of us trying our best to balance the job of being thorough, safe, and professional. I hope the next time you travel, you encounter some of these folks and might find a little place in your heart for some forgiveness."
Thank you for your effort and understanding of my particular situation. Who am I to forgive? The supervisor who got the rules wrong? The people who think the TSA rules are simple and that passengers are idiots if they don't agree with the TSOs?
I am not at all fond of the TSA, and doubt that my opinion will change as long as it continues to follow its bone-headed approach to an impossble mission. This post and referenced paper make good arguments that TSA has no credible answers for. TSA is security theatre, and gives no indication it will ever change from simulating the appearance of security to wisely spending the time and resources given to it to actually saving lives. Maybe you TSA-boosters have faith in the good intentions of TSA, but good intentions are what pave the road to you-know-where.
"And, of course, a sensible analysis must include a consideration of the opportunity costs: what is being foregone in order to shell out nearly $10 billion per year on airline security? Could the money be more effective--save far more lives--if it were used instead to enforce seat belt laws or install smoke alarms?" -- one snippet from John Mueller's paper
October 13, 2008 3:26 PM
Happy Tuesday! After the long weekend I have a bunch of blog comments to moderate. I’m going to get cracking in a few minutes.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 14, 2008 11:27 AM
Ayn R. Key wrote:
Your choice of comments on what to respond to is always an interesting one with me. I make many comments asking the legal basis of the MMW scans taking place outside of the terminal enterances. I make many comments asking about how the fines issued by the TSA are in accordance with the administrative procedures act, and how doubling the fines of those who dare challenge the fines is in accordance with that same act. Then I make a snarky comment to Ronnie, and that's the one comment you respond to and use it as an example of why you never respond to me.
Bob, are you going to respond to this? I am trying in as non-snarky a way as possible to accuse you of cherry-picking what you choose to respond to in order to give the impression that nothing I write is worth responding to.
Yes, what I wrote to Ronnie wasn't of the highest caliber, but asking about the MMW devices outsie of the enterances to the terminals is certainly a different grade of question. I asked about the constitutionality of searches that do not take place at the terminal enterance.
I also asked about the fines that TSOs can levy, how inquiring about contesting the fines can lead to their doubling, and how all of that is allowed under the Administrative Procedures Act. Surely that is a higher caliber of comment.
Or if those are not better comments / questions, perhaps you can explain what is wrong with those two comments, and thus assure me that you are not guilty of cherry-picking what you are responding to in order to paint me in the worst light and yourself in the best.
October 14, 2008 5:33 PM
Hi there,
just to set the record straight.
The two german terror suspects, who have been arrested at CGN in Germany, have been set free shortly after arrest as all claims made against them were unsolid. The so called farewell letter which functioned as proof of imminent suicide attack threat was a LOVE LETTER!
The whole operation was a police fiasco which horribly went wrong because of the state of fear we all are set into.
That this story is used in the context of proving a point why liquids are dangerous is a mere joke. Honestly.
Do not get me wrong. I want our planes to fly safely, too. Have no issues with wanding, bodychecks and bagsearches. But if you argue for your security measures, at least get your facts straight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/world/europe/08germany.html?scp=1&sq=terrorism%20suspects%20germany&st=cse
http://www.thelocal.de/14749/20081007/
In fact one better should elaborate how carrying a loveletter in arabic language might make you end up in jail for 2 weeks.
After the war on liquids, will we see a war on loveletters?
October 15, 2008 4:52 AM
Bob,
I direct this at you because you do seem intelligent, and you do answer many posts. Someone posted Schneier's essay, published today, in a blog post here. The title was "The Two Classes of Airport Contraband"
I would really like to see a direct response to the points that he brings up. Specifically:
"This is why articles about how screeners don't catch every -- or even a
majority -- of guns and bombs that go through the checkpoints don't bother
me. The screeners don't have to be perfect; they just have to be good
enough. No terrorist is going to base his plot on getting a gun through
airport security if there's a decent chance of getting caught, because the
consequences of getting caught are too great.
Contrast that with a terrorist plot that requires a 12-ounce bottle of
liquid. There's no evidence that the London liquid bombers actually had a
workable plot, but assume for the moment they did. If some copycat
terrorists try to bring their liquid bomb through airport security and the
screeners catch them -- like they caught me with my bottle of pasta sauce
-- the terrorists can simply try again. They can try again and again. They
can keep trying until they succeed. Because there are no consequences to
trying and failing, the screeners have to be 100 percent effective. Even if
they slip up one in a hundred times, the plot can succeed."
Makes sense to me. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I care about a couple of things. One of them is "cost effectiveness" remember... my taxes pay for these exercises. I am all for anything that makes the world safer (which means NOT just shifting the same dangers elsewhere). So measures that do not actually make us any safer, and cost money (and peoples time is money, 30 seconds times 120 people is an hour... how many man hours are spent waiting in lines at your checkpoints?)
Seems to me one of the most well respected security experts in the world is saying your policy doesn't hold water, not even in the slightest.
So if there is, effectively, no increase in security... why are you wasting all of our time, money, and toothpaste?
Seriously, these are the hard questions. Why do they just get ignored?
-Steve
October 15, 2008 12:29 PM
Bob Said:
"You and many others may want to take the risk, but what about the folks in your flight path who have no choice where the wreckage would land if something were to happen?"
Given how many times this has happened in the past, I think that we can safely say that any fear that they had on that front is simply unjustified.
What if they were worried about planes falling out of the sky from mechanical failures? Should we ground all planes just because some people have irrational fears?
-Steve
October 15, 2008 1:46 PM
And about the failing tests thing.... Why does everyone always bring that up. Do you really know the statistics? Do you? Are you a part of the agency? I didn't think so. There for everyone asking about failed tests really has no clue how many test are being failed. Unless you are reading up on our results and you would have to be in the agency to do so.
Dear Sir or Madam, reveling in a lack of accountability is not the mark of a professional. It pains me to think that we have government employees who might be doing so.
For the record, there are entire agencies created for the purpose of keeping tabs on other agencies. I have little faith in the effectiveness of government, even when I've worked in support of it, but I'll take what little I can get in the name of seeing accountability.
So.. to answer your question, which a taxpayer shouldn't have to do, and which should have been answered in TSA's initial staff orientation: Amongst others, Congress and the Government Accountability Office can and do occasionally leak crumbs of information about performance to us huddled masses with a modicum of concern for our Constitutional rights.
For example, this GAO report [gao.gov] discusses the fact that "TSA's national aviation covert testing program has identified
vulnerabilities in selected aspects of the commercial aviation security
system at airports of all sizes, however, the agency is not fully using
the results of these tests to mitigate identified vulnerabilities." Call it failed tests, or not learning from experience, the end result is essentially the same.
Perhaps most damningly, this one [PDF, gao.gov] rather clearly indicates that TSA is documented to have broken the law in its zeal to enact policies that were perhaps poorly thought out.
If it gives you comfort, some of us in the public are as much or more frustrated with your senior management.
I'm not a chemist, but I'm no stranger to chemistry, and I have worked to help develop new sensor systems against chemical, biological and radiological threats. I suppose you might say I've been one of the people who help you eventually get spiffier machines. I'm also a pilot. Yet, I feel no safer. More importantly, because how people "feel" is irrelevant, I'm not at all convinced that the countermeasures match the threat model in a meaningful way.
The liquid policies are witless. (I was going to say "sadly misguided" but it would be an understatement.)
I fear that anyone in the flying public who feels relief for the relaxation of those policies as opposed to umbrage for the time lost and damage to our economy has sadly fallen prey to desensitization after prolonged duress.
October 15, 2008 3:42 PM
I haven't flown as much as some of you, but I could pour from a can into a cup. Are these "scientists" specialized in explosives? Do they even know the simple mix of fluid and catalist the Terrorists were planing to use? I don't think most people would have trouble mixing the amounts of chemicals needed for a potent enough explosion to destroy a aircraft in flight. I agree the TSA always overreacts, but give us a break. Instead of your Flying blogs, check into the News posts about current testing of improvised explosives. CNN has a good one. There are also a lot more of new explosive combinations being thought of, more than you know unless you are in the bussiness. Oh, to the dopeheads out there, we don't need new machines to find your stash, It is usualy obvious. Next time try hiding it in your crotch, that hasn't been tried yet. (sarcasam) Everyone else thank them for your pat downs. We ARN'T looking for drugs but we sure find them, hidden in the same way as the weapons we are looking for. SO finding the drugs just brings the COPs and slows down the line, another thing to thank your doper passengers for. Last, I never asked for a badge. It was issued to me. I am not a "rent-a-cop", I inspect to a mandated requirement. I cannot threaten you like many passengers do us. I am trying to do a job that needs to be done. The Agency is improving, it was just started too fast without the leadership required.
October 17, 2008 8:14 PM
The funnest thing is when the poop realy hits the Turbo fan engine, you will see changes you won't believe. The next big attack will bring out the cry for even more security. Now those of you who want to dissband the TSA, fine, it goes back to the Airlines to provide their security. How much do you think that will cost you? Of course the Airlines will pass on the cost to you. The cost of insurance alone will take out the smaller air carriers. Tickets will be extremely expensive, and the security the Airlines will impose will be Extremly intrusive. Finely the government will have to Federalize the airlines as they did the Railroads. Then to fly on AMERIFLY, the last, and only, airline, you will have to pass security before you get the the Federal Airport. Since the National Guard will still be overseas fighting for democracy, the Police depts. will have to make up the slack. When it becomes too expensive for the PD. The FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY department (FTS) will be born, armed as the forces in Europe are, with even less care about your complaints. Well that's still about 10 years away. but then we can get together on the govt. approved blog, and remember how you used to complain about the TSA, and we'll laugh.... have a nice flight..
October 17, 2008 8:32 PM
http://tinyurl.com/6or6g6
Although the story is not about a U.S. checkpoint the procedures seem very simular.
The point that so much effort is expended stopping the extreme explosive that H2O represents is underscored by the story. We all know that TSA is obsessed with looking for the wrong things. Things that do not improve flight safety by any measure, water, ID, and no end to other things.
TSA is broken!
October 19, 2008 12:09 PM
Stephen,
You claim there is no evidence they had a workable plot in London, but they most certainly had a workable recipe for explosives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7607043.stm
Or at least Sidney Alford, whose expertise on explosives I trust a great deal more than a couple of "Anon" guys claiming to be PhD chemists.
The bottom line is, liquids are a threat, and at the moment the technology is lacking in this area.
October 19, 2008 2:04 PM
Ryan62 said...
Stephen,
The bottom line is, liquids are a threat, and at the moment the technology is lacking in this area.
October 19, 2008 2:04 PM
Not in Japan. They have the tools to test liquids. Maybe the laws of physics are different there, eh!
October 20, 2008 12:35 PM
Ryan62 posted a link to a BBC spot showing Sydney Alford's creation of a bomb using hydrogen peroxide and Tang.
We were not advised as to what the relative strengths or quantities of either chemical were, but terrorists could experiment, I suppose. Shame on the BBC for sharing that formula so openly.
What was not shown, and should have been shown in all fairness, was just how Alford set off that combination. Yes, he detonated it - but how? Cell phone radiation? Or a blasting cap?
What the BBC showed was a half-liter of explosive mixture being set off. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a half-liter somewhere around 8 ounces? So if this explosive worked so well, a terrorist could bring aboard a few ounces of peroxide of the appropriate strength, a few ounces of Tang, and a blasting cap, and create his own havoc WITHIN the TSA rules.
Oh, 'scuse me. I forgot. No blasting caps - which could easily be found by explosive sniffing equipment. But would possibly be missed by a bored x-ray attendant.
And then there's all that lovely, unscanned freight and baggage down in the cargo holds...
In the meantime, the TSA goes out and creates its very own rules in defiance of chemistry, physics, or commonsense.
As to those bi-phase liquid explosives, a little google search will show that the mixing reaction is extremely exothermic and will likely result in the mixture's flash boiling up into the terrorist's face in one of those "spacious" aircraft bathrooms.
The sight of a screaming, blinded, severely burned and scalded man running up the aisle should then be a clue that something's amiss.
October 20, 2008 1:31 PM
The sight of a screaming, blinded, severely burned and scalded man running up the aisle should then be a clue that something's amiss.
Couple that to the really foul smelling fumes generated and you have a nearly perfect clue by four that something is amiss.
October 21, 2008 3:43 PM
Not in Japan. They have the tools to test liquids. Maybe the laws of physics are different there, eh!
The Japan system isn't that good. The tools now used for detection would pop hot on most hand lotions (if your a chem jockey you should know why or at least be able to look it up).
On that note... hand lotion is not a bomb component. Makes your skin soft. That is why the tech is not up to snuff. I don't know why the tsa feels its not up to snuff but this is why I think its junk tech as it stand now.
October 21, 2008 3:58 PM
Well, concerns about the exothermic reaction aside, why the assumption he or she needs to do it on the airplane. Most of the airports I have been to feature bathrooms far more spacious than those on board the aircraft. Lots of room in the handicap stalls... ice from McDonalds, water right there in the toilet bowl... exothermic problem solved.
And, as mentioned the Japan system isn't all the reliable, but technology is always advancing so hopefully a workable solution will put all this behind us soon.
October 21, 2008 5:21 PM
Bob, could you please explain something I witnessed with my own four eyes?
Recently, I waited at a checkpoint while someone passed about a dozen cases of bottled water through the x-ray machine. After I survived a TSA screening (in which the Officer decided to paw through my bag of medication bottles because it "looked weird," and ordered me to "separate that bag" in the future), I went to the concessionaire and verified that the bottles were the same brand as the ones I saw earlier.
I know that when I'm at a TSA checkpoint I'm obligated to put my brain on "standby" and ignore any incomprehensible things I see, since everything you do is based on robust intelligence that I can't possibly know or understand. But I have real trouble understanding why screening with the normal x-ray machine is adequate to assure the safety of water bottles sold by airport concessionaires at inflated prices, while an identical bottle of water bought elsewhere at a normal price is forbidden because a normal x-ray can't distinguish its contents from explosives.
Seeing that has unfortunately undermined whatever respect I might have had for the liquid rules? Can you provide the officially-spun explanation for what I observed?
October 21, 2008 5:39 PM
OK, I will explain. If you are waliking on the street, you do not need your I.D.. If you are walking past a bank when a bunch of people run out, and the Police stop everybody, They will ask for your I.D.,not a secret law. If you are involved in any legal process of anykind, you will need your I.D., marriage, divorce,adoption, court case. Not a secret law. The real Ca legal rules of the road book is several hundred pages thick, easily gotten. Not secret, but most people (even cops)don't know all the rules. To file your income tax, you will have to provide government I.D. numbers. And they have thousands of rules wich are available if you want. No secret rules. The TSA is the newest government agency and is still stumbling, making rules as things change. The poor TSO at the terminal is trying to work all the changes, everyday. They can't just say no to whatever rules they don't like. I still want to hear about the Disshonorable Discharge the Anarchist got. We could face jail time too. I am sorry for the people listening to the "Perfessor" who doesn't even have the common knowledge of "MacGiver". Even the dullest, dimmest, would be Anarchist, could go into the average kitchen/bathroom and mix up a flammable/explosive/toxic mix. That in a closed envirenment of a alminium tube hurteling through air would only end badly. So if they had the suposed knowledge of a "PHD", they could add burnable metals that would increase the temp to ignight the said tube. And the unbelievaable argument over what constitutes a solid, liquid, or gas becomes a moot point. There will be a new President in a couple of months. who will probably appoint a new head of DHS. Why don't you write your tirades to them? I agree there should be some way to OK your water too, so you can take it with you. I am still waiting to see the case of constitutional rights taken to court, instead screaming at peons who hve no power. Maybe if you flew less in protest, the airlines would do something too. Ima Nobody
October 21, 2008 7:55 PM
When I was in High School we used to go to the local swimming pool store and buy those plastic containers of chlorine tablets. Then we would go to the local photography store and buy a package of dry, concentrated photo film developer. We would mix both dry chemicals together and tie into a little tissue paper wrapped package which would fit into a film can. When we got to school we would drop the little package into a toilet. The resultant mix would produce a Chlorine gas cloud so strong the school would end up being evacuated.
Can you imagine what that type of thing would do on a closed airplane?
If a high school kid could figure that out, I'm sure a terrorist could very easily figure out how to get enough explosive or other chemical onboard a plane to do some serious damage.
That's why there are prohibited item rules.
This is why TSOs have the "discretion" you are all screaming about. These items I mentioned aren't even liquids yet could easily incapacitate an entire plane.
I think all liquids, period, should be banned as well as any none-identifiable solids, powders, etc.
October 22, 2008 4:54 PM
Bob, if you're going to follow through on your hinting that you will visit older threads to respond to comments there (hint made when you said that in the future off topic posts would be censored now that we've got blog entreis on a variety of topics) you may wish to demonstrate your intent by answering my charge of cherry-picking on your behalf.
October 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Quote " Ayn R. Key said...
Bob, if you're going to follow through on your hinting that you will visit older threads to respond to comments there (hint made when you said that in the future off topic posts would be censored now that we've got blog entreis on a variety of topics) you may wish to demonstrate your intent by answering my charge of cherry-picking on your behalf.
October 23, 2008 4:51 PM"
Would you PLEASE go get a life and start visiting some other blogs! Do you really have nothing better to do than make post after post about things which you know WILL NOT be answered? Go away allready!
October 24, 2008 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...
Quote " Ayn R. Key said...
Bob, if you're going to follow through on your hinting that you will visit older threads to respond to comments there (hint made when you said that in the future off topic posts would be censored now that we've got blog entreis on a variety of topics) you may wish to demonstrate your intent by answering my charge of cherry-picking on your behalf.
October 23, 2008 4:51 PM"
Would you PLEASE go get a life and start visiting some other blogs! Do you really have nothing better to do than make post after post about things which you know WILL NOT be answered? Go away allready!
October 24, 2008 1:07 PM
Well Anon, are you such a coward that you won't use a real name?
October 24, 2008 6:04 PM
Coward? Yeah right! Like RB and Ayn R. Key really tells us who you are.
I think the only one on here that goes by his real name is BloggerBob. At least we've seen him on video.
October 25, 2008 1:41 AM
RB - It's funny you can call someone else a coward for simply clicking the link that says anonymous like "RB" says anything about you...
As a matter of fact when you click on your linked user name, this is what is returned:
"Profile Not Available
The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile.
If you're a Blogger user, we encourage you to enable access to your Profile."
Who's the one hiding?
October 25, 2008 12:19 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home