Ring in the New Year, Not the Walk Through Metal Detector
As 2008 closes, so does the first year of the blog. We’ve published 121 posts (not counting this one) and have had over half a million visits to our blog along with over 16,000 comments. (The hits just keep on coming)It’s been great to read comments from all of our different personalities on the blog over the last year. While some of our readers agree with us and some agree to disagree, it’s these types of personalities all melted and mixed in a fondue pot that help make blogs a little more interesting to dip into. We’ve had the opportunity to open some eyes as to why we do the things we do. We’ve also had our eyes opened a few times.
The TSA EoS Blog Team would like to thank everybody who’s helped out with the blog this year. There are so many folks behind the scenes that you just don’t see. You’ve got the IT folks, legal, our officers and other TSA folks in various positions in the field, several HQ departments that help us with research from time to time, and of course, all of our readers and commenters.
Have fun ringing in the New Year, but if you’re traveling through an airport, please remember to divest all metal objects, or you’ll be ringing in the walkthrough metal detector. Oh, and yes… champagne is a liquid.
The Blog Team would like to wish everyone a safe and happy New Year and we’ll see you in 2009!
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
posted by Bob at
3:29 PM
Subscribe in a reader
122 Comments:
Happy New Year, TSA staff.
When you are conducting warrantless searches of us, please, when you see something in our belongings that catches your attention, unless that item is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, it's none of your business. If you see a pipe, assume it is free of residue of illegal substances and intended for use with legal substances. If you see some porn, assume that it contains people of legal age. If you see a pet, assume that it is licensed and has had its rabies shots. If you see some cash, assume that it belongs to the person holding it. If you see an digital music player, assume that the person holding it had permission to copy the data it contains onto it. If you see some papers, assume that they are not secret plans for world domination. If you see someone with brown skin, assume that he has a right to be where he is. None of that is any of your business.
Your bag checkers' job is to find dangerous things. When you're not doing that, leave us alone. If you see someone being mugged at the terminal, sure, offer assistance, but when anything else catches your eye and turns out not to be a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, go back to doing your job. Please.
Has TSA yet published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint)? (On November 12, 2008, Paul at TSA wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational.")
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
December 31, 2008 3:46 PM
Bob,
First, Happy New Year.
Now, to the usual business ...
We’ve also had our eyes opened a few times.
Can you enumerate some of those items?
I sense a general frustration with some here on the blog who participate faithfully ... not just the usual sorts of "go away" posters, but the people who wonder if the truly constructive criticisms here on the blog actually are being used to make improvements at TSA.
If you were to post some of that ... perhaps as a lead post ... that might give some sort of sense that this blog is actually making a difference.
December 31, 2008 3:52 PM
What ever did happen to Paul? Did he come to his senses and escape from TSA?
December 31, 2008 4:03 PM
Now, to the usual business ...
We’ve also had our eyes opened a few times.
Can you enumerate some of those items?
---------------
Maybe it doesn't qualify as having their "eyes opened", but there was one - back in February.
2.06.2008
HOORAY BLOGGERS!
A Win for the Blogosphere
Posters on this blog have had their first official impact on our operations. That’s right, less than one week since we began the blog and already you’re affecting security in a very positive way.
On Monday afternoon we began receiving questions about airports that were requiring ALL electronics to be removed from carry-on bags (everything, including blackberrys, iPods and even cords). This practice was also mentioned on several other blogs and left us scratching our heads.
So…we checked with our security operations team to figure out what was going on. After some calls to our airports, we learned that this exercise was set up by local TSA offices and was not part of any grand plan across the country. These practices were stopped on Monday afternoon and blackberrys, cords and iPods began to flow through checkpoints like the booze was flowing on Bourbon Street Tuesday night. (Fat Tuesday of course).
So thanks to everyone for asking about this and for giving us a chance to make it right. Our hope is that examples like this validate our forum and show the solid partnerships we can form with our customers - the traveling public - in not only increasing security but in making all of our lives just a little easier.
Thanks again and keep those comments and questions coming.
December 31, 2008 4:23 PM
So does the TSA resolve to actually attempt to answer a few more questions this year than last? It is a tradition to resolve to improve oneself in the new year.
December 31, 2008 5:18 PM
To those TSO's who are actually out there on the front lines and trying to make the best of it, Happy New Year. To those TSO's out there getting frustrated with the traveling public, cheer up, at least it's not Thanksgiving. Passengers tend not to think.
To those TSO's who believe they have the right to abuse travelers for no reason: Get a different job. Your co-workers don't appreciate you making them look bad.
As I write this it is Dec 31, and we are still waiting on for answers on the following questions (collected/edited from the blog):
When will the TSA be 100% compliant with the requirements set down in the 9-11 Commission's Report?
Why does the TSA consider >$10K cash carried by air on domestic flights contraband? And when will they understand that domestic carriage is different than international carriage? Does the TSA believe that it can create policies that supercede the established CFR's and regulations of other agencies (such as ICE, which is another DHS agency)?
When will the TSA actually secure (control access to) checked baggage in the domestic system? This means implementation of systems to limit the ability of both TSA and non-TSA individuals to clandestinely add/remove items from checked baggage.
When will the TSA admit that some of the the biggest improvements in aviation security since 9/11 have come not from TSA unfunded mandates, but from the airlines and aircrews themselves?
When will the TSA have a higher approval rating than the IRS-CED?
When will the TSA lose the 'good ideas not invented here are bad, but bad invented here must be implemented everywhere to be good' attitude?
When will we find out under what CFRs authority the TSA given the ability to modify CFRs without consulting Congress?
When will the TSA explain how a 'trained' TSO, who is supposed to be able to recognize official US identification documents, is allowed to believe that any US passport with a brown cover is 'forged' once completing their 'training'. Is this result the failure of the TSO to learn, the training system to teach, or the TSA to audit their training?
I personally do not believe that any of these questions will be answered in the New Year.
December 31, 2008 6:32 PM
Hey, I know that guy! That's my airport screening Santa up there- and I notice his boots are still on... ;)
December 31, 2008 8:02 PM
Oh great, that pic of the TSO screening Santa is now my online avatar, thanks! That one says it all.
Happy New Year!
December 31, 2008 8:11 PM
Happy New Year to everyone, be safe & don't get too drunk.
December 31, 2008 9:55 PM
Phil said... "assume"
That single word is the biggest screwup someone can make in security. You should never assume anything, particularly not in this field. You can't, because you believe, naively, that ordinary objects have no absolutely harmful nature to them. I can't believe you seriously suggest that obviously criminal objects must be overlooked? I don't get how anyone could do that. I suppose if you saw a crack pipe on the ground outside, you could assume it's just trash and not mention it to a police officer. I can assume you know what you're talking about too, but, I wouldn't go that far either.
Honestly, you're missing the entire point. I'm not a TSO, so you can skip the whole trying to destroy my arguments with your anecdotes and vague generalities. You can ask for a list of laws that TSA can hold you to at a checkpoint, but you won't get a full one. Why? State laws. Federal screeners are there to stop things from passing through the checkpoints (like at an international border, your presence there and your willingness to enter the checkpoint satisfies 4th Amendment requirements for probable cause to search your belongings), but unless you're arrested by a TSA FAM, you will not be charged with federal laws. TSO's dont arrest you, local LEOs do. State laws take jurisdiction, and there is no comprehensive list. Some states allow you to accidentally pack a gun, and to return it to your car without arrest (Texas), but in NY, you're gonna get arrested.
If you have so much of a problem with that, try reading the the list of things you are prohibited from bringing through a checkpoint. That should keep you from being stopped unnecessarily, in most cases. And if you are, even after you follow them, maybe there's a reason. Maybe not. If you feel you're being singled out, or something like that, make a formal complaint. But over and over and over trying to push your naive agenda shows that you have no understanding of what the new nature of security is.
So yeah, the TSOs are doing their job. Get over it.
December 31, 2008 11:17 PM
Happy New Year, folks!
May we all have a better 2009 than whatever our 2008 was like, and may we all get a fresh start.
Hopefully some of the honest questions we have asked of the TSA will be answered in a forthright manner.
Take care, and be safe!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 1, 2009 3:25 AM
Perhaps we should start the new year with last years "Top Ten" questions and try to get some honest answers out of TSA.
You know its not gonna happen!
January 1, 2009 9:19 AM
Quote:
"When you are conducting warrantless searches of us, please, when you see something in our belongings that catches your attention, unless that item is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, it's none of your business. If you see a pipe, assume it is free of residue of illegal substances and intended for use with legal substances. If you see some porn, assume that it contains people of legal age. If you see a pet, assume that it is licensed and has had its rabies shots. If you see some cash, assume that it belongs to the person holding it. If you see an digital music player, assume that the person holding it had permission to copy the data it contains onto it. If you see some papers, assume that they are not secret plans for world domination. If you see someone with brown skin, assume that he has a right to be where he is. None of that is any of your business."
Sorry, won't happen. Next rant?
January 1, 2009 12:12 PM
I have to disagree with you Phil. While TSA does plenty I don't feel is appropriate, I can't see asking a federal employee to ignore something that appears illegal. If you don't like the laws, get them changed, don't tell security folks to ignore those laws. For example, I thing the drug war is an insane waste of time and resources. That does NOT mean I think an officer should just wave through a kilo of coke because it isn't a bomb or knife.
January 1, 2009 3:49 PM
As I write this it is Dec 31, and we are still waiting on for answers on the following questions (collected/edited from the blog):
When will the TSA be 100% compliant with the requirements set down in the 9-11 Commission's Report?
I thought they are slowly moving towards that. Remember this stuff costs money!
Why does the TSA consider >$10K cash carried by air on domestic flights contraband? And when will they understand that domestic carriage is different than international carriage? Does the TSA believe that it can create policies that supercede the established CFR's and regulations of other agencies (such as ICE, which is another DHS agency)?
I don't think the TSA thinks it is contraband. I think if you have that much they consider you "suspicous". Is that wrong? I don't think so. An average joe doesn't carry 10k in cash.
When will the TSA actually secure (control access to) checked baggage in the domestic system? This means implementation of systems to limit the ability of both TSA and non-TSA individuals to clandestinely add/remove items from checked baggage.
This is a huge hole in security. There are some things in place I know of like the vetting of working in a secure area but anything more would cost lots of money. This is more than just TSA's problem.
When will the TSA admit that some of the the biggest improvements in aviation security since 9/11 have come not from TSA unfunded mandates, but from the airlines and aircrews themselves?
I think all partners in the airport have a role and all agencies/stakeholders have to work together to get the job done.
When will the TSA have a higher approval rating than the IRS-CED?
There was an article I read not too long ago that I have forgotten what the survey was but TSA was very high if not #1 agency in the public's favor.
When will the TSA lose the 'good ideas not invented here are bad, but bad invented here must be implemented everywhere to be good' attitude?
Good ideas are not to go backward in security because the measures are a hassle. The plan is to move forward!
When will we find out under what CFRs authority the TSA given the ability to modify CFRs without consulting Congress?
TSA can't modify CFR's... let us be more practical than that. TSA can work around them.
When will the TSA explain how a 'trained' TSO, who is supposed to be able to recognize official US identification documents, is allowed to believe that any US passport with a brown cover is 'forged' once completing their 'training'. Is this result the failure of the TSO to learn, the training system to teach, or the TSA to audit their training?
Maybe it wasn't in the training? Maybe TSA leadership has failed the agency in providing good training for all the officers in the field!
January 1, 2009 4:49 PM
This is for Phil...do we also assume that you aren't a terrorist? That kind of assumption could get hundreds or thousands of people killed. The contract screeners who let the terrorists pass through the checkpoint assumed the box cutters used on 9-11 were for cutting boxes. How tragically wrong they were. Whatever you might think our job is you only know your half of it. You only see harassment and pointless searches but you have no idea what we are looking for. Wouldn't you think that some innocent things can be altered to contain items that don't belong in an aircraft? The only way to be sure something is what it appears to be is a physical search. If we don't find anything terrible in your bag...we're glad, no matter what you might think. As for making assumptions that people are innocent on looks alone...we remember Timothy McVey, Ted Kaczynski and the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh. We also get to hear about all the wonderful ways that terrorists used people's natural trust and assumptions against innocent people. Using women, babies, young children, the elderly and the handicapped terrorists have successfully killed and maimed over and over again. We don't get paid to make assumptions or to trust everyone that comes through the checkpoint. That assumption could be a fatal one.
By the way, as soon as you hand over yourself or your property to screening...we don't need a warrant or a cause to search it. Flying is not a right but a privilege. For every privilege you need to give something up. Just like a driver's license, you need to pay for it and then qualify for a driver's license. Same thing goes for flying. Qualify and fly. If you don't want yourself or your property searched, go Greyhound!
If we were to post TSA's rules and regulations...that's just like giving Al-Qaida a free pass through the checkpoint. Maybe Phil could live with the consequences of that but we TSO's (the vast majority of us who WANT passengers to be safe, including Phil) couldn’t.
We aren't doing any of our duties just to make your life difficult. We don't do anything just to be nosy. I really don't want to know why you have a jumbo sized tube of (insert embarassing medical/personal ointment here) but I have to ask why you need the super economy size for a two day trip. There is a reason for everything we do, whether you believe it or not. We're paid to do a job. You don't have to understand everything we're doing or even like it. Meanwhile, you keep doing your job and we'll keep doing ours.
January 1, 2009 7:29 PM
I suggested that when TSA staff are conducting their warrantless searches and they come across something that is 1) clearly not dangerous and 2) sometimes an indication of wrongdoing and sometimes perfectly innocent, they assume that the subject of their search is innocent and continue with their duty of ensuring safety in our transportation systems instead of wasting their time by counting cash, checking pipes for drug residue, verifying the ages of the models in a nudie magazine, checking pets for vaccination records, etc.
In response, someone anonymously wrote:
"[Making assumptions] is the biggest screwup someone can make in security. You should never assume anything, particularly not in this field."
Finding pipes or unlicensed pets is unrelated to security. We pay TSA to enhance the security of our transportation systems, and we trust them with special privileges in order to assist them with their duty. The "road blocks" they erect in our airports and the searches they perform there would not otherwise be allowed. They openly admit that what was intended to be a search for dangerous items is now used to find things that they would not otherwise be allowed to search for.
Bob at TSA says that they do not search for these things, but that if they find some non-dangerous object that looks suspicious -- even if it's just a bunch of money -- they must report their findings to the police. I contend that the TSA luggage inspectors would not even get to the point of thinking something was suspicious without wasting time investigating it. There's no way to know what a pipe has been used for without testing its contents. There's no way to know how much cash is in a bag without counting it. There's no way to know if a pet has been vaccinated without questioning its owner.
"I can't believe you seriously suggest that obviously criminal objects must be overlooked?"
That's a straw man argument. We're not discussing obviously-criminal objects (whatever those would be -- people can be criminal; objects cannot). We're discussing things that usually do not indicate wrongdoing. Specifically: pipes, pornography, pets, cash, digital music players, papers, and people with brown skin. I request that those things be overlooked during a TSA search of someone's belongings -- regardless of the fact that they [i]might be[/i] crack pipes, child pornography, unlicensed or unvaccinated pets, ill-gotten gains, copyright violations, plans for world domination, or undocumented immigrants. It's simply not TSA's duty to investigate the possibility of those things indicating wrongdoing, and their doing so is abuse of the privileges we granted to them.
Even if going from "that thing is sometimes indication of wrongdoing" to "that thing in this case seems to indicate wrongdoing" took none of the luggage inspectors' time, it is not appropriate for them to investigate. Take jewelry, for instance. Does the wearing of jewelry at an airport checkpoint warrant police involvement? What if it appeared to be very expensive jewelry? What if the person wearing the jewelry didn't appear to be able to afford to purchase such jewelry? It's none of the TSA's business unless they think it's a risk to transportation security.
"I suppose if you saw a crack pipe on the ground outside, you could assume it's just trash and not mention it to a police officer."
First of all, I would have no way of knowing that it was a crack pipe. It's just a pipe that someone could smoke anything out of. Second, even if I suspected it was a crack pipe, I would absolutely not bother a police officer with it. I would either leave it alone or toss it in a garbage can and move along.
"You can ask for a list of laws that TSA can hold you to at a checkpoint, but you won't get a full one. Why? State laws."
That's another straw man. I have repeatedly requested that TSA publish a list of all the rules and regulations that they will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint. We can find out about state laws on our own. I'm concerned specifically with the rules and restrictions TSA imposes on us that are specific to their airport checkpoints. I want to know what -- besides simply being in compliance with laws as we do anywhere -- we need to do in order to avoid having our freedom of motion restricted by TSA at their checkpoints.
"Federal screeners are there to stop things from passing through the checkpoints"
We pay them to prevent things like weapons, explosives, and incendiaries from being carried onto airplanes, not things like cash or pipes. We do not pay TSA to stop people from carrying pipes or cash onto airplanes.
"If you have so much of a problem with [TSA's law enforcement efforts], try reading the the list of things you are prohibited from bringing through a checkpoint. That should keep you from being stopped unnecessarily, in most cases."
That's not good enough. I don't want to ensure that I am in compliance with most TSA rules and regulations, I want to ensure that I am in compliance with all of them. TSA flatly refuses to allow us to ensure that we comply by their rules and regulations, then punishes us if we are found not to be in compliance. It's ridiculous that I even have to argue that this is a very bad situation. We are, in effect, subject to secret laws. That is not supposed to happen in the United States.
If you have so much of a problem with the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, maybe you would be happier living in a nation which does not offer such protections.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 1, 2009 8:02 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"I have to disagree with you Phil. While TSA does plenty I don't feel is appropriate, I can't see asking a federal employee to ignore something that appears illegal."
I don't think I've suggested anything of the sort. Could you elaborate?
Regardless, consider this hypothetical situation: A TSA bag checker at an airport checkpoint looks out the window to see someone parking illegally or jaywalking. Should he or she stop what she is doing and notify the police? If you think not, then you believe that a federal employee -- a TSA employee, in fact -- should ignore something that appears to be illegal.
In the comments for the "TSA on 60 Minutes" and "Blogger Roundtable at TSA HQ with Secretary Chertoff" posts, Bob at TSA wrote and repeated (note: you must browse to the post pages first in order to browse to his comments) that TSA COO Jonathan J. Fleming issued a directive (OD-400-54-2: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process, May 9, 2005) for TSA staff to consider large amounts of cash to be contraband and to contact law enforcement "as appropriate" when such contraband is discovered during a search at airport checkpoints.
TSA's practices endanger our freedom. They regularly use fear to coerce us into allowing their unconstitutional actions.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 1, 2009 8:32 PM
Someone claiming to work for TSA anonymously wrote:
"do we also assume that you aren't a terrorist?"
If by "terrorist" you mean, "someone attempting to take dangerous items onto an airplane" then no, don't assume that. The main reason your job exists is to make sure people don't take dangerous items onto airplanes.
But how do you define terrorist?
Quoting John Gilmore's "Gilmore v. Ashcroft -- FAA ID challenge FAQ":
"Who is a terrorist? Any IRA member from the last twenty years? A member of the Irgun (led by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin)? Nelson Mandela, imprisoned for sabotage for 27 years by the South African government? A WTO protester? The US Government killed more Afghani civilians in the last year [mid-2001 through mid-2002] than the number of US people killed on 9/11; does that make US soldiers terrorists? Israel and Palestine both claim that the other is terrorist. So do India and Pakistan. So do leftists and rightists in Colombia.
"Ultimately the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is a political one. Our freedom to travel should not depend on a politician's decision about whether they agree with our aims or not. Every "anti-terrorist" measure restricts people based on their politics, not just based on whether they use violence. Violence was already illegal.
"In other words, any list of "terrorists" will inevitably contain many individuals that have never committed a terrorist act, and not contain many individuals that have actually committed a terrorist act."
You should focus less on terrorists and more on transportation security.
"The contract screeners who let the terrorists pass through the checkpoint assumed the box cutters used on 9-11 were for cutting boxes. How tragically wrong they were."
Are you really comparing razor blades to cash, crack pipes, and stolen credit cards?
And don't you think that if those screeners had disallowed the box cutters, a butter knife or piece of broken glass could have been used instead?
"Wouldn't you think that some innocent things can be altered to contain items that don't belong in an aircraft?"
Of course.
"The only way to be sure something is what it appears to be is a physical search."
I'm not arguing against searching bags for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.
"As for making assumptions that people are innocent on looks alone..."
That's the way it works in the United States. If you think people should be considered guilty until proven innocent, you might be happier living elsewhere. I prefer the American system.
"We don't get paid to make assumptions or to trust everyone that comes through the checkpoint."
Right. You get paid mainly to keep dangerous items off airplanes. You're not paid to find undocumented immigrants, identity thieves, and pipes that might be used to smoke crack, but that's all you report having found.
"That assumption could be a fatal one."
I guess. You never know when someone is going to climb on a plane and set $10,000 on fire.
"By the way, as soon as you hand over yourself or your property to screening...we don't need a warrant or a cause to search it."
Agreed.
"Flying is not a right but a privilege."
Not being hassled by my government unless it has good reason to believe I have done something wrong is my right as an American. Contracting with a business to transport me via airplane is not a privilege, it's just a business transaction.
"For every privilege you need to give something up. Just like a driver's license, you need to pay for it and then qualify for a driver's license. Same thing goes for flying."
That's a very bad comparison. I don't need a license to ride in a plane as a passenger any more than I need a license to ride in a car as a passenger. If I want to pilot an airplane, then I need a license. If you plan to operate heavy machinery like an automobile or airplane in our shared space, we need to ensure that you are qualified to do so safely. It has nothing to do with giving anything up.
"If you don't want yourself or your property searched, go Greyhound!"
When TSA starts searching people at bus stations, will you suggest that I walk?
If I have a job or family to take care of and I want to exercise my right to petition the government for redress of grievances, traveling via bus is not feasible.
"If we were to post TSA's rules and regulations...that's just like giving Al-Qaida a free pass through the checkpoint."
Please explain. I have no idea how those two are even similar.
"Maybe Phil could live with the consequences of [letting people know what rules we require them to follow] but we TSO's (the vast majority of us who WANT passengers to be safe, including Phil) couldn’t."
Again, please explain.
"I really don't want to know why you have a jumbo sized tube of (insert embarassing medical/personal ointment here) but I have to ask why you need the super economy size for a two day trip."
No, you don't. It's none of your business what I have or why as long as it is not likely to pose a threat to our transportation system.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 2, 2009 1:03 AM
This is a pretty funny blog, once you get to reading the comments. :) In response to what Phil said about items peaking your interest at searches, here's a funny story... My sister recently took her family to Mexico for a vacation. We do that lot for work, since it's a tax write off in our Christian Home Based Business. Anyway, she gets to security and was VERY careful to read all policies at the tsa website prior to their little excursion. Now, she has a 10 month old baby and had to bring pre-packaged, sealed baby formula for the trip. Her little one has allergies, so she can't have just ANY formula. Well, even though the tsa website guidelines say baby formula has the okay, ALL of the baby formula was CONFISCATED!!! How ridiculous is that?! All passports showed that this was, in fact, a family with a real, biological baby, not some made up plot to get weaponized baby formula onto a flight bound for Mexico. So, you can see why this article (blog or whatever), caught my attention. Fun story, huh? Not if you're the mom now facing a long flight with four children, one who now has no formula and no means of communication except to bawl. TSA is a little drunk with "policy-love", in my opinion.
January 2, 2009 1:47 AM
Anonymous said...
This is for Phil...(snip)
Whatever you might think our job is you only know your half of it. You only see harassment and pointless searches but you have no idea what we are looking for. Wouldn't you think that some innocent things can be altered to contain items that don't belong in an aircraft? (snip)
By the way, as soon as you hand over yourself or your property to screening...we don't need a warrant or a cause to search it. Flying is not a right but a privilege. For every privilege you need to give something up. Just like a driver's license, you need to pay for it and then qualify for a driver's license. Same thing goes for flying. Qualify and fly. If you don't want yourself or your property searched, go Greyhound!
If we were to post TSA's rules and regulations...that's just like giving Al-Qaida a free pass through the checkpoint. Maybe Phil could live with the consequences of that but we TSO's (the vast majority of us who WANT passengers to be safe, including Phil) couldn’t.
We aren't doing any of our duties just to make your life difficult. We don't do anything just to be nosy. (snip)
January 1, 2009 7:29 PM
Of course if your agency had the sense to tell us, then maybe we wouldn't carry around the innocent item. Or perhaps our CongressCritters would see the absurdity of some of your procedures and tell you to "knock it off."
So, do you plan to ban carrying ball point pens and sharp pencils . . . they make great shivs. Or shoelaces and belts . . . garrots you know.
Greyhound?? If you are serious with that, care to suggest a non TSA intrusive method to get to Hawaii or Alaska?
How the bleep can anyone conform to an unknown rule? And if "terrorists" conformed to the requirements of what was not permitted as carry-on, how would that hurt?
If you aren't nosy, then why do you ask me why I wear orthopedic shoes before you send me to the penalty box for a wipe and swipe? Whenever I tell a TSA person at the WTMD the medical reason, his or her eyes glaze over with a look of confusion.
January 2, 2009 1:58 AM
"There was an article I read not too long ago that I have forgotten what the survey was but TSA was very high if not #1 agency in the public's favor."
Oh PLEASE, please, give us a link to that article.
January 2, 2009 6:55 AM
I have just returned from a flight to Reagan and back, and the subject of the evolution of security seems like a good one.
Recently TSA upgraded their TSOs into wannabe cop uniforms so that they would feel more important. These uniforms came with REAL metal badges.
As I was waiting in line at the screening checkpoint I happened to catch the change of shifts and noticed that each of the oncoming TSOs set off the metal detector as they went through, but all of the TSOs on duty let them pass without any further screening.
Phil talked about assumptions and then someone (TSO) using an anonymous tag explained to him the "new nature of security".
Looks like their new security comes with some built in assumptions for them, but none for us.
January 2, 2009 7:38 AM
I am pretty sure that terrorists know your procedures. Not much is secret.
January 2, 2009 9:50 AM
Anonymous writes (regarding the $10K regulation):
I don't think the TSA thinks it is contraband. I think if you have that much they consider you "suspicous". Is that wrong? I don't think so. An average joe doesn't carry 10k in cash.
First, Blogger Bob has already posted the regulation which uses the word "contraband" to refer to currency in excess of $10K.
Second ... so what if an average Joe doesn't carry $10K in cash? "Unusual" is not the same as "suspicious". We shouldn't start persecuting people because they don't conform to some standard of "normality".
[Aside: This is exactly the kind of mentality that leads to ridiculous travel situations. Case in point: Have you ever wondered whether it's safer to sit in an airplane near the front, back, or wing, in the case of an emergency situation? Well, don't talk about it while you're on a plane ... because someone might overreact and have you kicked off the plane. Especially if you look Muslim (whatever that means).]
Another anonymous writes:
If we were to post TSA's rules and regulations...that's just like giving Al-Qaida a free pass through the checkpoint. Maybe Phil could live with the consequences of that but we TSO's (the vast majority of us who WANT passengers to be safe, including Phil) couldn’t.
If your procedures depend upon their secrecy to be effective, then they're pretty weak. Cryptographers call this Kerckhoffs' Principle: a cryptographic system should be designed to be secure, even when the opponent knows everything about your system.
Plus, how can I be expected to comply with a secret law? This is fundamentally anti-democratic, as the first Congress recognized, when it required that every "law, order, resolution, and vote (shall) be published in at least three of the public newspapers printing within the United States.".
Third, TSA keeps calling on passengers to know the rules regarding travel. How can TSA say "know the rules" on the one hand and "we won't tell you the rules" on the other?
TSA says that it wants to treat passengers as "partners" during the screening process. If you want passengers to be partners, then you need to treat them accordingly.
January 2, 2009 10:54 AM
If we were to post TSA's rules and regulations...that's just like giving Al-Qaida a free pass through the checkpoint. Maybe Phil could live with the consequences of that but we TSO's (the vast majority of us who WANT passengers to be safe, including Phil) couldn’t.
Sorry, but the bad guys know your SOP better than you do. They also do risk management when planning attacks. Your security theater misses much of what is truly contraband and you do very little, besides intimidation of the Kettles, there is virtually no security.
We aren't doing any of our duties just to make your life difficult. We don't do anything just to be nosy. I really don't want to know why you have a jumbo sized tube of (insert embarassing medical/personal ointment here) but I have to ask why you need the super economy size for a two day trip. There is a reason for everything we do, whether you believe it or not. We're paid to do a job. You don't have to understand everything we're doing or even like it. Meanwhile, you keep doing your job and we'll keep doing ours.
No, but when you shake down a person who just had a nephrectomy and want to remove the translucent dressing because a hand wand detected staples (which you could see under the dressing), you show yourselves to be thoughtless. We refuse to buy your line of 'we are protecting America' because you routinely trample the rights of American citizens.
January 2, 2009 11:01 AM
"If you have so much of a problem with that, try reading the the list of things you are prohibited from bringing through a checkpoint."
Where oh where does suchy a list exist? The domestic terrorists at TSA refuse to publish one.
January 2, 2009 11:57 AM
"We do that lot for work, since it's a tax write off in our Christian Home Based Business."
Advertising on the TSA blog, now, eh?
January 2, 2009 1:40 PM
"There was an article I read not too long ago that I have forgotten what the survey was but TSA was very high if not #1 agency in the public's favor."
"Oh PLEASE, please, give us a link to that article."
I'm willing to bet the poster meant some survey that came out recently that gave the TSA high marks for keeping air travel safe.
However, there was no mention of who was surveyed: frequent flyers, occasional flyers, once-a-year flyers or perhaps people who have not been on a plane ever or even in the last few years, thereby making the results pretty much worthless.
January 2, 2009 1:40 PM
Another TSAer trying to remain Anonymous said...
The contract screeners who let the terrorists pass through the checkpoint assumed the box cutters used on 9-11 were for cutting boxes. How tragically wrong they were.
*******************************
The contract screeners you reference followed their screening SOP at the time. I would point out that your current screening SOP allow far bigger blades, in the form of scissors, to pass unimpeeded thru checkpoints all over the country right now.
Those who turned out to be 'tragically wrong' that day were the pilots of the 4 planes who, in following their company policies at the time, opened the doors to their respective flight decks & cooperated w/the hijackers.
January 2, 2009 1:48 PM
Annie B said...
A bunch of stuff to get two web links to her Christian Based Business's web site onto this blog.
Annie, did your story really happen?
Or are you just talking trash to get your links on this site?
From the blogger's buddy: Mr. McSpammy Spam.
Happy New Year!
January 2, 2009 2:02 PM
http://www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/documents/InthePublicWeTrustNov24.pdf
Here is the link to the survey that I read. It does give some specifics and is mainly geared to the public rating of government. One of the results of the poll was security at the nation's airports.
-James
January 2, 2009 3:24 PM
"The contract screeners you reference followed their screening SOP at the time."
I'll go you one better than that. The FAA set the rules for screening at that time the same as the TSA does today. Their rules allowed the box cutters in carry ons.
The only thing that has changed between now and then is the 3 letters they use to describe the agency pulling the strings.
The feds did not take the blame over the last incident they handed that off to the screeners even though the Feds told the screeners what was allowed.
The new rules are written so that they can blame the Airports or the Airlines even though the screeners are now Feds.
I'm guessing after the next incident they will convince the people to allow them to take over the airports too.
January 2, 2009 3:29 PM
Bob, how many contracts have been awarded to S2 Global by DHS/TSA?
January 2, 2009 3:55 PM
This concerns the recent detention of Muslim passengers on an AirTran flight to Orlando.
Nine passengers traveling together were detained, questioned, and refused flight by AirTran when one of them questioned where on the plane would be the safest place to be seated in the event of an accident or an emergency. These comments were overheard by other passengers and reported to the airline, which decided to deboard the plane, re-screen the passengers and luggage, detain the nine passengers, and refuse to transport them to their destination.
The reported comments of the TSA about the decision to delay the flight and refuse to board the passengers in question are what concern me. As reported by the Washington Post:
"Ellen Howe, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, said the pilot acted appropriately.
"For us, it just highlights that security is everybody's responsibility," Howe said. "Someone heard something that was inappropriate, and then the airline decided to act on it. We certainly support [the pilot's] his call to do that."
As it turns out, however, the Muslim passenger comments were not inappropriate, but merely innocuous and misconstrued by other passengers. To its credit, AirTran has apologized to the nine Muslim passengers and has offered them a free return flight and compensation for the cost of their flight to Orlando, incurred when AirTran refused to board them.
For the TSA spokesperson to call the comments "inappropriate" suggests that any comment that calls into question the safety of airline travel is also inappropriate. Instead of hiding behind the "security is everybody's responsibility" mantra, the TSA should join in AirTran's apology and use this incident as a vehicle to encourage people to use their heads before reporting innocuous conversation as potentially threatening.
January 2, 2009 5:04 PM
Anonymous said... Advertising on the TSA blog, now, eh? January 2, 2009 1:40 PM
----------------------------
Sometimes there is a fine line between spam and a genuine post. I made the call to post it. Sure, she hyperlinks to her business, but to me, the post seemed genuine and not typical of a normal spam sandwich. Spam on our blog is usually a single sentence with a very vague often pro TSA comment. Maybe she got one past me? Maybe she didn’t? :)
Bob
EoS Blog Team
January 2, 2009 5:12 PM
So when will the TSA accept HSPD-12 compliant government ID's as acceptable ID? They include computer readable information so there is no reason they can't be checked and verified.
If I have to get fingerprinted, FBI investigated, interviewed, supply medical records and credit history, why can't I use that same ID to board a plane when I can use it to walk into the West Wing of the White House?
I am not a DOD employee, but will DOD ID become acceptable like military ID given that the cards are the same and come from the same machine?
Are there any cost benefit analysis reports prepared by the TSA and available for public review?
Can you publish any responses to IG reports? My own agency publishes these for public consumption.
What steps are being taken to reduce the number of items the red teams are able to get past security?
Considering the fairly high failure rate for screening, is it best to have the TSA's resources spent on areas outside its core competency? What cost benefit analysis has been preformed?
Can you provide more articles/guest analysis on various case law appropriate to air travel? Can you do so in an accessible form for the average blog reader?
Can you do a blog on what SSI is along with its history to better educate the average reader?
Can you do a blog on secure flight and its recent implementation? Can you discuss the steps one has to go through?
January 2, 2009 6:16 PM
"Sometimes there is a fine line between spam and a genuine post."
!!! To who?
"We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly off topic or that promote services or products."
It clearly promotes their services.
You have no idea if that post is real or just total BS to get that link here.
I would really hate to think you let it through because it promotes a Christian business.
January 2, 2009 6:37 PM
Jim Huggins said:
I sense a general frustration with some here on the blog who participate faithfully ... not just the usual sorts of "go away" posters, but the people who wonder if the truly constructive criticisms here on the blog actually are being used to make improvements at TSA.
Amen to that. I can remember some interesting and highly constructive suggestions being made. I can also remember the TSA lamenting the volume of complaints and the alleged dearth of constructive suggestions. This was despite many constructive suggestions being offered, and all the TSA had to do was read them.
It is also ironic to visit www.tsafaq.net, see the list of questions, and also see the proportion of questions that actually have answers.
Here's my recollection of memorable suggestions made, and the TSA's response or non-response, in no particular order:
Baggage screeners put the location, date, time, and their badge number on the "love note" they leave after searching the bag.
TSA's response -- that would make the screener the prime suspect if anything came up missing.
My comment -- if I'm flying with my luggage either unlocked or with those farcical TSA approved locks, and someone introduces a prohibited item after the bag has left my control, who is the prime suspect there? I'll give you one guess....
Funny that I am accountable for the content of my luggage, even though it is out of my control and in an insecure environment for most of the journey. However, the TSA is not accountable for the security of my belongings. Talk about having it both ways! The suggestion to strap the bags after security checks was immediately dismissed as too costly.
Use secret shoppers to proactively evaluate the interpersonal skills of TSA personnel.
TSA response -- "Got Feedback" is introduced.
My comment -- Got Feedback puts the burden of identifying problem areas on the shoulders of the flying public, instead of having the TSA police itself. If the TSA established and enforced standards of conduct from within, they'd get fewer complaints from without.
Put as much emphasis on interpersonal skills as on detecting prohibited items in both training and in ongoing evaluation of checkpoint performance.
STOP THE YELLING. Oops, excuse me, stop the yelling. Also, stop barking orders and give instructions in a normal manner.
TSA response -- Checkpoint Evolution is supposed to produce a "calmer" checkpoint. Screeners are supposed to be retrained in interpersonal skills.
My comment -- training is fine, but what about accountability? As mentioned earlier, what are the standards of behavior for checkpoint personnel?
Create operational definitions of "liquids, gels, or aerosols", include examples of commonly misunderstood items, and put this in the public area of the TSA website.
TSA response -- no agency level response that I recall. Individual TSA employees offered various guidelines, but could not or would not supply links to publicly accessible information. I just checked the web site, and I find no definition of the catchphrase "liquids, gels, or aerosols". This still leaves a gray area around lip balm, cosmetics, etc.
What is being done about "local embellishments" to the rules, which increase hassle for the traveler, for no apparent security benefit? Examples from this blog include the requirement that one's 3-1-1 bottles be "labeled", "have a factory label", or "have to be translucent". Another example is that the 3-1-1 bag itself cannot have an actual zipper.
TSA response -- the official rules are the minimum, and the local FSD can implement more stringent requirements if desired.
My comment -- under this scenario every airport can end up with its one rules. The traveler can be fine at one airport, have a layover, and no longer be in compliance with the "rules". Where is the oversight to ensure that these local embellishments truly improve security and don't deteriorate into a succession of bureaucratic "gotchas" that create hassle and do nothing to improve security?
Hold checkpoint personnel accountable for their knowledge and correct application of the rules
TSA response -- none that I recall.
My comment -- like interpersonal skills, accountability focuses on prohibited items, leading to situations like Mr Gel Pack's, and Annie B's on January 2, 2009 1:47 AM. Who bears the pain and consequences of the TSA's mistakes? Not the TSA...
Summing up...
Has some progress been made? No doubt. Is there a long way to go? Are there a lot of issues that still need to be addressed? Absolutely.
Though we do hear occasionally about plans to address certain issues (the future of 3-1-1 and inline baggage screening come to mind), these represent a minority of the issues that have been surfaced on this blog.
January 2, 2009 7:09 PM
Normally I don't like to quote long posts but there is so much "goodness" in this one. My answers inline.
Anonymous said...
This is for Phil...do we also assume that you aren't a terrorist? That kind of assumption could get hundreds or thousands of people killed. The contract screeners who let the terrorists pass through the checkpoint assumed the box cutters used on 9-11 were for cutting boxes. How tragically wrong they were.
STOP! Box cutters were not the problem on 9/11, the hijackers could have done the same thing with pens, scissors, galley knifes or the claim of a bomb.
The problem on 9/11 was the manner hijackers were dealt with at that time. Before 9/11 a hijacker scenario went like this; obey the hijacker, fly to some crappy country, drop the hijackers off, refuel and come back home. In most cases you may lose a couple of passengers or crew but you "saved" the rest.
The 9/11 hijackers changed that dynamic. They used the planes as weapons. If you think that box cutters and professional contract screeners were the problem you are either stupid or woefully ignorant.
Whatever you might think our job is you only know your half of it.
If the stellar answers provided on this blog by those claiming to be TSOs are any indication, most TSOs only know half their job too
You only see harassment and pointless searches but you have no idea what we are looking for. Wouldn't you think that some innocent things can be altered to contain items that don't belong in an aircraft? The only way to be sure something is what it appears to be is a physical search.
A physical search is a lousy way to make sure something is what it seems on a large volume basis. That is why the TSA spends all that money on x-ray, mmw, dogs and other technology.
If we don't find anything terrible in your bag...we're glad, no matter what you might think.
As for making assumptions that people are innocent on looks alone...we remember Timothy McVey, Ted Kaczynski and the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh. We also get to hear about all the wonderful ways that terrorists used people's natural trust and assumptions against innocent people. Using women, babies, young children, the elderly and the handicapped terrorists have successfully killed and maimed over and over again.
You may want to double check this glass of Koolaid. The use of the elderly, handicap, children and women is still so rare that when it happens it is a "shock" story.
We don't get paid to make assumptions or to trust everyone that comes through the checkpoint. That assumption could be a fatal one.
You get paid to search and inspect for weapons, incendiaries and weapons. That is it. You do not get paid to illegally force ID verification, and you don't get paid to refer me to a LEO for carrying cash.
By the way, as soon as you hand over yourself or your property to screening...we don't need a warrant or a cause to search it.
Flying is not a right but a privilege. For every privilege you need to give something up. Just like a driver's license, you need to pay for it and then qualify for a driver's license. Same thing goes for flying. Qualify and fly.
First, I am not wanting to PILOT the craft, I just want to ride. No special skills needed. Second, riding in an airplane or riding in a car is not a privilege but the right to freely travel.
This right goes back to even before the Constitution in a document called The Articles of Confederation. In fact it was such an inalienable and enduring right the framers of the Constitution did not even bother to put it in. It was understood then and the Courts still understand it today.
Pay attention because you must have missed this part of training.
You are only allowed to search because up to this point the courts have decided that the search is reasonable.
That is it, that is the whole reason the TSA is allowed to search for weapons, explosives and incendiaries. (4th Amendment)
If you don't want yourself or your property searched, go Greyhound!
TSA has authority over all modes of transportation so going Greyhound is not a viable way to avoid the illegal or unconstitutional acts of the TSA.
If we were to post TSA's rules and regulations...that's just like giving Al-Qaida a free pass through the checkpoint.
Are you trolling or are you really this ignorant?
In order for passengers to comply with the rules and regulations we have to know what they are. The honest truth is the TSA does not want people to know the rules because when a person knows a TSO is in error they will challenge them on that error.
Maybe Phil could live with the consequences of that but we TSO's (the vast majority of us who WANT passengers to be safe, including Phil) couldn’t.
Hog wash. If that was the case the TSA would control its ego and stick to its mandated statutory duty and confine its search to weapons, explosives and incendiaries.
We aren't doing any of our duties just to make your life difficult. We don't do anything just to be nosy. I really don't want to know why you have a jumbo sized tube of (insert embarassing medical/personal ointment here) but I have to ask why you need the super economy size for a two day trip.
Unless you have a medical license please don't practice medicine. That IS a privilege, not a right.
There is a reason for everything we do, whether you believe it or not. We're paid to do a job. You don't have to understand everything we're doing or even like it. Meanwhile, you keep doing your job and we'll keep doing ours.
Thanks, will do. My job as a citizen is to protect the Constitution and my country.
January 2, 2009 8:27 PM
Anonymous said...
"There was an article I read not too long ago that I have forgotten what the survey was but TSA was very high if not #1 agency in the public's favor."
Oh PLEASE, please, give us a link to that article.
Poll: 70% applaud air-security effort
Be sure to read the article carefully.
January 2, 2009 10:36 PM
MarkVII: under this scenario every airport can end up with its one rules. The traveler can be fine at one airport, have a layover, and no longer be in compliance with the "rules". Where is the oversight to ensure that these local embellishments truly improve security and don't deteriorate into a succession of bureaucratic "gotchas" that create hassle and do nothing to improve security?
Kip himself has answered that one: What looks to you, the ignorant and ungrateful passenger, like "bureaucratic gotchas" is actually Unpredictability, which is the vital cornerstone of the TSA's Security Strategy. As a highly effective Security Strategy, Unpredictability greatly complicates terrorist planning, and keeps terrorists constantly off balance. Unpredictability is what enables the TSA to always stay one step ahead of a dangerous enemy that is trying to kill Americans. What looks like incomprehensible inconsistency is actually a carefully coordinated Security Strategy that greatly enhances the effectiveness and protection of airport screening.
What you ignorantly call "local embellishments" are actually an additional Layer of the TSA Security Strategy that enhances the proven effectiveness of Unpredictability. Airport station managers are constantly receiving the latest robust intelligence from headquarters. That lets them continually adjust the rules and procedures to meet the latest threats from dangerous enemies who are trying to kill Americans. That makes the TSA's strong protection even more effective!
Admittedly, Unpredictability and the continual adjustments based on the latest robust intelligence may create unavoidable complications for passengers. So occasionally a TSO may determine that an item is prohibited today, even though it's officially listed as permitted or has flown many times before. That may seem arbitrary and incomprehensible, but it's important to remember that there's always a good reason for everything the TSA does. Keep in mind that the TSO is always responding to the latest robust intelligence, which may justify temporary or permanent local additions to what is prohibited at that time. The reason behind it has to be classified, but it's sufficient for passengers to know that whatever local restrictions you might encounter are absolutely necessary. Remember that the TSA isn't trying to hassle passengers, but to protect the Homeland from dangerous enemies who are trying to kill Americans.
The best advice is to follow the published guidelines to the best of your ability, but be prepared for enhancements in response to current threats that may be in effect at the checkpoint. No, you can't know or predict what rules and procedures are in effect at the moment you present yourself for screening; that's what helps the TSA keep aviation safe! But you can fully control how you react to unexpected changes! You can become upset, complain, and otherwise waste the time and increase the stress levels of yourself, the TSOs, and all the passengers in line behind you. Or you can take a deep breath, think of 9/11, and remember why the TSA is working so hard to protect aviation. Then then graciously and gratefully comply with the TSO's request, knowing that it's entirely necessary to protect yourself and your fellow passengers from a dangerous enemy who is trying to kill Americans. Understanding and gratitude rather than petty selfish grumbling will make the screening process more pleasant for everyone, and more effective too! It's all up to you!
January 3, 2009 12:50 AM
Ponter,
You are hilarious! They must have missed the sarcastic tone of your post since you aren't another number on the delete-o-meter(where most of my posts end up).
Well said!
January 3, 2009 4:57 AM
curious about policy said:
So when will the TSA accept HSPD-12 compliant government ID's as acceptable ID?
I am not a DOD employee, but will DOD ID become acceptable like military ID given that the cards are the same and come from the same machine?
Referring to this, right? And the others like it used by just about any branch of the government these days?
...About six weeks ago or so, actually, give or take a couple. I know, I suck; I forgot to mention it. All the people flying out of HSV from Redstone Arsenal rejoice, though.
They're perfectly acceptable as sole and primary form of ID now. As with almost anything new that changes policy with the TSA, though, expect a drag period for full compliance ;) I'm told there are still airports out there who think cigarette lighters (like the throwaway Bic version) are prohibited.
curious about policy also wrote:
Can you do a blog on what SSI is along with its history to better educate the average reader?
Not a terrible idea, but if you want to know that badly, and right now, everyone's favorite security expert, Bruce Schneier, actually did a brief write-up about it himself. He did a pretty good job about it, too,
You can read it here. The page also has some directing links for more information.
January 3, 2009 9:11 AM
http://www.aero-news.net/news/featurestories.cfm?ContentBlockID=9fcc2a89-5dc4-49f7-8408-b4f947a66447&Dynamic=1
........................
ANN's 'Heroes 'n Heartbreakers' '08--Heartbreaker #3: TSA's Rank Amateurism
..........................
For your reading pleasure.
Dead on to how many in the public feel about TSA and it's employees.
January 3, 2009 10:21 AM
Ponter writes:
That may seem arbitrary and incomprehensible, but it's important to remember that there's always a good reason for everything the TSA does.
Tell that to Mr. Gel-Pack, who had to throw away his wife's breast milk when a TSO would not permit him to carry aboard ice packs to preserve that milk, even though TSA policy expressly permits such items.
Tell that to the fellow who was forced to surrender his homemade DVD-player battery pack, even after the TSO examining the item determined that it wasn't a threat to aviation.
Tell that to the fellow who had to surrender his prescription medication because they were in unlabeled bottles, even though TSA does not require that prescriptions be labeled as such.
There may be a good reason for everything that TSA does (which is debatable). The problem is, there may not be a good reason for everything that TSA employees do.
Because TSA will not publish its rules, and explicitly states that TSOs can prohibit any item at will, TSOs are unaccountable ... even when they are wrong.
And as such, all TSA employees get painted with the same brush. The general public can't tell the difference between a TSO who is acting on verifiable intelligence, and the rogue TSO who is acting in violation of TSA policies and procedures.
I have small children. "Because I said so" is not a satisfying answer to them. I fail to see why it should be a satisfying answer to any passenger questioning the actions of a TSO.
January 3, 2009 10:23 AM
Concerning the post by kdt at January 2, 2009 5:04 PM in regards to the AirTran incident.
This shows us just how effective the government can instill unfounded fear into people.
I wonder would the same procedures be followed and praised if the people turned in were not muslim ?
It truly is a sad day in America, when we have a government "spokesperson" praising racism, and the infringement of free speech conducted within the scope of private conversation.
The people that should be questioned are the ones that wrongly overheard the conversation, over-reacted, and falsely turned over that information.
Shame on the TSA, shame on AirTrans, shame on the pilots, shame on the other pasengers who did not stand up for the rights of the accused.
The next question. If these passengers were a threat, why did TSA miss catching them at the checkpoint, or with the BDO's that are claimed to be able to spot a terrorist?
January 3, 2009 10:26 AM
CarrotTop TSO, what's sarcastic about my comment? I'm merely repeating exactly what Kip and other TSA officials have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, mainly to spare them the time and effort of repeating it again. If it seems hilarious to you, it's the TSA officials' fault rather than mine. I call 'em as I see 'em.
January 3, 2009 3:18 PM
Carrot Top TSO said...
Ponter,
You are hilarious! They must have missed the sarcastic tone of your post since you aren't another number on the delete-o-meter(where most of my posts end up).
Well said!
I am glad you pointed that out. I must admit the sarcasm was lost on me at first. When read with the proper tone that is a laugh riot.
Blogger Bob, you should hire that guy. Speaking of the hired help, where is Poster Boy? I see he is still listed as a blogger.
I bet you sent him on a wild goose chase. Did you tell him to hunt up the legal justification for the forced ID verification? Is that the TSA's version of snipe hunt? You are a evil one Blogger Bob. ;-)
January 3, 2009 3:19 PM
An "anonymous" said: "Think about it! If you had a choice to fly on a plane where no body (sic) was screened or fly on a plane where everyone was screened, which one would you choose?"
The aircraft on which I would prefer to fly would have the following posted at the aircraft door:
"If you are an active or retired law enforcement officer, an active or retired member of the armed forces, an airline employee, or have a concealed carry permit, please feel free to carry your loaded weapon on this aircraft. Have a nice flight."
January 3, 2009 10:57 PM
Phil said:but when anything else catches your eye and turns out not to be a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, go back to doing your job. Please.
I understand that we are "security" and to you that means "solely" security, but we ARE trained and told to report items "when found" not "looked for" such as drugs, child porn or anything else that may raise suspicion. So that IS our job whether you like it or not. Yes, our primary job is security, but we DO have other things that coincide with that. I want to know who you think YOU are to tell us what you think our job should be. I don't come to McDonalds and tell you how to flip your burgers!!!!
If you see a pipe, assume it is free of residue of illegal substances and intended for use with legal substances.
Again, this goes with the "if found" it must be reported. Sorry.
If you see some porn, assume that it contains people of legal age.
Again, if it is child porn, it must be reported. If it is regular porn, I don't give a crap and neither does anyone else.
If you see a pet, assume that it is licensed and has had its rabies shots.If you see an digital music player, assume that the person holding it had permission to copy the data it contains onto it. If you see some papers, assume that they are not secret plans for world domination.
Where in the world did you come up with these? I never have heard this before. Did any of them happen to you or do you like to be a drama queen?
If you see some cash, assume that it belongs to the person holding it.
Again, only huge amounts equaling over $10,000 "when found" is reported and looked into and if not traveling over borders or is declared by customs, you are free to go.
If you see someone with brown skin, assume that he has a right to be where he is. None of that is any of your business.
You need to QUIT assuming that we are racist b/c we are NOT and I will not keep defending myself on this point. You people take things WAY out of context about TSA and I have never encountered one person I work with to have this "papers please" mentality that you all "claim" we have. I'm not saying that those bad apples don't exist, but we are not all like that. We are people just like you trying to do our job despite all the disgruntled passengers we encounter (several 1000's each day I might add)<---you'd get frustrated from time to time too. Doesn't make us bad people.
Get it out of your head that we are nazi soldiers under Hitlers command b/c that is so way off base.
SDF TSO
January 4, 2009 2:49 PM
Brilliant.. Just brilliant. Why doesn't the TSA just change their slogan to 'TSA - We do security right'. For justification of this change, the 'Friday Funny' picture speaks for itself.
How many 'gonna get a super special secondary screening for that' items can you spot?
-Boots on instead of going through the machine.
-Belt on.
-Hat.
-No verfiable identification.
-Wearing a bulky coat through the checkpoint without removing it.
Absolutely priceless. My boundless faith in the TSA has been restored.
January 4, 2009 3:31 PM
Jim Huggins said: but the people who wonder if the truly constructive criticisms here on the blog actually are being used to make improvements at TSA.
I will tell you a couple things that I have seen that have been improved.
1. Got feedback program. Allows you to contact whatever airport you had an incident. I've heard not quite effective yet, but its fairly new so it's not gonna be perfect. But step in right direction.
2. Putting date, time and airport stamped notice of inspection cards in checked luggage. This was suggested by bloggers and is now in action. I think they are still working on stamping TSO's identity on there somehow, but again, its a step in right direction.
I apologize, I had more to write but got busy here (in the checked bag room) so I will share more later on what I think are all steps in the right direction. We do try to use suggestions, but not all are worth looking into and the others do take time, they dont happen overnite.
SDF TSO
January 4, 2009 3:34 PM
Wow, I was reading through this, my New Years resolution, and felt the need to reply.
Phil, you bring up a lot of valid arguments. As with any agency, government or otherwise, you have many people doing the same job in many different ways. That is the unfortunate part of having humans doing the job instead of robots. In many cases it is the best thing about it as well. You will always have 'over achievers', you will always have airports that are 'behind the curve'. We all wish it weren't so because we have had to deal with the aftermath.
Some of the rules are not our responsibility to enforce, however if in the course of doing our job we find items that may be prohibited by FAA, DEA, FBI, State or local ordinances we are required to notify our supervisor who in turn notifies the local law enforcement agency.
As for what items you can and can't carry, well sometimes there are no hard and fast rules, in an effort to allow you to take your jumbo bottle of medical cream there are some exceptions. Unfortunately every time you have an exception guess what, you have room for interpretation which leads to differences in opinions, which leads to inconsistancies, which leads to frustrations. It was much easier when you were not allowed to carry liquids....period, but was it fair?
The other entry that caught my eye.
Baggage screeners put the location, date, time, and their badge number on the "love note" they leave after searching the bag.
TSA's response -- that would make the screener the prime suspect if anything came up missing.
My comment -- if I'm flying with my luggage either unlocked or with those farcical TSA approved locks, and someone introduces a prohibited item after the bag has left my control, who is the prime suspect there? I'll give you one guess....
Funny that I am accountable for the content of my luggage, even though it is out of my control and in an insecure environment for most of the journey. However, the TSA is not accountable for the security of my belongings. Talk about having it both ways! The suggestion to strap the bags after security checks was immediately dismissed as too costly.
At our airport we do put the date/time and initials of the screener on the notice of inspection. We are also fortunate enough to have camera coverage of the screening area. When we get a phone call from a passenger about a missing item we ask if there was a notice of inspection and get the time and date and review the camera footage. In many instances this has allowed us to 'clear' the TSO of any involvement. As we have an 'in-line' baggage handling system sometimes we have received calls for items missing from the bag and are able to trace the bag and show that TSA never touched it.
What people fail to realize is that the bags leave our custody and are passed on to airline baggage handlers.
January 4, 2009 6:31 PM
Hello Pointer --
Starting with personal attack and couching the rest of your post in a mixture of condescension and straw man argument, it's hard to know where to begin in trying to engage constructively (or whether it’s worth expending my mental energies to do so.) I'm also left wondering how closely you read the section of my post that you're responding to, even the excerpt you quoted.
Though I may be "ignorant and ungrateful" in your eyes, here goes...
RE " -- it's important to remember that there's always a good reason for everything the TSA does. Keep in mind that the TSO is always responding to the latest robust intelligence, which may justify temporary or permanent local additions to what is prohibited at that time."
The "trust me" response requires a level of credibility that the TSA has yet to earn. This is, after all, the organization that has given small children the third degree because their name appears on one of its "lists", opened a sterile feeding tube, confiscated baby formula, etc. The TSA also banned eyeglass repair kits and nail clippers for some time, and I’m hard put to think of a security risk posed by these items. Further, this blog is peppered with examples of checkpoint personnel who don’t know the TSA’s own rules, particularly with respect to what’s a valid id and procedures for medical items. Makes is really hard to believe that “everything is done for a reason”.
RE local actions as part of “unpredictability” -- the key point is whether security is increased by the local actions or do they create unnecessary hassle without improving security. First and foremost, I’m not convinced that the local rules I mentioned are a manifestation of Kip Hawley’s “unpredictability”.
The subject of "unpredictability" vs. "security through obscurity" has been discussed extensively on this blog over time, and I'm not a fan of "security through obscurity." I can see how variation in procedure can make sense, such as varying the detection threshold of the WTMD, to make it harder for the bad guys to figure out what could be successfully smuggled through it. Similarly, I could understand my personal electronics being subject to more scrutiny at some times vs. others. However, too many of the local variations have no logical connection to security, so I’m not inclined to consider the part of “unpredictability”.
Think about this one of my examples -- how does requiring 3-1-1 bottles to be labeled increase security? As I've pointed out before on this blog, I can buy labeled bottles at the store, wash them out, and refill them with anything that doesn't destroy the bottle. The presence or absence of a label is irrelevant, because it’s the contents that count. How does this labeling "requirement" increase security, and what "robust intelligence" could it relate to? Similarly, how does prohibiting a 3-1-1 bag with a metal zipper increase security, especially considering people board planes every day with metal zippers in their clothing? These sorts of logical inconsistencies undermine claims that the rules are based on robust intelligence.
RE “But you can fully control how you react to unexpected changes! You can become upset, complain, and otherwise waste the time and increase the stress levels of yourself, the TSOs, and all the passengers in line behind you.”
This strawman argument presupposes that I’ve reacted in a certain manner to checkpoint experiences. In fact, I’ve stood there silently with my hands at my side while being yelled at by checkpoint personnel, and having orders bellowed in my ear. Who’s becoming upset and increasing stress levels here? As I’ve said many times before on this blog, the checkpoint personnel need to set the example of civility.
RE “graciously and gratefully comply with the TSO's request” – it’s a lot easier to comply “graciously” when the “request” itself is made “graciously”, but that’s not what I’ve experienced.
As far as complying “gratefully”, presumably, I’m supposed to be “grateful” for the action taken based on “robust intelligence”, but as you can tell, I don’t put a lot of stock in the “robust intelligence”. The credibility gap is simply too wide.
Further, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Where’s the screener “graciousness” in making their “requests”? I’ve experienced more yelling and barked orders than ordinary civility, let alone “graciousness”.
Speaking of “gratitude”, I’d wish screeners showed a bit of gratitude for my attempts to follow the rules, as well as going beyond them to make their job easier. I put things like my razor and hair brush in ziploc bags, so that anyone searching the bag won’t get cut or poked. I put my small electronics (MP3 player and cell phone) in a Ziploc, too, to make screening easier. Never gets mentioned when I go through security and they decide to do a bag check on my electronics.
“Ignorant and ungrateful”? Call me a skeptic who still believes in the principle of a government of laws and not of men...
January 4, 2009 9:09 PM
Bob re Annie @ "Sometimes there is a fine line between spam and a genuine post. I made the call to post it. Sure, she hyperlinks to her business, but to me, the post seemed genuine and not typical of a normal spam sandwich."
I believe Annie's story. Since TSA took our gelpack and spoiled 13 oz of my wife's breastmilk, my wife won't risk flying with breastmilk, juices, or formula, even if this TSA article seems to say it is OK.
Passengers cannot rely on TSA screeners and supervisors to know their own procedures. And the TSO's "I can prohibit anything I want" excuse makes all these reasonable sounding TSA procedures posted on tsa.gov moot.
You TSA bloggers and website-maintainers are the PR wing of our ill-conceived and ill-managed TSA Security Theatre.
January 5, 2009 11:51 AM
Mark VII said...
Baggage screeners put the location, date, time, and their badge number on the "love note" they leave after searching the bag.
So the bags are not in TSA control after they are done with them and you want to blame the TSA for missing items. Is that fair? You just want someone to blame.
Use secret shoppers to proactively evaluate the interpersonal skills of TSA personnel.
This is a great idea! And the secret shoppers need to be in a posistion of power to correct the officers that make mistake or don't know the job. Got Feedback just puts the fault back on the passengers to get something done. It is not the passengers responsibility to correct TSA issues.
Put as much emphasis on interpersonal skills as on detecting prohibited items in both training and in ongoing evaluation of checkpoint performance.
STOP THE YELLING. Oops, excuse me, stop the yelling. Also, stop barking orders and give instructions in a normal manner.
I'm sure the secret shopper idea would in return correct this when officers do not score as high for their end of the year bonuses. It is a two for one!
Create operational definitions of "liquids, gels, or aerosols", include examples of commonly misunderstood items, and put this in the public area of the TSA website.
My definition is something that needs a container to hold its shape or something that is not solid. It works and TSA has never given me grief about my items.
What is being done about "local embellishments" to the rules, which increase hassle for the traveler, for no apparent security benefit? Examples from this blog include the requirement that one's 3-1-1 bottles be "labeled", "have a factory label", or "have to be translucent". Another example is that the 3-1-1 bag itself cannot have an actual zipper.
This is where you have those officers that just want to be hard on the public and enforce rules to the extreme. They should use a little more common sense.
Hold checkpoint personnel accountable for their knowledge and correct application of the rules
Wow the secret shopper idea with authority would work three fold!! Good cost effectiveness in this idea. So officers would be held accountable finally because the secret shopper would get this stuff first hand and the supervisor can still be in his office picking his nose instead of being on the checkpoint supervising his officers!
So what to take from my post? The secret shopper idea is a good idea just make it someone that has some authority to correct officers. Things will get done. A good cost effective way to police TSA. And make it a TSA shopper that knows their stuff... I just participated in bettering TSA but good ideas probably don't get looked at on this blog.
-James
January 5, 2009 12:20 PM
Using women, babies, young children, the elderly and the handicapped terrorists have successfully killed and maimed over and over again.
Trollkiller said...
You may want to double check this glass of Koolaid. The use of the elderly, handicap, children and women is still so rare that when it happens it is a "shock" story.
The fact is that they have been used and this information should not be ignored or it could be detrimental to security. We don't want to creat holes, we want to fill them in!
-James
January 5, 2009 12:22 PM
I just want to say that while there may be some truth to what Ponter posted... a lot of it just sounds like BS. Sorry I feel this way but most inconsistencies at airports is because officers don't know procedures or are afraid of enforcing something on a passenger that might blow up in their face. Unpredictablity is testing baby formula at one airport because its a new procedure and then NOT testing it at another airport. Where did the procedure go? I even saw a sign that said exemptions or something with liquids will be tested. Unpredictable? How about laziness?! How about if I was in a position of power I would fire the officer that passed that right then and there for risking the public's saftey.
January 5, 2009 12:27 PM
Looks Like Ponter has been watching too much V for Vendetta or maybe doing a little rereading of the old classics 1984 and clockwork orange.
I can assure you that what looks like incomprehensible inconsistency is actually incomprehensible inconsistency.
99% of the time they do not even understand the instructions that the out of touch elite in their organization are writing so they attempt to work with them as best as they can to make it work.
That doesn't mean it should be accepted by the poor traveler though and it doesn't mean it actually accomplishes anything.
A little less rhetoric and a little more substance may be the cure for what ails TSA.
If you are going to attempt to use 911 as an example for every right you will infringe upon then you had better use it in the context of today's realities.
Real World Today
You are not going to take over an aircraft with a set of boxcutters or even a shotgun for that matter.
The flying public does not believe you will let them live now so they will not be taken hostage in that way again.
Until the Federal Government takes responsibility for the people they are allowing to enter the country nothing you do is going to make America any safer.
Keep the guy off the plane and he blows up the line of people you have formed in the airport.
Keep the crowd out of the airport until after screening and he kills the crowd you have formed outside the airport.
Get rid of the overpaid under-utilized TSOs and put them on the borders where they belong.
January 5, 2009 12:28 PM
Phil said...
Happy New Year, TSA staff.
When you are conducting warrantless searches of us, please, when you see something in our belongings that catches your attention, unless that item is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, it's none of your business. If you see a pipe, assume it is free of residue of illegal substances and intended for use with legal substances. If you see some porn, assume that it contains people of legal age. If you see a pet, assume that it is licensed and has had its rabies shots. If you see some cash, assume that it belongs to the person holding it. If you see an digital music player, assume that the person holding it had permission to copy the data it contains onto it. If you see some papers, assume that they are not secret plans for world domination. If you see someone with brown skin, assume that he has a right to be where he is. None of that is any of your business.
Your bag checkers' job is to find dangerous things. When you're not doing that, leave us alone. If you see someone being mugged at the terminal, sure, offer assistance, but when anything else catches your eye and turns out not to be a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, go back to doing your job. Please.
Has TSA yet published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint)? (On November 12, 2008, Paul at TSA wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational.")
--
Phil
___________________________________
Oh Phil your comments make me cringe! You must not realize how rediculous your repetitive statements sound.
I do not know how many times I have to let you people know that there is no such thing as a warrantless search at the airport. When a person submits their belongings for xray they have handed their items over knowing that their items are subject to search. There for making the decision to give TSA the option to go through their things. No warrant needed. Drop the rediculous warrant garbage, you and everyone else that brings it up all the time.
All of the things that you named are our business. Why do you think that you have such a mind to run the TSA. You are so demanding about what is and isn't their bussiness. And that is not your business.
Oh and again and again....... A list of rules and regulations. Oh my word. Give up. There is no structured list. There never will be. You can ask for one over and over and over. Really I hope you never get a list. Because you and everyone else who has asked has already gotten an answer. That answer is no. No there is not a list and No TSA will not give you a list. It is just not something that you need to have. Like I have said a hundred times before.... Go to TSA's webpage. It will give you an overview of things, other than that use your common sense. You think you are so smart. So you should be able to follow the simple rules listed on the web.
January 5, 2009 1:53 PM
HSVTSO Dean said:
[i]
Referring to this, right? And the others like it used by just about any branch of the government these days?
...About six weeks ago or so, actually, give or take a couple. I know, I suck; I forgot to mention it. All the people flying out of HSV from Redstone Arsenal rejoice, though.
They're perfectly acceptable as sole and primary form of ID now. As with almost anything new that changes policy with the TSA, though, expect a drag period for full compliance ;) I'm told there are still airports out there who think cigarette lighters (like the throwaway Bic version) are prohibited.[/i]
Thanks for the info. I think it would have been a good story for the PR folks at TSA to have made such an announcement publicly to show that they "get it".
Not everyone has HSPD-12 badges yet here in the DC area, but federal ID is a pretty common item to have.
January 5, 2009 2:19 PM
Why is it necessary to question children at checkpoints?
There are two recent accounts on FT of children being questioned by screeners, one a three-year old.
What is the point? Are you now looking for kidnappers in addition to cash that you have determined is now contraband?
January 5, 2009 2:21 PM
Curious About Policy: think of SSI as meaning "Say So Injunction." If you ask why and they claim SSI, they're pretty much saying "because we say so." Unlike a judge's injunction though, they're not necessarily temporary or appealable.
SSI is supposed to be about "sensitive security information" or as many of call it "super secret information." It's information that's supposedly so sensitive it can't be shared, but doesn't even merit a confidential classification under federal classification guidelines. It's pretty much on par with "for official use only."
TSA often uses SSI as an excuse for things it doesn't want to discuss and it's often an overabused moniker. Some information actually should be SSI and not disclosed, but TSA often goes way beyond that.
Earl
January 5, 2009 3:35 PM
"Think about this one of my examples -- how does requiring 3-1-1 bottles to be labeled increase security?"
It does not, just as 3.4-1-1 itself does absolutely nothing to increase security. Shame on TSA and its apologists for lying and suggesting otherwise.
January 5, 2009 5:04 PM
KellyMae wrote:
"I apologize, I had more to write but got busy here (in the checked bag room)..."
Why are you posting to the blog when you are supposed to be working?
January 5, 2009 5:19 PM
KellyMae81 writes:
We do try to use suggestions, but not all are worth looking into and the others do take time, they dont happen overnite.
To all TSA folks here (particularly the blog team) ... for the other suggestions that are worth looking at, a simple acknowledgement of that would be incredibly appropriate. Otherwise, it just looks like TSA is ignoring the good suggestions.
I'm not saying that you have to reveal SSI, or commit to timetables, or anything like that. Just say something like "the suggestion to do X seems worthwhile, and we're going to look at that."
January 5, 2009 5:37 PM
"Why are you posting to the blog when you are supposed to be working?"
Perhaps a laptop just magically appeared amongst the checked baggage.
January 5, 2009 5:40 PM
People are still discussing the concealed "crack" pipe.
When I was newly in the Air Force, a group of airmen played a joke on base security. Fortunately we were never caught.
What we did was smoke cigarettes through a soda can. We punctured a hole in the side of an empty soda can, sprinkled tobacco over the hole, and smoked the tobacco through that hole and the drinking hole.
That is exactly the same method used by crack addicts to smoke crack.
We left the soda cans all over base, and base security was going nuts trying to find the crack smokers. The brought out the drug dogs who didn't show even the slightest interest in the soda cans.
Eventually a chemical analysis ended our little joke.
The whole point is, just as our crack pipes weren't crack pipes, if you find what looks like a cack pipe in someone's carry on or in someone's luggage, you can indeed legally assume it is free of drug residue and that it has never been used for illegal drugs. Yes, kelly, it can be legal to own a bong.
January 5, 2009 6:54 PM
I know I responded to this quote already, but now I have a completely different answer.
Ponter wrote:
It's important to remember that there's always a good reason for everything the TSA does.
You mean like in August 2006, when TSA agents, along with JetBlue officials, forced a man to remove his T-shirt that said "We Will Not Be Silent" in English and Arabic, before they would let him board a plane?
Well, TSA and JetBlue just admitted that they didn't have a good reason to do that ... to the tune of $240,000.
Not every TSA employee acts with good reasons. I'm more than willing to concede that the vast majority of TSA employees are acting in good faith. But without openness and accountability, every organization invites abuses of power within its ranks.
And it shouldn't take 28 months to correct an obvious wrong. (At least, when AirTran screwed up on January 1st, it only took them one day to apologize.)
It shouldn't be unpatriotic to try and make one's government better.
January 5, 2009 8:00 PM
Anonymous TSO wrote:
So the bags are not in TSA control after they are done with them and you want to blame the TSA for missing items. Is that fair?
Since the TSA will not let us put locks on our bags to protect them during the times they are not in TSA custody ... yes.
January 5, 2009 9:58 PM
This relates to my earlier post concerning the Muslim family refused access to an AirTran flight. It appears that TSA over-reaction is a problem that is more than incidental. See the press release concerning the reported $240,000 settlement between JetBlue and TSA, on the one hand, and Raed Jarrar, on the other, after Mr. Jarrar was prevented from boarding a flight out of JFK in August 2006 until he agreed to cover his shirt, which read "We Will Not Be Silent" in English and Arabic. See http://tinyurl.com/a2l4jo
The point is that the TSA and the airlines need to remember that there are Constitutional limits to their powers. While security is important, so are these 'little' personal liberties like freedom of expression. Certainly it is difficult to direct the actions of thousands of TSA employees. The recurrence of this type of behavior after a span of two years, however, suggests that more can be done to enlighten TSA personnel as to what those limits are.
January 5, 2009 11:29 PM
Kellymae81, who claims work for TSA at SDF, wrote:
"I want to know who you think YOU are to tell us what you think our job should be."
I not only think but am certain that I am a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. I am your employer.
"I don't come to McDonalds and tell you how to flip your burgers."
You probably would if you were not only paying my bill but sickened by my actions.
I have repeatedly requested that when you are doing the searches for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries that your job requires, you assume that people are innocent of all the unrelated-to-air-travel-safety crimes I listed.
It seems you do not understand that checking a pipe you dig out of someone's belongings for residue of controlled substances -- which is the only way you could be sure that the pipe was used for illegal purposes -- is no more acceptable than you interrogating people about the whether pets they wish to take on an airplane have receive vaccinations as required by law or about whether they received any permission required by law to copy data onto their digital music players. Bob at TSA has already informed us that you check into pipes when you find them. If you think that investigation is sensible, then it follows that you would find the other two actions to be sensible as well. Do you? None of these things is related to airplane security, and none is any of your business.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 6, 2009 12:07 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"if in the course of doing our job we find items that may be prohibited by FAA, DEA, FBI, State or local ordinances we are required to notify our supervisor who in turn notifies the local law enforcement agency"
What do you mean? Everything may be prohibited by one of those agencies, and you don't have to report everything.
Note that recent comments from Bob at TSA suggest that you are also required to notify law enforcement when in the course of searching someone you find something that is not prohibited at all -- certain amounts of money.
"As for what items you can and can't carry, well sometimes there are no hard and fast rules"
Yes, particularly when it comes to the rules we must follow in order to avoid having our rights restricted by our government at an airport checkpoint. As we've repeatedly discussed on this blog, your policies specifically allow your staff to make up rules on-the-fly.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 6, 2009 12:16 AM
MarkVII wrote:
"I can see how variation in procedure can make sense, such as varying the detection threshold of the WTMD, to make it harder for the bad guys to figure out what could be successfully smuggled through it."
I agree with most of what you wrote in your comment, but not with this part. Arbitrarily changing the bar for what is considered dangerous and what is not may make it more difficult for "bad guys" to figure out what can be carried through an airport checkpoint (not that there's any benefit to that), but it also means sometimes prohibiting things that are not dangerous and other times allowing things that are dangerous.
Why all the focus on confusing the bad guys instead of simply keeping dangerous things off of airplanes? If bad guys figure out what we consider dangerous and don't bring those things on an airplane, that's good, isn't it?
"Similarly, I could understand my personal electronics being subject to more scrutiny at some times vs. others."
Similarly, this only means that sometimes people will be hassled by their government without good reason to believe that they have done wrong and sometimes dangerous things will be allowed through without scrutiny. (Assuming, of course, that the danger posed by some device does not vary from day to day.)
Why not just tell us what is dangerous to bring on a plane and make sure that if we try to bring it anyway, someone stops us from doing so?
TSA: Why don't you just tell us specifically what it is that you want us to do so that we can do it instead of wasting our time playing your gotcha games? What is to be gained by your setting us up to fail instead of helping us succeed at not bringing dangerous items onto airplanes? Show us the rules and leave us alone when we follow them.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 6, 2009 12:36 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"I do not know how many times I have to let you people know that there is no such thing as a warrantless search at the airport."
You are incorrect. Any search without warrant is a warrantless search. Almost all of the searches conducted by our government at our airports are performed without warrant.
"When a person submits their belongings for xray they have handed their items over knowing that their items are subject to search."
An overwhelming majority of the time, that is correct. And an overwhelming majority of the time, we do it because we have no choice in the matter. In many cases, including those which involve our consititutionally-protected right to petition our government for redress of grievances, it is simply not feasible to travel by any mode other than commercial air. That it is possible to walk, ride a horse, drive, ride a bus, or ride a train cross-country is no more relevant than the fact that it is possible to purchase a private airplane or ride a rocket. When we want to travel across the country to Washington, D.C., (or simply visit Hawaii) and maintain a job or care for a family, commercial air is essentially the only way to go, and when we do so, we are forced to submit to a search of ourselves and of our belongings. Discussions on this blog have made it clear that we are in those cases forced not only to submit to a search for dangerous items, but to a search for anything that TSA decides that it wants to refer to law enforcement.
TSA endangers the freedom of all Americans. They subject us to secret laws. They force us to ask for and receive permission from our government before traveling within our own country via what is in many cases the only practical means of doing so, and then force us to submit to a search of our belongings for anything that they find "suspicious". They restrict who may travel and to what degree we may travel without harassment based on blacklists. TSA uses the threat of violence to keep us fearful and to further their agenda.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 6, 2009 1:09 AM
Baggage screeners put the location, date, time, and their badge number on the "love note" they leave after searching the bag.
---
So the bags are not in TSA control after they are done with them and you want to blame the TSA for missing items. Is that fair? You just want someone to blame.
=======================
Yes, it is fair. The TSA prohibits passengers from securing their bags, leaving them susceptible to theft.
January 6, 2009 8:09 AM
Oh and again and again....... A list of rules and regulations. Oh my word. Give up. There is no structured list. There never will be. You can ask for one over and over and over. Really I hope you never get a list. Because you and everyone else who has asked has already gotten an answer. That answer is no. No there is not a list and No TSA will not give you a list. It is just not something that you need to have.
...........................
No one has asked for a list of TSA regualtions.
All anyone has asked for is a list of rules peculiar to transitting a TSA checkpoint that a person must comply with. Nothing more!
How are we expected to be able to comply with TSA policies if we are not privy to these rules?
So it's has been asked for and will continue to be asked for until such time as TSA publishes said list.
Neither I, nor anyone else, simply cannot do what is expected of us unless TSA tells us what they want.
That would be a list of rules needed to transit a TSA Checpoint.
January 6, 2009 10:16 AM
Anonymous said:
"Oh Phil your comments make me cringe! You must not realize how rediculous your repetitive statements sound.
I do not know how many times I have to let you people know that there is no such thing as a warrantless search at the airport. When a person submits their belongings for xray they have handed their items over knowing that their items are subject to search. There for making the decision to give TSA the option to go through their things. No warrant needed. Drop the rediculous warrant garbage, you and everyone else that brings it up all the time.
All of the things that you named are our business. Why do you think that you have such a mind to run the TSA. You are so demanding about what is and isn't their bussiness. And that is not your business.
Oh and again and again....... A list of rules and regulations. Oh my word. Give up. There is no structured list. There never will be. You can ask for one over and over and over. Really I hope you never get a list. Because you and everyone else who has asked has already gotten an answer. That answer is no. No there is not a list and No TSA will not give you a list. It is just not something that you need to have. Like I have said a hundred times before.... Go to TSA's webpage. It will give you an overview of things, other than that use your common sense. You think you are so smart. So you should be able to follow the simple rules listed on the web."
Why should your petty opinion mean anything?
January 6, 2009 10:29 AM
Quote: " Anonymous said...
Why is it necessary to question children at checkpoints?
There are two recent accounts on FT of children being questioned by screeners, one a three-year old.
What is the point? Are you now looking for kidnappers in addition to cash that you have determined is now contraband?
January 5, 2009 2:21 PM"
Actually, as a gov't agency, we do get notice of Amber Alerts. TSOs have actually aided in the recovery of several kidnapped children. I guess you think this is "none of our business" also?
Following your rhetoric, should we have let those kidnappers and children go on their way since they didn't have any of those prohibited items which is all that you would like us to be concerned with?
January 6, 2009 10:50 AM
To Phil re Anonymous' "...Oh my word. Give up. There is no structured list. There never will be. You can ask for one over and over and over. Really I hope you never get a list. Because you and everyone else who has asked has already gotten an answer. That answer is no. No there is not a list and No TSA will not give you a list. It is just not something that you need to have. Like I have said a hundred times before.... Go to TSA's webpage. It will give you an overview of things, You think you are so smart. So you should be able to follow the simple rules listed on the web."
###########
Phil: Do not give up. Repeatedly pointing out that TSA doesn't have a coherent policy, and is proud of that fact, is an important public service.
Anonymous: Following the "simple rules listed on the web" doesn't work because they are not the rules that the TSOs apply.
January 6, 2009 11:25 AM
Sandra said...
KellyMae wrote:
"I apologize, I had more to write but got busy here (in the checked bag room)..."
Why are you posting to the blog when you are supposed to be working?
___________________________________
None of your business
January 6, 2009 1:08 PM
Why is it necessary to question children at checkpoints?
There are two recent accounts on FT of children being questioned by screeners, one a three-year old.
What is the point? Are you now looking for kidnappers in addition to cash that you have determined is now contraband?
January 5, 2009 2:21 PM
___________________________________
Well, smart question. Not really..... A parent can hide something on a child just as they can hide something on themselves. These people who are willing to sacrafice their own lives probably don't care much about their children either.
And another thing. Of course no one thinks that there is going to be something on an elderly person or a child and that is all the more reason for someone who wants to get something through to put it on the least suspected.
January 6, 2009 1:13 PM
"Why are you posting to the blog when you are supposed to be working?"
Perhaps a laptop just magically appeared amongst the checked baggage.
___________________________________
Blog Team-
Why would you even allow nonsense like this to be posted on this blog!?
There are times where I post very good points. And they never make it on this blog. But then you let garbage like this comment through.
January 6, 2009 1:17 PM
Sandra said:
Why are you posting to the blog when you are supposed to be working?
For your information, not that it really is any of your business, we have computers in each bag room to use for training, checking our work emails and any other TSA related issues when there is no bag to be checked. There are gaps when there is no flight being checked in meaning no bags coming down the belt. So I choose to utilize that time to keep up with the blog so I can try and answer questions you guys ask and that is exactly what I was doing in that particular comment of mine. I could be using your tax dollars to read the newspaper or do a puzzle like others, but I chose to blog and do what I can for you guys. Man, I must be scum!!!!!
Quit being a busy body and worrying about things that don't concern you, and maybe you can start to see things for what they are, which was me answering a question to the best of my ability even though you guys think we ignore you. We'll never please you I guess b/c you took a completely nice post and turned it into a completely irrelevant argument b/c you have nothing better to do. I'm almost tired of trying to help.
SDF TSO
January 6, 2009 1:53 PM
I see things perfectly for what they are, KellyMae - the TSA is a huge waste of resources that is doing little if anything to protect us.
January 6, 2009 7:50 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "None of your business.
Actually, it's called fraud, waste and abuse and is illegal under federal law. As good citizens like TSO's, we're required to report illegal activity for LEO evaluation.
Therefore it IS our business. Just like it's "your" business why someone is carrying a pipe.
Robert
January 6, 2009 8:18 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Well, smart question. Not really..... A parent can hide something on a child just as they can hide something on themselves. These people who are willing to sacrafice their own lives probably don't care much about their children either.
And another thing. Of course no one thinks that there is going to be something on an elderly person or a child and that is all the more reason for someone who wants to get something through to put it on the least suspected."
Yeah, a 3 year old is going to admit they have a bomb.
Screen the kid for prohibited items. If they're clean let them go.
If you guys are so confident in your abilities and layers, interrogation shouldn't be required of a 3 year old.
Robert
January 6, 2009 8:20 PM
I not only think but am certain that I am a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. I am your employer.
___________________________________
You are wrong Phil. Great your a tax payer, you are not my employer. That statement is sick, for all of you people that think that you should be in charge of the TSA because you are a tax payer. You sure are in charge, sitting behind your computer being a big bad blogger. You sure show us how much control you have, posting on this rediculous web page.
January 7, 2009 1:47 PM
Yeah, a 3 year old is going to admit they have a bomb.
Screen the kid for prohibited items. If they're clean let them go.
If you guys are so confident in your abilities and layers, interrogation shouldn't be required of a 3 year old.
Robert
January 6, 2009 8:20 PM
___________________________________
We don't interrogate 3 year olds. What are you talking about?!
January 7, 2009 1:57 PM
What, no one could come up with a snarky argument to the post about the Amber Alert? Hmm, guess we may have a valid point after all. Could it be that the TSA actually has a point in questioning children....? Wow, silence.....
January 7, 2009 2:56 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "We don't interrogate 3 year olds. What are you talking about?!"
I'm talking about this:
Nobody frightens children like the TSA
Being discussed on FT as well, with TSO's as well here.
Quote from Anonymous: "What, no one could come up with a snarky argument to the post about the Amber Alert? Hmm, guess we may have a valid point after all. Could it be that the TSA actually has a point in questioning children....? Wow, silence....."
Spamming a bit? Exact same post in another thread. Saw it was addressed there too.
Robert
Robert
January 7, 2009 3:36 PM
Anonymous TSO wrote:
You are wrong Phil. Great your a tax payer, you are not my employer. That statement is sick, for all of you people that think that you should be in charge of the TSA because you are a tax payer.
What is sick is a TSO who does not see the taxpayer as the employer of the TSO.
If we aren't your employer, who is?
January 7, 2009 3:43 PM
To Anonyymous "
We don't interrogate 3 year olds. What are you talking about?!"
There was a long post back in February 2008 on "The Truth Behind the Title: Behavior Detection Officer" about a guy travelling with his 8 year old daughter who, after the TSO scared the kid into silence, was advised to by a TSO to carry a "letter from her mother the next time we travel alone."
TSA interrogated kids then, and still continues to do so. With your 45,000 uniformed officers processing 2,000,000 passengers per day, there's plenty of opportunity for "bad apples" to do lots of power-tripping.
January 7, 2009 4:58 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"A list of rules and regulations [that TSA requires people to follow in order to avoid having their freedom of movement restricted by TSA]. Oh my word. Give up. There is no structured list. There never will be. You can ask for one over and over and over. Really I hope you never get a list. Because you and everyone else who has asked has already gotten an answer. That answer is no. No there is not a list and No TSA will not give you a list."
Actually, on November 12, 2008, in the "Family/Special Needs Lanes Coming to All Airports in Time for Thanksgiving Travel" post, Paul at TSA wrote that he was working on just such a list. It seems that you are mistaken.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
January 7, 2009 10:17 PM
We don't need improvements to the TSA we need to abolish it. This is a destructive government agency which is helping to sink us even further into the bottomless pit of debt that we are already too deep to get out of. This agency puts on the charade of security but the only real security to prevent another 911 was locked cockpit doors and alert passengers. No plane will ever be hijacked again because passengers will not allow it! It makes more sense to be afraid of lightning, or sharks, or aliens even than a terrorist statically. This is a fraud and a sham and each TSA employee should hang their head in shame for harassing even one person and interfering in the running of a business on the free market. This is disgusting, when will Americans here in the USSA figure out what is going on and call it what it is? I don't want this crap on my airline, how come I can't pay to fly on one that doesn't have this? That would be an American solution, all the skirts could fly "safe" airlines if they like and then we could look at the statistics and see that this charade makes us no more safe than an airline could by it's own actions. That is fact. The government has never been good at anything but war and welfare, and it's not good at those either.
January 8, 2009 9:42 AM
Quote:
" Anonymous said...
"Why are you posting to the blog when you are supposed to be working?"
Perhaps a laptop just magically appeared amongst the checked baggage.
___________________________________
Blog Team-
Why would you even allow nonsense like this to be posted on this blog!?
There are times where I post very good points. And they never make it on this blog. But then you let garbage like this comment through.
January 6, 2009 1:17 PM"
Because the bloggers have to write something when they are busy not answering questions.
As a TSA employee, I'm also appalled that this was allowed to get through. But then again, read some of Bob's snarky posts and you'll see that this entire site is just a waste of time and should be closed down as useless.
By the way, there has still been no answer to my question as to how the bloggers even got these positions and why they weren't advertised on the job site.
January 8, 2009 11:10 AM
Anonymous TSO wrote:
So the bags are not in TSA control after they are done with them and you want to blame the TSA for missing items. Is that fair?
Ayn R. Key said...
Since the TSA will not let us put locks on our bags to protect them during the times they are not in TSA custody ... yes.
So why don't you use a TSA lock then? Problem solved. No reason to gripe about an unlocked bag. Also you 'can' lock your bag but you run the risk of the lock being cut off by TSA I guess.
January 8, 2009 12:34 PM
I can't believe people look at that kid story in the way of TSA scaring kids and making them cry. It is all out of context. People are interpretating the story in a negative way because it involves TSA. My take on the story...
The officer just wanted to seem friendly to the child and ask his name. The child being young and shy did not want to tell the officer his name. The officer was just trying to interact with the kid. No big deal. Not an interrogation. Just a run in like you would receive in a grocery store except a person is wearing a uniform. What is so bad about that? In this work I see kids cry all the time. They get upset just because they have to take their jackets or shoes off. This is common stuff a child does. No big deal. Don't blow things out of proportion like this story. Be a little smarter and use your brain people!
January 8, 2009 12:55 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "So why don't you use a TSA lock then? Problem solved. No reason to gripe about an unlocked bag. Also you 'can' lock your bag but you run the risk of the lock being cut off by TSA I guess."
Bingo. I've had TSA locks cut off even after I've told TSA that they are TSA locks. After that happens a few times, it's almost not worth the hassles of filing claims that will almost always be denied and buying new locks.
Quote from another Anonymous: "I can't believe people look at that kid story in the way of TSA scaring kids and making them cry. It is all out of context. People are interpretating the story in a negative way because it involves TSA. My take on the story...
The officer just wanted to seem friendly to the child and ask his name. The child being young and shy did not want to tell the officer his name. The officer was just trying to interact with the kid. No big deal. Not an interrogation. Just a run in like you would receive in a grocery store except a person is wearing a uniform. What is so bad about that? In this work I see kids cry all the time. They get upset just because they have to take their jackets or shoes off. This is common stuff a child does. No big deal. Don't blow things out of proportion like this story. Be a little smarter and use your brain people!"
I think we are using are brains. That's why we don't buy a lot of what TSA is saying and what they're doing to try to "protect" us.
After you've run into numerous bad apples and even seeing some on this blog, seeing the story in a negative light is very plausible.
So let's take your advice. We use our brains and don't drink the TSA koolaid and we'll see what's actually there. Those of us doing that already see what's there and it's not pretty.
Robert
January 8, 2009 1:20 PM
Anonymous TSO wrote:
So the bags are not in TSA control after they are done with them and you want to blame the TSA for missing items. Is that fair?
Ayn R. Key said...
Since the TSA will not let us put locks on our bags to protect them during the times they are not in TSA custody ... yes.
Anonymous TSO wrote:
So why don't you use a TSA lock then? Problem solved. No reason to gripe about an unlocked bag. Also you 'can' lock your bag but you run the risk of the lock being cut off by TSA I guess.
First, the TSA locks do not secure the luggage very well. They are easily cracked.
Second, the TSA does cut off the lock if it isn't a TSA lock, and often cuts off the lock if it is a TSA lock.
Third, having made sure we cannot secure our luggage, they then pass these unscreened items on to non TSA personnel.
Yes, it is fair to blame the TSA.
January 8, 2009 3:24 PM
If TSA locks are being cut off cause the officers are too lazy to get the TSA keys for them out of a cabinet then that needs to be brought up so the action can be corrected. Oh this makes the "secret shopper" idea more plausible. They can travel with TSA locks on their baggage. There is no reason for this TSA. Your officers are failures if they do not know how to recognize and use TSA approved locks and keys.
January 8, 2009 4:28 PM
Yet another Anonymous wrote...
So why don't you use a TSA lock then? Problem solved. No reason to gripe about an unlocked bag. Also you 'can' lock your bag but you run the risk of the lock being cut off by TSA I guess.
(1) Even my breakfast cereal box is more difficult to open than a "TSA Approved" toy luggage lock.
(2) Putting a high quality lock on one's luggage is simply an invitation to the TSA underwear checkers to destroy the lock or the luggage to get inside.
(3) In too many cases TSA even cuts off TSA approved locks, then leaves the destroyed lock inside the now unprotected luggage with one of their little "TSA was here" love notes.
(4) Even with TSA pre-approval (such as when firearms are in checked luggage), a quality lock placed on luggage AFTER TSA INSPECTION to prevent casual theft is sometimes cut off by yet another TSA dolt somewhere down the line.
(4) With TSA using their current poorly though out methods, there is NO way to adequately protect one's belongings from TSA, and because of that no way to protect one's belongings from others down the line.
With so may valuables not allowed in carry-ons, one is forced to place valuables in checked luggage with no way to protect them.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 8, 2009 4:31 PM
To Ponter:
Even your response to my response is funny! Of course I realize how ridiculous my superiors can sound when atop their soapboxes...
As unpopular as this will be there was a general public outcry for radical changes in airport screening after 9/11 (no I'm not flying the flag for justification)and the TSA was created almost overnight (by government standards) to placate that outcry. That being said, there is much room for improvement. Mama always said be careful what you ask for...
To Trollkiller:
Glad my spin on Ponter's post increased your enjoyment. Please keep blogging.
To Tom (1 of 5-6):
I can't think of any excuse for cutting a TSA approved lock and then placing it in the bag with the "love note". I have, however seen locks of all quality (and straps and luggage tags) get caught in the conveyor belts and ripped right off.
For a time we (TSA) were securing the closures of bags that we had checked (whether they were initially locked or not) with plastic zip ties. Realizing that anything sharp enough to remove the zip ties wasn't allowed through the screening checkpoint - it was inside the bag we'd just secured this practice was discontinued.
They haven't come up with anything else yet.
To All - I never, never, post on this blog from a computer at work!
January 8, 2009 6:51 PM
So why don't you use a TSA lock then? Problem solved. No reason to gripe about an unlocked bag. Also you 'can' lock your bag but you run the risk of the lock being cut off by TSA I guess.
January 8, 2009 12:34 PM
TSA Approved locks are not much more than a hollow shell.
Pretty much like the hollow shell of all TSA Security Theater.
You know as well as I do that what TSA does is to make people "feel" safe, not to provide security!
January 8, 2009 7:04 PM
People its a zipper on your bag. A ZIPPER! No kind of lock is preventing access to your bag. It is but a mere zipper. So your locked zipper tabs are on one side of that bag and you use a tool to pop the zipper open on the other side. Oh my the bag is open and you can close it by moving both zippers back around to the side you popped the zipper open. Try it out it can make you feel like a lockpicker. The point I am making is your bag is not secure unless TSA did something like the strapping idea I have seen.(Costs to much)
-James
January 8, 2009 9:18 PM
"People its a zipper on your bag. A ZIPPER! No kind of lock is preventing access to your bag"
..and since TSA policies leave our bags vulnerable to both theft and the insertion of bombs a zipper is all we need.
If we are ever allowed to secure our bags again, many of us will move to more secure lugage.
January 9, 2009 6:27 AM
People its a zipper on your bag. A ZIPPER! No kind of lock is preventing access to your bag.
Except, of course, for my old hard-sided Samsonite suitcase, with honest-to-goodness latches and a built-in lock. Which, of course, I can never use again, because I have to leave it unlocked to comply with TSA regulations.
January 9, 2009 9:39 AM
Quote from James: "he point I am making is your bag is not secure unless TSA did something like the strapping idea I have seen.(Costs to much)"
Actually, with the way TK proposed it, it wouldn't be that expensive and certainly would be cheaper than a lot of the things TSA currently wastes money on. Like cop uniforms that cause rashes.
But farbeit from TSA to spend money on something that would increase security rather than waste money or put on a good show. I'm beginning to think that unless it's invasive and/or rights infringing, TSA isn't willing to spend money on it.
Robert
January 9, 2009 10:56 AM
Quote:
"By the way, there has still been no answer to my question as to how the bloggers even got these positions and why they weren't advertised on the job site.
January 8, 2009 11:10 AM"
----------------------------
Wow! I've seen this question asked before and still no answer! Guess we all know who has friends in the organization!
January 9, 2009 11:31 AM
Would you really want to have blogger Bob's job? He is gets thrashed and has to answer questions over and over again.
And as to my post about the zipper bags. The majority of bags have zippers. Some luggage is more secure, hard-sided, pelican cases. I am speaking of more common luggage.
-James
January 9, 2009 12:08 PM
Carrot Top TSO, you're absolutely right. The TSA was indeed thrown together in the aftermath of the horribly embarrassing failure of 9/11. The main intent was to convince the terrified public that the government was Doing Something in reaction, and therefore they should feel it was safe to fly. It seems to have been successful at that short-term aim.
Unfortunately, the well-intended officials who came up with the TSA decided that "nothing succeeds like excess." If the hastily conceived security theater was so successful at restoring public confidence, clearly more of the same would be even better! They were sure that if they made airport screening enough of a hassle, everyone will then be completely convinced that it must be effective. So it won't matter that every test or audit consistently shows that it isn't. They make us take off our shoes and confiscate our gel packs and unlabeled one-ounce shampoo bottles, so we can see for ourselves that they obviously must be extraordinarily effective at protecting us from terrorists carrying box cutters!
So they built a palace to house the top executives, erected a Wall of Secrecy, and bought a big box of stamps to mark every rule and operating procedure "SSI." They gave their screeners the fancy title of "Transportation Security Officer," bought them all itchy formaldehyde-laced uniforms with badges, empowered them to capriciously "interpret" vaguely-defined arbitrary rules, and effectively encouraged them to abuse their authority by issuing glowing press releases standing resolutely behind TSOs whenever an incident (such as that woman with the piercings) gets enough publicity to be embarrassing.
When too many passengers started complaining about the arbitrary inconsistency and the obvious holes in the system, Kip called in Propaganda Minister Karl Rove. Rove advised him to re-brand all that arbitrary inconsistency as a powerful "Security Strategy" of unpredictability that would keep the terrorists off-balance. Rove also advised Kip that fear is the only defense against liberal enemies who, in their hatred of America, question or criticize the TSA, calling it "security theater" or "ineffective."
Rove's script called for Kip himself to deflect all questions by repeatedly reminding everyone to think of 9/11 as often as possible, and repeatedly insisting that the TSA is highly effective at protecting the Homeland from enemies who are trying to kill Americans. For lesser threats like people who write uncomplimentary comments on this blog, the appropriate strategy is to just repeat the party line once and then ignore the commenters in the hope that they'll just go away. And it's also essential to put out periodic glowing press releases about spectacular successes in finding drug paraphernalia, cash, and fake military jackets. How then could anyone deny that the TSA is vigilant about protecting aviation, even if what they found is no threat to aviation. The important thing is that they found something suspicious, which incontrovertibly proves that the TSA is highly effective!
Reading about the TSA and recalling my own "experiences" at checkpoints used to bring me to tears of frustration. This blog is no exception. But then I recalled Stephen Sondheim's advice to "laugh at the kings, or they'll make you cry." So perhaps sarcasm might be more effective than serious questions or criticism. I don't know if my attempt was effective, but it's interesting that some people thought I was serious. And in a sense I was, since my post was merely a compendium of official statements Kip and others have made, presumably following Rove's advice to spin away the criticism.
Carrot Top TSO, I am heartened that there are people like you within the TSA who recognize and admit their agency's shortcomings, and who have a sense of humor. Both of those are necessary within the TSA if that agency is ever going to provide effective security rather than merely intrusive and annoying security theater.
January 9, 2009 1:55 PM
Quote:
" Anonymous said...
Would you really want to have blogger Bob's job? He is gets thrashed and has to answer questions over and over again."
Didn't say I wanted the job. Just stated that I would like to know why it wasn't offered to everyone in the job force.....
January 9, 2009 2:39 PM
Anonymous said... Didn't say I wanted the job. Just stated that I would like to know why it wasn't offered to everyone in the job force.....
The job opening (Program Analyst for Public Affairs)was made public on USA Jobs. I applied for it. I submitted my resume, 8 lovely KSAs and I interviewed. I got the job.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
January 9, 2009 4:08 PM
Quote:
" Bob said...
Anonymous said... Didn't say I wanted the job. Just stated that I would like to know why it wasn't offered to everyone in the job force.....
The job opening (Program Analyst for Public Affairs)was made public on USA Jobs. I applied for it. I submitted my resume, 8 lovely KSAs and I interviewed. I got the job.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
January 9, 2009 4:08 PM"
Wow! Finally an answer. Thank you Bob. Unfortunately, I posed this very question the day the blog was launced and several times since and this is the first time an answer was posted. With a time frame like that to answer a simple question, it's no wonder there is so much animosity on this site.
I can only imagine how long it will take to answer some of the "real" questions!mast
January 9, 2009 4:20 PM
Yet another anonymous wrote...
"People its a zipper on your bag. A ZIPPER! No kind of lock is preventing access to your bag. It is but a mere zipper. So your locked zipper tabs are on one side of that bag and you use a tool to pop the zipper open on the other side. Oh my the bag is open and you can close it by moving both zippers back around to the side you popped the zipper open. Try it out it can make you feel like a lockpicker. The point I am making is your bag is not secure unless TSA did something like the strapping idea I have seen.(Costs to much)"
My response?
"Anonymous its a high-security equipment case. HIGH SECURITY! A hermetic seal and good lock are preventing access to my stuff."
Not everyone's luggage is a cloth bag with a zipper, mine is an air tight shipping case that is locked solid.
TSA has still chopped the TSA lock off the case, then left the case totally unsecured. :o(
DO NOT tell me it's my fault...
January 9, 2009 4:43 PM
James repeated:
"And as to my post about the zipper bags. The majority of bags have zippers. Some luggage is more secure, hard-sided, pelican cases. I am speaking of more common luggage."
And again we reply;
Since we can not secure our bags, zippers are fine. When... IF we are ever allowed to secure our bags properly we will move to more secure bags.
January 9, 2009 5:54 PM
@RB: Good comment.
kid picking a TSA lock with a paperclip
adult picking 4 TSA locks -- This guy does it quicker than finding a key or some snips.
With TSA's math these have 5 layers of security: They are made of metal, have 3 dials for the combination, and have a keyhole.
January 9, 2009 11:44 PM
Ponter
Cite the source of this Kip/Rove collaboration. I am not buying it.
RT
January 10, 2009 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...
I am pretty sure that terrorists know your procedures. Not much is secret.
January 2, 2009 9:50 AM
So why dont most Americans know it by now? too busy with your People magazines wondering if brad and jen are getting baack together...
January 11, 2009 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...
I not only think but am certain that I am a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. I am your employer.
___________________________________
You are wrong Phil. Great your a tax payer, you are not my employer. That statement is sick, for all of you people that think that you should be in charge of the TSA because you are a tax payer. You sure are in charge, sitting behind your computer being a big bad blogger. You sure show us how much control you have, posting on this rediculous web page.
January 7, 2009 1:47 PM
Ya Phil, why dont you tell the president that you need his office for a slumber party. I mean you're his boss and all... I think the fumes from all your dirty dishes stacking on your desk is starting to rot your brain.
January 11, 2009 9:51 PM
I think what Phil means is that the TSA works for the people. You, the TSA, are here to serve the public. In a sense you work for the public but we, the public, are not your employer.
January 12, 2009 9:50 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home