An Interview with Blogger Bob
Steve Radick recently interviewed me for his Social Media Strategery blog. (The check is in the mail)
If you're interested in getting an insider’s look at the history of TSA's Evolution of Security blog, I strongly suggest you check out:
An Interview with Blogger Bob from TSA’s Evolution of Security Blog.
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: questions
posted by Bob at
3:17 PM
Subscribe in a reader
91 Comments:
100's of real questions asked with no answers.
Real issues from the public and no response from TSA.
I am nearly speechless, Bob!
March 12, 2009 4:32 PM
RB said...I am nearly speechless, Bob!
--------------------------------
I could only be so lucky... :)
Bob
EoS Blog Team
March 12, 2009 5:44 PM
Right, Bob -- you'd rather we shut up and be obedient little pax instead of patriotic citizens who demand accountability from you. Way to show your true colors!
March 12, 2009 6:57 PM
At least your getting credit for the work you do. Its to bad your hands are tied when it comes to getting answers we are still waiting for.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 12, 2009 7:49 PM
Bob said...
RB said...I am nearly speechless, Bob!
--------------------------------
I could only be so lucky... :)
Bob
EoS Blog Team
March 12, 2009 5:44 PM
.................
I did say nearly.
I will struggle with a slight loss of voice as duty to country demands my continued efforts.
March 12, 2009 8:43 PM
I'd still like to know when our check in luggage will be completely safe.
March 12, 2009 10:15 PM
Very interesting read. I am a retired govt employee and I am amazed at the leaps and bounds that have been made in regards to communicating with the public.
Keep it up!
March 13, 2009 10:15 AM
Dunstan said...
I'd still like to know when our check in luggage will be completely safe.
March 12, 2009 10:15 PM
**********************************
Probably when the public forces the airlines to step up, take responsibility and stop their baggage handlers from stealing your stuff.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-webbagtheft0303mar03,0,2919346.story
http://www.portlandobserver.com/story.asp?record=9654§ion=Law%20/%20Politics
March 13, 2009 10:24 AM
Dunstan asked:
"I'd still like to know when our check in luggage will be completely safe."
Safe from who or what? Nothing is ever completely say Dunstan, one can only try. Between the time you place your bag in the hands of the ticket agent and the time it is back in your hands, nearly a dozen people will have moved it or touched it. TSA is usually only 2 of those individuals, and we have cameras watching our every move.
March 13, 2009 10:57 AM
Nice interview Bob. Nice to see the Blog getting some info out. Amid all the negative posts, there are actually quite a few that are complimentary of the Blog and the persons operating it.
Some of the questions asked here can not be answered because of the guidelines given to the bloggers. Some of the answers here will never be enough for the "5 or 6" because it is not what they want to hear. Some of the questions here are answered well and seem to get a decent response. Some of the questions here are not answered quite the way I would like to see them, but I am just a grunt and have no bearing on that. We all know that RB will find his voice again in a couple of hours, and that is great! That is what this blog is for, whether you get the answer you want, or not, as long as you follow the rules of this blog, you can post what you want to say here without censure! This is what the Government in general has been missing so far and this has been a great basis for future endeavors in the system. Imagine if ALL government branches would place a blog up like this of their own! How sweet would that be? I think that the crew working the blog right now, in the formative stages and in the future are to be commended for the sheer audacity to take this chance and have it turn out this well. Congrats Blog Team (and Bob in particular for the interview) and keep em coming.
March 13, 2009 11:02 AM
"Probably when the public forces the airlines to step up, take responsibility and stop their baggage handlers from stealing your stuff."
Nice to have a someone to blame, isn't it? The issue isn't who is to blame, or who can be blamed, but the fact that check-in luggage is not secure. Personally I don't care who the thief is, but TSA is supposed to keep commercial aviation safe.
March 13, 2009 11:25 AM
Wow. I am truly impressed. I've never seen that many words used to say absolutely nothing before.
March 13, 2009 12:11 PM
TSORon writes:
Between the time you place your bag in the hands of the ticket agent and the time it is back in your hands, nearly a dozen people will have moved it or touched it. TSA is usually only 2 of those individuals, and we have cameras watching our every move.
Funny, those cameras didn't stop TSA employee Pythias Brown from stealing over $200,000 in electronics from passengers. And those cameras didn't help catch Pythias Brown ... it was independent investigations by the victims of those crimes that led to his arrest.
TSA insists that I submit my luggage in an unlocked state to TSA, in case TSA wants to inspect the contents. Which means that once the suitcase leaves the TSA's hands, any of the dozen or so people who have access to my suitcase have ample opportunity to open the case and remove, or add, any item they desire. If I could lock my own suitcase, such security breaches would be far more difficult to achieve.
And, yes, I could use a TSA lock. But my trusty Samsonite suitcase with its built-in lock doesn't have a way to add a TSA lock to it. And we've heard numerous stories here of TSA locks which are "mysteriously" cut off of luggage anyways ... whether by TSA or airline employees, no-one knows. TSA locks aren't a practical answer.
March 13, 2009 12:14 PM
Quoted:
"And, yes, I could use a TSA lock. But my trusty Samsonite suitcase with its built-in lock doesn't have a way to add a TSA lock to it. And we've heard numerous stories here of TSA locks which are "mysteriously" cut off of luggage anyways ... whether by TSA or airline employees, no-one knows. TSA locks aren't a practical answer."
Actually there are several straps sold with TSA locks built in. they go around a hardsided case and under the handle. When they are locked they are TSA accessible yet anyone else would have to cut them off (presumably). I use em even on my soft bag as it identifies it on the carousel. But again, I guess it's easier to complain then look for solutions.
Also, at any airport that doesn't use an inline system (Ok, there are not that many but there are quite a few (usually the non Cat-X ones), if you politely ask the TSOs in baggage, they will usually allow you to submit your bag as unlocked and then either allow you (with them watching) to lock the non TSA locks or they will lock them for you after it clears screening. I suggest asking nicely - you'd be surprised how much pull being nice has.
We do this regularly since we then know that the bag was locked under the pasenger's watch when it left us. Less liability for us if the bag is broken into later. We usually stand right next to the passenger to insure nothing is introduced into the bag (all he's doing is clipping the lock closed) or we do it for the pax while they stand outside the area and look on.
March 13, 2009 1:30 PM
"We do this regularly since we then know that the bag was locked under the pasenger's watch when it left us. Less liability for us if the bag is broken into later. We usually stand right next to the passenger to insure nothing is introduced into the bag (all he's doing is clipping the lock closed) or we do it for the pax while they stand outside the area and look on."
Would you like to tell us which airport? This is a positive step, and a very helpful post.
March 13, 2009 1:42 PM
Congrats Bob, good job with the interview. I wish there was more to it though, more ideas and more insight into what is to come.
The blog is a great tool for the TSA to get the message across to the public that we are not going to allow terrorists to attack again if it can at all be stopped.
March 13, 2009 1:52 PM
Anonymous writes:
Actually there are several straps sold with TSA locks built in. they go around a hardsided case and under the handle. When they are locked they are TSA accessible yet anyone else would have to cut them off (presumably). I use em even on my soft bag as it identifies it on the carousel. But again, I guess it's easier to complain then look for solutions.
Why so aggressive? There have been plenty of other solutions proposed here on the blog. TSA could require that luggage inspection occurs in the presence of the owner, after which the owner could apply his/her own private lock. Or, a luggage strapping system could be used which would "seal" the luggage after TSA finishes its inspection.
And ... frankly, I've never seen the TSA luggage strap. I can hardly be criticized for not using an item that I don't know exists; the only photos of TSA locks on the TSA website show external, stand-along locks. Can you provide a pointer to a place where I could buy such an item?
Also, at any airport that doesn't use an inline system (Ok, there are not that many but there are quite a few (usually the non Cat-X ones), if you politely ask the TSOs in baggage, they will usually allow you to submit your bag as unlocked and then either allow you (with them watching) to lock the non TSA locks or they will lock them for you after it clears screening. I suggest asking nicely - you'd be surprised how much pull being nice has.
1) As you note, not every airport has this option. My two home airports are among them.
2) There are plenty of stories posted here by passengers who have been shooed away by TSA employees while doing exactly what you recommended.
March 13, 2009 1:58 PM
Very nice interview Blogger Bob.
When you feel up to it I would love to interview you for my blog. I promise to play nice. [evil grin]
March 13, 2009 2:01 PM
I'd still like to know when our check in luggage will be completely safe.
___________________________________
NEVER! As long as it has to pass through human hands, it will never be 100% safe. I don't fly, but if I did, I would probably mail my baggage to my destination.
March 13, 2009 2:07 PM
Nice to have a someone to blame, isn't it? The issue isn't who is to blame, or who can be blamed, but the fact that check-in luggage is not secure. Personally I don't care who the thief is, but TSA is supposed to keep commercial aviation safe.
___________________________________
Safe from terrorism, not safe from theft.
March 13, 2009 2:10 PM
"The blog is a great tool for the TSA to get the message across to the public that we are not going to allow terrorists to attack again if it can at all be stopped."
But nothing TSA does would have prevented 9/11. Nothing TSA does protects anyone, from anything, except maybe 0.6 ounces of harmless lotion that no one needs to be protected from in the first place.
March 13, 2009 2:22 PM
@"And, yes, I could use a TSA lock. But my trusty Samsonite suitcase with its built-in lock doesn't have a way to add a TSA lock to it. And we've heard numerous stories here of TSA locks which are "mysteriously" cut off of luggage anyways ... whether by TSA or airline employees, no-one knows. TSA locks aren't a practical answer."
...
You should be able to pack a starter pistol with your valuables, get a hand inspection, and use a real lock. Here's a TSA 'editorial', maybe it is even a "rule".
It's probably worth it just in malicious compliance to make TSA do the extra work if they are going to make you show up early for the "security theatre".
...
GSOLTSO @"Some of the questions here are not answered quite the way I would like to see them, but I am just a grunt and have no bearing on that."
So grunts aren't responsible for following orders they don't quite agree with?
March 13, 2009 2:26 PM
Nice to have a someone to blame, isn't it? The issue isn't who is to blame, or who can be blamed, but the fact that check-in luggage is not secure. Personally I don't care who the thief is, but TSA is supposed to keep commercial aviation safe.
___________________________________
Safe from terrorism, not safe from theft.
___________________________________
Safe from soda bottles, snow-globes, and the 4th amendment, but still not close to 100% safe from terrorism.
March 13, 2009 2:30 PM
Dunstan said:
Personally I don't care who the thief is, but TSA is supposed to keep commercial aviation safe.
Anonymous responded:
Safe from terrorism, not safe from theft.
If someone can get access to my luggage and take something valuable out, that same person can get access to my luggage and put something dangerousin. Isn't that a threat to airline safety that should be addressed?
March 13, 2009 3:12 PM
If someone can get access to my luggage and take something valuable out, that same person can get access to my luggage and put something dangerousin. Isn't that a threat to airline safety that should be addressed?
___________________________________
Hi Jim. Yes, maybe it would be addressed if it were happening.
But its not, so why make things up!
March 13, 2009 3:34 PM
"Hi Jim. Yes, maybe it would be addressed if it were happening.
But its not, so why make things up!"
Would you like to apply that same logic to the vast number (0) of terrorists actually caught in airports in the US?
March 13, 2009 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...
Nice to have a someone to blame, isn't it? The issue isn't who is to blame, or who can be blamed, but the fact that check-in luggage is not secure. Personally I don't care who the thief is, but TSA is supposed to keep commercial aviation safe.
.......................
Checked luggage is not secure and the people who have access to checked luggage have not all been screened.
That is the security weakness.
March 13, 2009 4:39 PM
I wrote:
If someone can get access to my luggage and take something valuable out, that same person can get access to my luggage and put something dangerous in. Isn't that a threat to airline safety that should be addressed?
Anonymous responded:
Yes, maybe it would be addressed if it were happening. But its not, so why make things up!
Because security shouldn't be about responding to last week's threat; it should be about responding to next week's threat. Otherwise, you're just playing defense against terrorism, instead of offense.
March 13, 2009 4:44 PM
"Yes, maybe it would be addressed if it were happening.
But its not, so why make things up!"
First, TSA is the one making things up, like the notion that there is an massive, ongoing threat from shoes and liquids. TSA's false claims about shoes and liquids are disproved simply by noting that no other country in the world has shoe and liquids policies like TSA, and no one is trying to use shoes or liquids to harm flights in those countries.
Second, unsecured luggage is an obvious hole in TSA's supposed "layers" of security. Given how many TSOs, for instance, have been caught taking things from luggage, and given that TSOs are not screened the way passengers are, it is obvious to see that it would be simple for someone to put something dangerous in checked luggage. To point this out is no more "making things up" than it is to tell someone that they are at risk of having their car stolen if they leave the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition.
Of course, TSA can't be bothered to screen cargo, so it's not like they're securing much of anything, now, is it?
March 13, 2009 5:02 PM
"Safe from soda bottles, snow-globes, and the 4th amendment, but still not close to 100% safe from terrorism."
So what do you think can harm you while flying in checked luggage? What do you think those CTX machines scan for? TSO-Joe
March 13, 2009 6:03 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
If someone can get access to my luggage and take something valuable out, that same person can get access to my luggage and put something dangerous in. Isn't that a threat to airline safety that should be addressed?
______________________________
Hi Jim. Yes, maybe it would be addressed if it were happening.
But its not, so why make things up!
***********
No one thought large passenger aircraft could be used as a weapon until September 11 and in hindsight they armored the cockpit doors.
No one thought someone would hide explosives in a shoe until Richard Reid, now we have to have our shoes and have them X-rayed before we board.
No one thought liquid explosives might be smuggled on board an aircraft, now we have restrictions and Kippie bags.
Are you saying we have to wait for an airplane to blow up because some terrorist jumped a perimeter fence dressed like a baggage handler and puts some bombs into random pieces of luggage. In the past terrorists hid bombs in luggage and boarded the flight. Who says they have to board the flight.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 13, 2009 6:33 PM
TSO-Joe writes:
So what do you think can harm you while flying in checked luggage? What do you think those CTX machines scan for? TSO-Joe
All sorts of things could harm me in checked luggage ... as long as the item inserted into my luggage happens after the CTX machine has examined it.
Here's the scenario. Mr. Evil Terrorist gets a job as a baggage handler. He takes luggage after TSA has scanned it and loads it onto airplanes.
He smuggles an IED into work ... perhaps in pieces, perhaps all at once. (After all, he's an airport employee, and isn't regularly screened.) He then assembles the IED, sets the timer on the IED, finds an unlocked piece of luggage, sticks the IED in the bag, and sends it on its way. If the luggage is unlocked, this can probably happen pretty quickly. ("Oops! This suitcase fell open! Let me repack it and close it for the passenger.")
Two hours later, the bomb goes off, and everyone on board has a really bad day.
I'm not saying Mr. Terrorist can't find other ways to introduce an IED into the baggage compartment. But it'd be a whole lot more difficult for him to do so if all the bags that came by his station were locked.
March 14, 2009 12:25 AM
Quote:
"And ... frankly, I've never seen the TSA luggage strap. I can hardly be criticized for not using an item that I don't know exists; the only photos of TSA locks on the TSA website show external, stand-along locks. Can you provide a pointer to a place where I could buy such an item?"
30 seconds on the web found this:
http://traveloasis.com/luggage-strap.html
and this:
http://home.bluemarble.net/~traveler/LNC_luggage_lock_belt_TSA228.htm
and this:
http://www.safeskieslocks.com/store/luggage-straps-c-13.html
and abou a dozen other links....
Like I said earlier, easier to complain than to look for a solution.
Also about not being allowed to relock your bag - Try speaking NICELY to a Lead or Supe. You'll find it just might work.
March 14, 2009 10:30 AM
I said "Safe from soda bottles, snow-globes, and the 4th amendment, but still not close to 100% safe from terrorism."
And TSO-Joe responded:
So what do you think can harm you while flying in checked luggage? What do you think those CTX machines scan for? TSO-Joe
The red-team inspectors get success rates up to 90% (i.e., TSO failure rates of up to 90%) on smuggling bomb components. Then the TSA boosters routinely reply they can't be perfect and check everything, and that even if they did, we passengers wouldn't put up with what it would take for 100% safety.
If TSA is claiming that it is making us "safe from terrorism", what safety benefit are we getting from TSA that the airlines didn't do before? Is TSA claiming the safety benefit of armored cockpit doors, which pre-dated this infant agency? Is TSA claiming the heroism of the folks that realized and stopped an aircraft from being used as a weapon (Flight 93)? What good does TSA do?
The CTX machines scan for density of x-ray absorption, because that is what Computed Tomography X-ray means. Densities can't tell you the difference between explosives and cheese, so all the CTX machines are scanning for is density. You need something else to decide whether a cheese is explosive or not. When you get it wrong, you hype it, and you don't seem to have gotten one right enough to publish.
Or maybe you have some secret rule that means you can't publish real terrorist detections, but somehow publishing libelous suspicious against the innocent is OK?
March 14, 2009 4:51 PM
Jim Huggins said
TSA insists that I submit my luggage in an unlocked state to TSA, in case TSA wants to inspect the contents. Which means that once the suitcase leaves the TSA's hands, any of the dozen or so people who have access to my suitcase have ample opportunity to open the case and remove, or add, any item they desire. If I could lock my own suitcase, such security breaches would be far more difficult to achieve.
Thats the furthest from the truth. TSA Does not insist that you submit your luggage unlocked. You can lock any bag you want with any lock you want. The only thing TSA asks is that you be available to unlock it if they need to go into your bag. Unfortunately thats where the Airlines create the problem. When the Airport is an in-line system the Supervisors need to call the Airline to call the passenger back with the key and then the Airline representative needs to bring the key back so the bag can be unlocked. Some Airlines at the Airport I work at (I won't mention any names)flat out refuse to call the passenger back and have told our Supervisors to cut the locks with out any attempt to contact the passenger. If what you said was true no one would be allowed to check a bag with a firearm in it. When you check your locked bag, inform the Airlines that it is locked and tell them you want to wait until the bag was cleared by TSA before leaving. Remember you're paying the Airlines to ensure that all of your property arrives at your destination, so the Airlines need to start earning some of that money by working with TSA to get your locked bag through and at your destination still locked.
March 14, 2009 8:25 PM
Anonymous said
First, TSA is the one making things up, like the notion that there is an massive, ongoing threat from shoes and liquids. TSA's false claims about shoes and liquids are disproved simply by noting that no other country in the world has shoe and liquids policies like TSA, and no one is trying to use shoes or liquids to harm flights in those countries.
You posted as anonymous, is that because you're in the intellegence business.
The terrorist aren't looking to kill other citizens of different countries like they are US Citizens. Unless you work for an intellegence agency don't assume that you know what threats are received by the people that are trying to keep you safe. It's been months since I read this blog and I see the same 15 or 20 people still posting negative comments. Some of those comments insinuate that everyone hates TSA. If that were true, for as long as this blog has been here, the number of people posting negative comments should have increased 1000 times. It's just the same few over and over again, which only goes to prove that these people will never be happy no matter what happens.
March 14, 2009 8:41 PM
There's still a long way to go.
March 15, 2009 4:13 AM
"Are you saying we have to wait for an airplane to blow up because some terrorist jumped a perimeter fence dressed like a baggage handler and puts some bombs into random pieces of luggage. In the past terrorists hid bombs in luggage and boarded the flight. Who says they have to board the flight."
Obviously the whole TSA thinking, and structure is based on being reactive rather than proactive regarding true security. The weaknesses in security, such as access to luggage, will remain until a serious incident occurs. Then we will see a lot of blame and finger pointing. The rest is just pretense and "smoke and mirrors" no matter how high tech the magic equipment gets.
March 15, 2009 9:54 AM
Jim Huggins said...
Because security shouldn't be about responding to last week's threat; it should be about responding to next week's threat. Otherwise, you're just playing defense against terrorism, instead of offense.
You are absolutely right Jim. Security should not be reactive.
The paper “Proactive vs. Reactive Security” by Richard Steinberger goes over this issue pretty well.
About the Author
"Richard Steinberg lectures on issues that include counterterrorism, international security, and the history of assassinations in America. A former consultant and founder of an international high-risk security firm, Steinberg began writing full-time after recovering from a gunshot wound incurred in the line of duty. His first novel, The Gemini Man, is currently being developed for feature film adaptation by producer Steven Haft."
-H2H
March 15, 2009 10:49 AM
TSO said...
Also about not being allowed to relock your bag - Try speaking NICELY to a Lead or Supe. You'll find it just might work.
March 14, 2009 10:30 AM
.....................
So the quality of service rendered by TSO's is based on my speaking "NICELY" to a Lead or Supe?
Par for the course!!
March 16, 2009 10:31 AM
I wrote:
"And ... frankly, I've never seen the TSA luggage strap. I can hardly be criticized for not using an item that I don't know exists; the only photos of TSA locks on the TSA website show external, stand-along locks. Can you provide a pointer to a place where I could buy such an item?"
An anonymous TSO posted some links, and then wrote:
Like I said earlier, easier to complain than to look for a solution.
Way to make me feel like this is my fault. How am I suppose to know that my problem even has a solution ... in order to know that I can search for it in the first place?
I fly about 2-3 times a year. Right after 9/11, I was told, unequivocably, by TSA employees that my baggage had to be unlocked at all times. I never heard the word that "oh, it's ok to lock it now." All I heard was "it's ok to lock it IF you have one of our Approved Locks." So, I suppose it's my fault that I haven't spent the last eight years pouring over every last press release from TSA in order to notice this tiny little change.
Also about not being allowed to relock your bag - Try speaking NICELY to a Lead or Supe. You'll find it just might work.
Both of my home airports use in-line screening; the last time I see my bag is when the airline employee (not a TSA employee) sticks it on the conveyor belt behind the ticket counter. There's no LTSO/STSO for me to talk to at that point.
March 16, 2009 10:45 AM
It's been months since I read this blog and I see the same 15 or 20 people still posting negative comments.
The reason the same comments appear months later is because we still can’t get any answers directly from the TSA. What you consider negative comments many of us see as questions that need to be asked and asnwered, instead of accepting what we are told with blind faith.
Something must be changing, in the past it has been stated that the negative comments were only coming from the same five or six people, now we are up to 15 to 20.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 16, 2009 12:25 PM
Mac Said
"There's still a long way to go."
Yes Mac, there is. We have much work to do to make travel both safe and easy. All it takes is one shoe bomb going off onboard a plane to make another posters "massive conspiracy" statement into a fact.
TSA is improving. It has since the day of inception, and will continue to do so in part because of this blog and the posters here. But also in part because of its employees, its management, and a national committment to safe travel for all americans.
March 16, 2009 2:35 PM
"All it takes is one shoe bomb going off onboard a plane to make another posters "massive conspiracy" statement into a fact"
No one is trying to set off shoe bombs, as demonstrated by the fact that show bombs are not being used anywhere in the world, including in countries that don't mandate the ridiculous shoe carnival that TSA loves so much.
March 16, 2009 3:03 PM
The terrorist aren't looking to kill other citizens of different countries like they are US Citizens.
Like the railway bombings In Madrid, the London subway bombing, and the fire bomb at the Glasgow airport. Seems to me they want to kill people in other countries as badly as they want US citizens.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 16, 2009 3:13 PM
Bob,
How about telling us what you do with small children when MMW is used in primary screening?
Are they all patted down?
March 16, 2009 4:26 PM
TSO Ron @"TSA is improving. It has since the day of inception, and will continue to do so in part because of this blog and the posters here. But also in part because of its employees, its management, and a national committment to safe travel for all americans."
###
How can you tell that TSA is improving? Just that it is getting bigger? Has more a bigger budget? Has more employees? Has a longer list of prohibited items?
If you could show that the 1-in-a-billion risk of terrorists is improved significantly due to TSA's changes, you can say TSA is improving. Else, it is just wishful thinking.
Is TSA doing a good job at reducing the 42K Americans who die each year while travelling?
March 16, 2009 5:18 PM
Another Anonymous poster said:
“No one is trying to set off shoe bombs, as demonstrated by the fact that show bombs are not being used anywhere in the world, including in countries that don't mandate the ridiculous shoe carnival that TSA loves so much.”
I would again refer you to the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)
I didn’t make this story up, Mr. Reid is a fact in our world today. If you look at his picture you will note that he looks like a major idiot. I’m sure that there are many individuals out there that look more normal and have his same interests. Shoe bombs remain a threat, one that is easy to defeat (no pun intended) by a simple change in procedures. If you have concern about the hole in your sock being discovered, try not wearing any socks.
March 16, 2009 6:14 PM
Mr. Gel-pack said:
“Is TSA doing a good job at reducing the 42K Americans who die each year while travelling?”
Wow, is that an intentional misrepresentation of fact? Please, read the link you provide and then try your question again.
March 16, 2009 6:18 PM
The 42k that are on highway? I didn't realise that the TSA where the ones that covered that now.
March 17, 2009 6:12 AM
"I didn’t make this story up, Mr. Reid is a fact in our world today. If you look at his picture you will note that he looks like a major idiot. I’m sure that there are many individuals out there that look more normal and have his same interests. Shoe bombs remain a threat, one that is easy to defeat (no pun intended) by a simple change in procedures. If you have concern about the hole in your sock being discovered, try not wearing any socks."
Well, it sounds like "a major idiot" started a cascade of idiocy. Now no one can walk through the checkpoint wearing shoes, despite the low probability of any shoe having a fuse sticking out of the heel. However, we are now free to bring through matches and lighters.
Really is there someone at DHS who thinks this stuff through?
Really, after you squeeze all the gathered information through the heap of intelligence agency filters, does DHS get the left over sludge?
March 17, 2009 9:44 AM
Bob,
Please check Flyertalk.com, passengers are reporting the TSA is requiring that all electronics have to be placed in a separate bin, not just lap tops. So far its happening in San Francisco and Omaha.
This happened once before where an airport tried to invent their own policies.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 17, 2009 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...
The 42k that are on highway? I didn't realise that the TSA where the ones that covered that now.
March 17, 2009 6:12 AM
...............
Does Transportation Safety end at the airports boundaries?
March 17, 2009 10:36 AM
TSO Ron &c: Hmm, I thought they had a "Transportation Fatalities by Mode" total on that page, but they didn't My mistake; 45K is the total number of Americans that died in transit in 2007.
The point I wanted to make and that is supported by the table is that the risk of comercial airline transportation fatality is tiny compared to the total transportation fatalities. Even including 9/11, your carved out area of responsibility is only about 1/7 of the risk of pedalcyclist fatalities.
Maybe the Transportation Security Administration can say the other sorts of transportation fatalities are "not my job" when it suits them, but TSA likes touting your expertise Outside the Airport: "“every day, the transportation network connects cities, manufacturers, and retailers, moving large volumes of goods and individuals through a complex network of approximately 4 million miles of roads and highways, more than 100,000 miles of rail, 600,000 bridges, more than 300 tunnels and numerous sea ports, 2 million miles of pipeline, 500,000 train stations, and 500 public-use airports.”
What is the risk TSA is reducing? The BTS 100 fatalities per year for commercial aviation? The 2,000,000 potential passenger fatalities per day? Does TSA arrogate the safety efforts provided by the pilots, FAA, airlines, mechanics, designers, flight crews, law enforcement, and the passengers themselves? Or can we only hold TSA reponsible when each of the layers of security work together: A crazy-haired shoeless Reid with his name on the DNF list, acting erratically with a fake ID and carrying a 4-oz bottle of nitrogycerine stuffed under his t-shirt walks through the MMW while non-physically interfering with the screening? If he blows up his nitro in the checkpoint or at the ticket counter, rather than the plane, will you consider it not your responsibility?
How much are you reducing what risk?
You guys are all flash and no responsibility.
(Today, my captcha was "distsa". Heh.)
March 17, 2009 11:29 AM
"I didn’t make this story up, Mr. Reid is a fact in our world today. If you look at his picture you will note that he looks like a major idiot. I’m sure that there are many individuals out there that look more normal and have his same interests. Shoe bombs remain a threat, one that is easy to defeat (no pun intended) by a simple change in procedures."
Note that you can only cite one unsuccessful attempt dating from several years ago. The fact remains that no one has tried to harm aviation in countries that don't require the mandatory show carnival that TSA does, and this is because no one has tried to use a show bomb to harm an aircraft since Reid, regardless of whether there's a shoe carnival or not. Note also that TSA has never caught anyone trying to use a shoe bomb, nor did anyone try to use one during the period after Reid but before the shoe carnival was made mandatory.
That is because there is no threat from shoes. Please stop claiming that there is, because that is a lie.
"If you have concern about the hole in your sock being discovered, try not wearing any socks."
What a charming dismissal of the legitimate health concerns TSA's pointless shoe policies present!
March 17, 2009 12:03 PM
Another Anonymous poster said:
“Please check Flyertalk.com, passengers are reporting the TSA is requiring that all electronics have to be placed in a separate bin, not just lap tops. So far its happening in San Francisco and Omaha.”
I can't address whats going on in San Francisco (from what I have seen there they are a contract agency and not TSA), but in Omaha I can give a definitive answer. This is not done in Omaha. They may pull electronics out of bags that are so full of them that it is impossible for the X-Ray operator to clear the bag, but it is not policy to require this of all electronics or passengers.
March 17, 2009 2:05 PM
"As I was going thru security screening in OMA yesterday, the TSA barker was screaming to remove ALL electronic items, including cameras, radios , i pods, cell phones, computers, etc, from your carry on bags and place them in the bin.
This was the first time my cell phone was subjected to the "remove and place in the bin" scrutiny that my laptop receives. What does OMA know that the rest of us doesn't?"
From F/T
March 17, 2009 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...
I can't address whats going on in San Francisco (from what I have seen there they are a contract agency and not TSA), but in Omaha I can give a definitive answer. This is not done in Omaha. They may pull electronics out of bags that are so full of them that it is impossible for the X-Ray operator to clear the bag, but it is not policy to require this of all electronics or passengers.
And just who are you at the TSA to be making this statement?? Take a look at the link below, then investigate. Something is happening and if San Francisco is handled by contractors they are still obligated to follow TSA rules, not their own.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/933058-i-want-see-all-electronic-items.html
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 17, 2009 3:02 PM
Quote:
"So, I suppose it's my fault that I haven't spent the last eight years pouring over every last press release from TSA in order to notice this tiny little change."
Or read any of the signs posted around checked baggage, or listened to the news, or visited a Sharper Image, Brookstone or any of 100 other stores that sell TSA locks, etc. etc.
March 17, 2009 4:10 PM
Eric said...
And just who are you at the TSA to be making this statement?? Take a look at the link below, then investigate. Something is happening and if San Francisco is handled by contractors they are still obligated to follow TSA rules, not their own.
Just a very recent enhancement to the national random screening program. It's not a permanent change to TSA policy, but you and others need to be aware that you can be subject to enhanced screening at any point during the screening process.
-H2H
March 17, 2009 5:11 PM
I wrote:
"So, I suppose it's my fault that I haven't spent the last eight years pouring over every last press release from TSA in order to notice this tiny little change."
Anonymous replied:
Or read any of the signs posted around checked baggage,
Show me one TSA sign that says that I'm allowed to lock my bags with my own lock.
or listened to the news,
Show me one news report that says that I'm allowed to lock my bags with my own lock. I can find plenty of articles from around that time that say exactly the opposite.
or visited a Sharper Image, Brookstone or any of 100 other stores that sell TSA locks
Yeah, like Brookstone is going to tell me that I don't need to buy their special locks, since I can just use my own. That ain't gonna happen ...
March 17, 2009 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...Bob, Please check Flyertalk.com, passengers are reporting the TSA is requiring that all electronics have to be placed in a separate bin, not just lap tops. So far its happening in San Francisco and Omaha. This happened once before where an airport tried to invent their own policies. Eric One of the 5 or 6
March 17, 2009 9:57 AM
-----------------------
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Federal Security Directors have the authority to conduct flexible, layered security operations, which can, on occasion, include the opening of bags, removal of electronics etc.
I’ve looked into this, and it isn’t the unauthorized pilot program issue that was reported last February.
Thanks!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
March 17, 2009 5:29 PM
"I’ve looked into this, and it isn’t the unauthorized pilot program issue that was reported last February."
It's merely identical to it in every respect, and equally massively inconvenient for citizens traveling by air? Gee, that makes me feel better, Bob.
Bob, since you are apparently reading comments, why are you and TSA refusing to answer legitimate questions about the policy for small children and your virtual strip-search machine?
March 17, 2009 5:47 PM
"Obviously the whole TSA thinking, and structure is based on being reactive rather than proactive regarding true security. The weaknesses in security, such as access to luggage, will remain until a serious incident occurs. Then we will see a lot of blame and finger pointing. The rest is just pretense and "smoke and mirrors" no matter how high tech the magic equipment gets."
That's the US state of mind. Doesn't matter what branch of the government it is. Remember the peanut butter paste posioning? Where was the FDA in protecting us? How about the lead paint in childrens toys? What about the bridge collapse in MN and OH? Cheaper to keep inspecting rather than rebuilding? Same stuff (to use a nice word) here: nothing will get changed until something (and someone) dies. THEN something may get done. FDA is still fighting this one.
March 17, 2009 6:59 PM
"The CTX machines scan for density of x-ray absorption, because that is what Computed Tomography X-ray means. Densities can't tell you the difference between explosives and cheese, so all the CTX machines are scanning for is density. You need something else to decide whether a cheese is explosive or not."
That's me, the human tripwire. When the machine sends me something, I check it out to make sure it is cheese and not C-4. Somedays, I feel like the pig garbage disposal unit under the sink in the Flinstones cartoons: "Eh, it's a living."
TSO-Joe
March 17, 2009 7:11 PM
Bob said...
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Federal Security Directors have the authority to conduct flexible, layered security operations, which can, on occasion, include the opening of bags, removal of electronics etc.
Bob,
This goes to the problem of rule changes occur without notice and there is nothing in writing. Take another look at the Flyertalk thread, the posters believe that this is a capricious act on the part of local TSA personnel. This is also part of the larger problem when a passenger challenges the questionable decisions by TSA personnel. They can claim its in writing but its SSI and we have no way to confirm that. Like the TSO in the diabetes thread who feels that if you are wearing a glucose monitor taking it off for screening is not a problem when in fact it is.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 17, 2009 9:26 PM
Bob, you wrote:
Federal Security Directors have the authority to conduct flexible, layered security operations, which can, on occasion, include the opening of bags, removal of electronics etc.
I’ve looked into this, and it isn’t the unauthorized pilot program issue that was reported last February.
I don't want this to sound snide (honestly), but ... from a passenger perspective, both of these incidents look identical. How can a passenger tell the difference between an unauthorized change in screening procedures and a permissable location variation?
March 18, 2009 2:08 PM
Bob said....
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Federal Security Directors have the authority to conduct flexible, layered security operations, which can, on occasion, include the opening of bags, removal of electronics etc.
I’ve looked into this, and it isn’t the unauthorized pilot program issue that was reported last February.
Thanks!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
March 17, 2009 5:29 PM
......................
So is it an authorized pilot program authorized by TSA HQ?
March 18, 2009 2:36 PM
Jim Huggins said...
I don't want this to sound snide (honestly), but ... from a passenger perspective, both of these incidents look identical. How can a passenger tell the difference between an unauthorized change in screening procedures and a permissible location variation?
The difference is switching secondary screening to primary screening. Primary screening has different objectives then secondary screening.
Anonymous said...
Take another look at the Flyertalk thread, the posters believe that this is a capricious act on the part of local TSA personnel.
Seems like a implementation issue. It needs to be sold as a “exception to the rule” by the Transportation Security Officers enforcing it. I think that would fix some of the costumer service issues associated with it. Thats worth looking into.
-H2H
March 18, 2009 4:49 PM
I asked:
I don't want this to sound snide (honestly), but ... from a passenger perspective, both of these incidents look identical. How can a passenger tell the difference between an unauthorized change in screening procedures and a permissable location variation?
HappyToHelp responded:
The difference is switching secondary screening to primary screening. Primary screening has different objectives then secondary screening.
Forgive me, but this doesn't make any sense.
In the original incident last year, passengers were being asked to remove all electronics from carry-ons as they passed through the x-ray. Passengers here asked about it, and it was found to be an unauthorized pilot. TSA stopped the practice, and the incident was hailed as an example of how this blog can make things better.
In the latest incident, passengers were being asked the same thing: to remove all electronics from carry-ons before passing through the x-ray. But this time, Bob says that FSDs have the authority to added security layers such as this.
How am I supposed to know the difference between these two incidents? From a passenger perspective, they seem identical ...
March 18, 2009 8:24 PM
Seems like a implementation issue. It needs to be sold as a “exception to the rule” by the Transportation Security Officers enforcing it. I think that would fix some of the costumer service issues associated with it. That's worth looking into.
-H2H
March 18, 2009 4:49 PM
No what would help is for TSA to tell us why the normal 100% traveler screening is not adequate.
Is the competency of the screeners so poor that TSA knows the job being done is not good enough?
That's my take on this as well as many others who are getting accosted at the gate.
March 18, 2009 8:34 PM
Someone asked-
"And just who are you at the TSA to be making this statement??"
I am a TSO in Omaha. And as I said, this is not happening in Omaha. We occasionally remove electronics from over-packed bags so that the X-Ray operator can clear the bag, but it is not policy to have every passenger remove all electronics from their bags. Over packed bags are all to common on the checkpoint, just as are people who dont know that cell phones have metal in them.
Honestly folks, 100% uniformity across a workforce as wide spread and as large as the TSA, is an unrealistic expectation. Work with us and we will work with you.
March 18, 2009 8:58 PM
Jim Huggins said...
How am I supposed to know the difference between these two incidents? From a passenger perspective, they seem identical ...
Good question. Historically speaking, Bob. J/k of course. Some investigative work would be in order. Ask the Transportation Security Officer. Didn't hear what you like? Ask for a supervisor. Still sounds fishy? Use GotFeedBack. Still not resolved? Post here on the blog. Still don't like it? Take up Tae Kwon Do so you can release some of that anger in the dojo. You will live longer. :)
RB said...
No what would help is for TSA to tell us why the normal 100% traveler screening is not adequate.
Are you referencing Primary Screening? You want a list of all the vulnerabilities of Primary Screening? Not going to happen. :)
-H2H
March 19, 2009 4:40 AM
Bob said...
Anonymous said...Bob, Please check Flyertalk.com, passengers are reporting the TSA is requiring that all electronics have to be placed in a separate bin, not just lap tops. So far its happening in San Francisco and Omaha. This happened once before where an airport tried to invent their own policies. Eric One of the 5 or 6
March 17, 2009 9:57 AM
-----------------------
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Federal Security Directors have the authority to conduct flexible, layered security operations, which can, on occasion, include the opening of bags, removal of electronics etc.
I’ve looked into this, and it isn’t the unauthorized pilot program issue that was reported last February.
Thanks!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
March 17, 2009 5:29 PM
----------------------------
So, it would seem to me that if the FSD last February responded by saying it was a "flexible layered security operation" instead of a "pilot program", nothing would have been done to stop it. And this blog would not have been able to post about how useful it is.
March 19, 2009 7:21 AM
Wow, noone, I mean NO ONE took a shot at me for my previous post! You guys are slipping!
Dunstan said "I'd still like to know when our check in luggage will be completely safe."
I would love to tell you that it would be tomorrow, bgut there are waaaaayyyy too many factors involved for the fix to be that quick. There are always going to be bad apples in every group, it is simply a fact of human nature that some will steal and some will not. The opportunity afforded to the bad apples in some of the baggage handling areas is just to great to pass up. When people are caught doing the wrong things they are prosecuted in the correct manner (or at least that is the way it is supposed to happen). One solution I have seen offered here repeatedly is to install cameras in all baggage handling areas. This is a nice idea, but the cost factor would be staggering and prohibitive at this point. Not only do you need A camera, you would need several installed in several different locations and then the wiring and monitoring and .... Well, you get the idea. I would love to have cameras at every location for us so it would protect the innocent TSO's and make it easy to catch the ones doing wrong. At this point, the best options available are too expensive. One other option I have seen is to have more in depth background checks done on TSO's and Baggage handlers, this is pretty cost prohibitive as well, because of the time intensive interview/follow up process needed. At this point, the best option available to the traveller is to use a TSA lock, and to address the situation as soon as they notice what is missing.
March 19, 2009 12:21 PM
RB said...
No what would help is for TSA to tell us why the normal 100% traveler screening is not adequate.
Are you referencing Primary Screening? You want a list of all the vulnerabilities of Primary Screening? Not going to happen. :)
What he means is that the primary screening is not good enough because you have to throw in "enhanced" measures to make the screening more of a hassle. If you have to add to the screening at random that means there are too many holes in the primary screening. The primary screening can not get the job done on its lonesome so you have to subject us to more hassle and it is random and we never know what the hassle is.
-James
March 19, 2009 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...
I am a TSO in Omaha. And as I said, this is not happening in Omaha. We occasionally remove electronics from over-packed bags so that the X-Ray operator can clear the bag, but it is not policy to have every passenger remove all electronics from their bags. Over packed bags are all to common on the checkpoint, just as are people who dont know that cell phones have metal in them.
Ok then explain this, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11426451-post1.html
As I was going thru security screening in OMA yesterday, the TSA barker was screaming to remove ALL electronic items, including cameras, radios , i pods, cell phones, computers, etc, from your carry on bags and place them in the bin.
This was the first time my cell phone was subjected to the "remove and place in the bin" scrutiny that my laptop receives. What does OMA know that the rest of us doesn't?
Does not sound like occasional removal of electronics to me.
Eric
One of the 5 or 6
March 19, 2009 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...
I am a TSO in Omaha. And as I said, this is not happening in Omaha. We occasionally remove electronics from over-packed bags so that the X-Ray operator can clear the bag, but it is not policy to have every passenger remove all electronics from their bags. Over packed bags are all to common on the checkpoint, just as are people who dont know that cell phones have metal in them.
Were you working the day this happened? Were you aware of everything going on at your checkpoint? Could this of happened at a checkpoint you were not working at, how about a lane? For you OMA TSO that says this does not happen is absolutely a lie because you can not assure us (The public) that this doesn't happen. There is no way of knowing if you were there at the correct moment when this happened.
-James
March 19, 2009 2:56 PM
What he means is that the primary screening is not good enough because you have to throw in "enhanced" measures to make the screening more of a hassle. If you have to add to the screening at random that means there are too many holes in the primary screening. The primary screening can not get the job done on its lonesome so you have to subject us to more hassle and it is random and we never know what the hassle is.
-James
March 19, 2009 12:59 PM
.............................
Thanks James, spot on.
Everyone should wonder just why TSA has started these gate checks again. I know I do!!
I have heard it's because of all the unscreened airport workers, like TSO's who have access to the so-called sterile areas without being screened.
So what does TSA do?
TSA screens those who have already been screened instead of those who have not.
This is the brilliance of TSA leadership at work!
March 19, 2009 3:34 PM
"No what would help is for TSA to tell us why the normal 100% traveler screening is not adequate.
Is the competency of the screeners so poor that TSA knows the job being done is not good enough?
That's my take on this as well as many others who are getting accosted at the gate.'
USA Today (Thursday) sez this gate screening is in response to the worries that non-screened employees may try to slip sometyhing past the checkpoint onto a plane. Same worries that kept cropping up here. Seems someone is listening, though I don't like their answer. Seems it'd be easier to just screen everybody.
March 19, 2009 4:26 PM
USA Today (Thursday) sez this gate screening is in response to the worries that non-screened employees may try to slip something past the checkpoint onto a plane. Same worries that kept cropping up here. Seems someone is listening, though I don't like their answer. Seems it'd be easier to just screen everybody.
March 19, 2009 4:26 PM
........................
So how's this for twisted TSA logic...
The unscreened Screeners have access to passengers carry-on and checked luggage.
At the gate one of these unscreened Screeners could easily slip something into a persons carry-on.
Yet TSA elects to not screen those (airport workers, TSA employees included) who enter the sterile areas at all and spend extra effort on re-screening those (travelers) already screened.
Should anyone wonder why TSA is such a disrespected agency?
March 20, 2009 8:16 PM
So how's this for twisted TSA logic...
The unscreened Screeners have access to passengers carry-on and checked luggage.
At the gate one of these unscreened Screeners could easily slip something into a persons carry-on.
Yet TSA elects to not screen those (airport workers, TSA employees included) who enter the sterile areas at all and spend extra effort on re-screening those (travelers) already screened.
Should anyone wonder why TSA is such a disrespected agency?
RB,
We all know that the screening is not 100%. We all realize that. So the screening at the gates will help enhance security whether you are screened or not at the checkpoint. It is a deterrent just by someone seeing it being conducted. If for example the checkpoint is 80% accurate in the screening and gate screening is 20% then you have 100% screening. Look at it in that way.
Now the screening of airport employees does happen. We do execute screening at various times to screen anyone that has access to secure areas. This screening you may not normally see as a passenger but it does go on. The screening is not contantly going on 100% of the time but it does happen and the random times is a deterrent in its own because airport employees will not know when or what we will be doing. I believe this program is also being tried 100% of the time at various airports.
March 21, 2009 10:09 AM
James said:
"Were you working the day this happened? Were you aware of everything going on at your checkpoint? Could this of happened at a checkpoint you were not working at, how about a lane? For you OMA TSO that says this does not happen is absolutely a lie because you can not assure us (The public) that this doesn't happen. There is no way of knowing if you were there at the correct moment when this happened."
Martians could have landed on a checkpoint I was not working James, but I kind of doubt thats happened. Were you on the checkpoint when this happened? I also doubt that, but you support the story as being factual. At least I work the checkpoints in question, so I'm going to stick to my original statement that this kind of thing is not policy in Omaha.
March 21, 2009 3:14 PM
LTSO With Answer says:
If for example the checkpoint is 80% accurate in the screening and gate screening is 20% then you have 100% screening. Look at it in that way.
Sorry ... but the math doesn't work that way. Because some of the people you're screening at the gate aren't carrying anything, and your "random" selection of gate screenees is more likely to find an innocent traveler than someone with contraband.
Let's assume your numbers above are accurate: checkpoint screening can identify 80% of contraband items, and gate screening can identify 20% of contraband items. Applying gate screening again means that you caught 80% of the contraband items at the screening, and 20% of the 20% items the checkpoint missed. 20% * 20% = 4%, so your net efficiency is 84%, not 100%.
(Yes, I'm a math geek.)
March 23, 2009 2:25 PM
James said:
"Were you working the day this happened? Were you aware of everything going on at your checkpoint? Could this of happened at a checkpoint you were not working at, how about a lane? For you OMA TSO that says this does not happen is absolutely a lie because you can not assure us (The public) that this doesn't happen. There is no way of knowing if you were there at the correct moment when this happened."
The OMA TSO replied:
Martians could have landed on a checkpoint I was not working James, but I kind of doubt thats happened. Were you on the checkpoint when this happened? I also doubt that, but you support the story as being factual. At least I work the checkpoints in question, so I'm going to stick to my original statement that this kind of thing is not policy in Omaha.
No I was not there but I only support it because I have experienced dumb "unpridictable" measures. I have experienced inconsistency with TSOs who do not know their jobs. I have experienced all of a sudden changes to procedure without warning. I have now experienced TSOs that do not know what they are talking about. You can not say that this does not happen just because you work there when you do not know what your fellow TSOs are doing to passengers. It may of just been a power tripping TSO or a TSO that doesn't know their job.
-James
March 23, 2009 2:31 PM
James-
Your right, I was not there. But I know my fellow TSO’s, I know who trained them and how they are trained. I know that I am an expert in the field of Aircraft Security, an expert with far more than a decade of experience. I don’t know everything, and am more than willing to admit that. But I am willing to put my experience, knowledge, and training up against any of the self-appointed TSA Procedure Experts in this forum.
Again I state, I work with these people and I work the checkpoints in question, and I know for a fact that this is not a policy at the Omaha air port
March 24, 2009 10:20 AM
Anon said :So grunts aren't responsible for following orders they don't quite agree with?
Nope, just means that some of the answers that are given on here are not as clear/detailed/all encompassing as I would like them to be and being a grunt, I have no way to change that. I still follow orders... what made you think that I would not follow orders?
March 26, 2009 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...
"Again I state, I work with these people and I work the checkpoints in question, and I know for a fact that this is not a policy at the Omaha air port"
I think you miss James' point. Let me break it down for you:
Credibility of multiple frequent flyer: unknown, but greater than zero.
Credibility of TSA: ~0~
You do the math.
Irish
March 27, 2009 9:17 AM
Irish said:
"Credibility of multiple frequent flyer: unknown, but greater than zero.
Credibility of TSA: ~0~
You do the math."
Opinions vary Irish, and we all know what is said about them.
The math says that as a federal officer my word is considered to be an accurate representation of the facts until such time as it is proven not to be. So far as your unknown flyers are concerned, their representation of the facts cannot be assessed since nothing is known about them or their background. You seem quite willing to base your position on nothing more than an anonymous individuals opinion that may or may not be true. You assume their credibility is “greater than zero” but have absolutely nothing to support such an assumption. And we all know what is said about that as well.
I’d ask you to do the math sir/madam, but your credibility in that area is somewhat in question.
March 27, 2009 11:59 AM
Still Another Anonymous TSO says . . . .
"You seem quite willing to base your position on nothing more than an anonymous individuals opinion that may or may not be true. You assume their credibility is “greater than zero” but have absolutely nothing to support such an assumption. And we all know what is said about that as well.
I’d ask you to do the math sir/madam, but your credibility in that area is somewhat in question."
I have done the math, Anon. However, I have little doubt that my credibility -- or the credibility of anyone who disagrees with TSA's dog-and-pony-show rhetoric -- is in question in your eyes.
I'm looking at more than one individual reporting similar events (with slightly differing details). That's called corroboration. The fact that the details differ slightly makes the corroboration that much stronger. I factor in that those individuals probably don't like the TSA, to whatever degree, for whatever reason(s). Nevertheless, I would find the odds quite remarkable that a number of unrelated individuals would produce similar stories in a relatively similar time frame concerning the same location and that every one of them creating this of whole cloth -- some sort of conspiracy to make the TSA look bad. In the first place, I'm not a big believer in Grand Conspiracy Theories. In the second place, people don't have to make up stuff to make the TSA look bad. In any case, because I wasn't there, didn't see it, and don't know these folks, I assign them unknown credibility. But because the story is corroborated, it adds up to something greater than zero.
On the other hand, there's TSA -- with its clear track record of prevarication, half-truths and outright lies. Based upon their own actions, TSA's credibility is ~0~ and will remain ~0~ until I consistently experience something different.
Insofar as you, personally, are concerned, I have no clue. Your status as a federal employee is irrelevant in this context. Your uncorrborated viewpoint may be honest as the day is long. But, since you wish to tie your federal service into the picture, you'll have to live with the fact that you're tarred by the brush of the agency you work for.
Irish
March 27, 2009 4:39 PM
wow blogger bob. Some interesting questions and answers there.
April 1, 2009 9:14 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home