Leave your shoes on?
Wouldn’t it be great to show up at a checkpoint and just when you were reaching down to untie your shoes, you heard an officer say “You can leave your shoes on.”The TSA is well aware that the removal of shoes is not our most popular policy. In fact, it probably ranks up there with root canals and doing your taxes.
What you’ve seen up until now has been our officers enforcing an unpopular policy that is based on the unfortunate truth that intelligence tells us that terrorists are still very interested in hiding items in their shoes.
Today, the X-ray is simply the quickest, most effective way to ensure nothing is hidden inside. What you haven’t seen is all the hard work that’s been going on behind the scenes trying to find an alternative. Our experts and the private sector have been looking for ways to screen footwear while allowing passengers to keep their shoes on for quite some time.
Last year, TSA tested a shoe scanner from General Electric in Orlando. Today, we’re testing shoe scanning technology at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from L3 Communications. If all goes well, these tests could lead the way to quelling of one of our most unpopular policies.
LAX received two units from L3 Communications last week. Since this is a test to collect data, passengers will still need to remove their shoes prior to walking through the magnetometer. Hey, don’t kill the messenger. I’m just giving you a heads up! :)
DHS Science and Technology, a sister agency of TSA, is also testing this shoe scanner and will collaborate with us on their findings.
Programs like the shoe scanner, the checkpoint friendly laptop bag and diamond lanes are not only good for passenger convenience but they help to reduce the chaos and frustration at checkpoints. This is good for security because it allows more than 2,000 Behavior Detection Officers to better focus on passengers with harmful intent.
And yes, we are going to answer your top 10 questions. :)
Labels: innovation, mission, shoes
posted by Bob at
10:53 AM
Subscribe in a reader
162 Comments:
Why so much focus on this one particular that someone could use to hide something small on himself while walking through the magnetometer when so many others exist? Does TSA believe that one person's attempt to bring an explosive device onto a flight in his shoe indicates that the shoe is the most likely hiding spot for contraband?
Did TSA not consider this shoe threat until Richard Reid brought it to their attention? Will TSA ignore similar threats until someone forces them into the attention of the public?
What would U.S. Government checkpoints in airports be like today if Richard Reid had carried his explosive under his arm, taped to the small of his back, tucked in his crotch, in his mouth, or in another body cavity?
July 30, 2008 11:53 AM
My this sure would be nice...
July 30, 2008 11:58 AM
Bob said...
And yes, we are going to answer your top 10 questions. :)
While we wait, can you at least tell us what they were, according to your tally?
July 30, 2008 12:18 PM
I don't normally offer kudos to you guys, but I'll make an exception today. This is a step in the right direction that makes going through security less of a hassle. I welcome the opportunity to keep my shoes on, even if I do have to show you my ID.
July 30, 2008 1:21 PM
Is this another exposure to radiation just so I am not mildly inconvenienced? Please focus on something more effective and stop blowing money on more pointless technology.
July 30, 2008 1:43 PM
This would certainly lesson the load of the TSO's at the mag!
July 30, 2008 1:55 PM
Bob asks us to imagine how great it would be "to show up at a checkpoint and just when you were reaching down to untie your shoes, you heard an officer say `You can leave your shoes on.'"
It wouldn't really be that great. Am I to trust that guy to tell me what the rules are? Odds are he was hired last month, and he's not the authority, anyway. TSA has repeatedly told us that things like shoes, knives, and 3.5 oz bottles of liquids are a great danger. Surely no one who wants to fly today is going go walking through a government checkpoint with dangerous items in flagrant violation of yesterday's rules just because some guy standing there tells him it's okay today. We've seen the overreactions. We know about the blacklists. We may not like this, but we're not fools.
When I need to travel within my country and I have no time to walk, drive, or ride a horse, I need to know what the rules are so that I can be sure to follow them and be allowed to go about my business.
Bob, how would I, my attorney, a judge, or anyone else know what the current regulation on what can be worn through the magnetometer at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint is? Surely you don't think we should all get our legal advice from a low-level security guard at an airport. I want to be sure I'm in compliance with the law, and I want to be sure I'm following any rules that my government requires me to follow in order to travel from one state to another via commercial air.
Where has TSA 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? Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
Surely there's a simple answer to this. We require every air traveler to follow certain rules in addition to normal law that people are required to abide by at all times. Where have we published those rules so that travelers can make themselves familiar with them in order to comply?
July 30, 2008 1:58 PM
What will the cost be of these single use machines? Phil brought up a good point, why did it take a "shoe-bomber" to bring TSA to even consider someone using their shoe as a hiding spot?
When you come to realize that you cannot 100% prevent every bad thing from happening, and focus on REAL issues, maybe the entire process will become more pleasant and simplified.
You state "passengers will still need to remove their shoes prior to walking through the magnetometer." So exactly where is the shoe x-ray machine in relation to the magnetometer? Won't this cause more confusion trying to get your shoes off/on during this entire procedure?
Oh, and how many "unscreened shoes" get into the sterile area everyday? (vendors, cleaners, maintenance, etc). Are they NOT a threat?
July 30, 2008 2:16 PM
Nice to see some activity. Could you tell us why the lapse of posting comments happened.
Are you the only Blogger left Bob?
Seems that way.
July 30, 2008 2:19 PM
Wintermute said...
Bob said...
And yes, we are going to answer your top 10 questions. :)
While we wait, can you at least tell us what they were, according to your tally?
I have to agree with Wintermute on this. By now you should know what the top ten questions are. How about at least telling us which ones your working on? Or is that SSI?
July 30, 2008 3:31 PM
Yes - but to save money, why not just stop checking people's shoes? It's pointless anyway.
July 30, 2008 3:33 PM
I'm pretty sure that I've been through one of these. I think it was Portland Oregon. I know they have some big machine that uses puffs of air (GE made?)but I vaguely recall this machine as well.
It could have been a couple years ago in the UK but I think that was a puffing machine as well.
At any rate it's a step in the right direction, how long does it take to register? Do you just walk over it?
July 30, 2008 3:34 PM
"Why so much focus on this one particular that someone could use to hide something small on himself while walking through the magnetometer when so many others exist? TSA believe that one person's attempt to bring an explosive device onto a flight in his shoe indicates that the shoe is the most likely hiding spot for contraband?
"
So with your logic, if we can't search 100% of where people can hide things, why bother screening the others? Even if the shoe isn't the most common place to hide something, it is still an easy place to conceal any parts of an IED, or other prohibited items.
I sure hope every airport gets these machines. I know it would help the passengers out.
July 30, 2008 3:36 PM
Perhaps while we are waiting for the new shoe scanners, TSA could spend a few bucks at IKEA for their cheap, rugged, plastic, easily cleaned chairs so there would be someplace to SIT for those who need to to REMOVE their shoes, and someplace to SIT, that is kept clear, for those who need it to put their shoes back on.
Just a thought.
====
Bob, I hope the constant nagging from the roiling masses here aren't getting to you with the catcalls and snide remarks.
My feeling is that you are putting serious effort into getting answers to the Top Ten and getting them vetted so that they can be published.
I'm not even going to push on that - it will happen when the answers are ready. (Though putting up which questions you will be answering would be nice, I'm not sure you can really do that, Bob. Until you know which questions you actually CAN answer, putting up your list prematurely and including a question you might be blocked from answering could just cause more difficulties.)
Something to consider: Once the Top Ten are adequately answered, would it be possible to move to the next ten and so on until as many as possible are covered?
That's one of the main reasons, I think, that some of us out here get so insistent, and keep repeating ourselves: Many of the questions have not been addressed at all, and some that HAVE been addressed were not answered directly, brushed off, or deflected with non-answers. We really can recognize contentless replies to questions. :o)
Looking forward to the Top Ten.
July 30, 2008 3:41 PM
Removing shoes at airport security is so fun!
Please don't abandon this policy!
Life would suddently become so much more serious if people no longer had to queue at airports in their stocking feet.
July 30, 2008 4:04 PM
I couldn't possibly care less if I have to take off my shoes. I understand why you want me to take off my shoes, and it makes sense. This is among the most harmless, and least offensive, of your policies. It's not even worth worrying about, compared to almost anything else the TSA does.
July 30, 2008 4:07 PM
Guess there just is no satisfying the masses.
July 30, 2008 4:31 PM
I really don't see any place to post questions or comments here about things not yet brought up by the blog team, so I must apologize for going off-topic for THIS thread because I find no other that is current and a better match.
Sorry,
Tom
====
I couldn't say this better myself, so I'll just refer folks, ESPECIALLY THE TSA FOLKS, to two web pages.
First, an official TSA page crowing with pride about "intercepting" an "explosive-like" device at a government checkpoint:
TSA Press Release
Second, a more balanced view (IMHO) of the event from an independent site:
MAKE: blog post
MAKE: got wind of this sad event (suspicious looking item fully determined to be perfectly safe, but confiscated anyway "just because") from Bruce Schneier's Schneier on Security blog.
Maybe the next person who builds up a cost-effective home-brew extended battery pack (I have several myself, and yes, I'm an engineer, too) instead of spending much more for the same thing in some sort of commercial package will put their home-built unit in a nice-looking plastic box and slap a label on it to assuage the fears of... of... uh... whoever.
There is NO reason on Earth for TSA to put out a press release saying how proud they are to have confiscated this persons private property AFTER determining it was perfectly safe and broke no rules.
None.
July 30, 2008 4:33 PM
I wrote:
"Why so much focus on this one particular [place] that someone could use to hide something small on himself while walking through the magnetometer when so many others exist? Does TSA believe that one person's attempt to bring an explosive device onto a flight in his shoe indicates that the shoe is the most likely hiding spot for contraband?"
TSO Rachel responded:
"So with your logic, if we can't search 100% of where people can hide things, why bother screening the others?"
That's quite a jump. I asked why there is so much focus -- inconveniencing millions of travelers and now spending enormous amounts of our tax dollars building and installing shoe-scanning machines -- on this one particular threat when so many similar ones are ignored. The best you can possibly hope for in this case is to foil the person who intended to carry contraband through your checkpoint hidden in his shoe but cannot think of any alternative place to smuggle it. Where's the cost-benefit analysis?
You're not now doing anything about, for instance, belts or pant cuffs. If some fool is caught trying to light his belt or pant cuff on fire on an airplane, will belts and cuffs suddenly be considered such a risk that you'll require us all to remove them and you'll force us all to pony up for development, construction, deployment, and use of belt- and pant-cuff-scanning machines? Sandra, would you defend such a new policy by saying that even if the belt and pant cuff are not the most common places to hide something, they are still easy places to conceal things?
TSO Rachel continued:
"Even if the shoe isn't the most common place to hide something, it is still an easy place to conceal any parts of an IED, or other prohibited items."
Sure. But so, too, is the space between someone's butt cheeks. Neither of these facts makes developing and deploying a special scanning machine any more reasonable.
We simply cannot prevent people from carrying small prohibited items onto airplanes unless we subject people to a strip searches and body cavity searches.
To have our federal employees focus on things like shoes and flip-flops when there are numerous other places one could hide a similar amount of arbitrary substance on one's person when walking through the magnetometer is a waste of tax dollars, an inconvenience to millions of people, and a convenient way to condition those people to going along with ridiculous practices in the name of national security.
But this ridiculous practice is not a bit surprising. TSA has never been focused on transportation security and safety. Their focus is on 1) making foolish, uninformed, or oblivious people feel safer when flying via commercial airline and 2) creating an infrastructure to facilitate the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's restriction of the movement of people using its blacklists. I suspect that everyone who is paying attention knows that the majority of what TSA does supports those two goals alone.
July 30, 2008 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...
I couldn't possibly care less if I have to take off my shoes. I understand why you want me to take off my shoes, and it makes sense. This is among the most harmless, and least offensive, of your policies. It's not even worth worrying about, compared to almost anything else the TSA does.
July 30, 2008 4:07 PM
And here we go again. No matter how hard the TSA tries to help relieve some of the burdens placed on us travelers some people will continue to complain. Please give it a rest can't you see that the are at the bare minimum trying to make our lives a little less hasseled. I would much rather stand in this new gizmo for a few seconds that do the TSA shuffle stocking foot. First the laptop bag (soon, I hope) now the shoe scanner, maybe next will be a liquid scanner and life will be that much sweeter. Please give all the negativity a break and try this instead, Thank You! There, that didn't hurt one bit.
July 30, 2008 4:44 PM
You know, it is really funny how the TSA seems to believe that the European nations that actually have had to deal with terrorrism for decades have no idea what they are doing.
How much budgetary wastage by the TSA's floundering around could have been saved by just asking questions in the international community?
How many useless procedures would have never been started without the pervading 'Not Invented Here' mentality?
July 30, 2008 4:45 PM
Apropos to discussion of the new shoe scanning machines, security expert Bruce Schneier recently referenced a paper by Ohio State political science professor John Mueller. Titled "The Quixotic Quest for Invulnerability: Assessing the Costs, Benefits, and Probabilities of Protecting the Homeland" which lays out some common sense premises and policy implications.
The premises:
1. The number of potential terrorist targets is essentially infinite.
2. The probability that any individual target will be attacked is essentially zero.
3. If one potential target happens to enjoy a degree of protection, the agile terrorist usually can readily move on to another one.
4. Most targets are "vulnerable" in that it is not very difficult to damage them, but invulnerable in that they can be rebuilt in fairly short order and at tolerable expense.
5. It is essentially impossible to make a very wide variety of potential terrorist targets invulnerable except by completely closing them down.
The policy implications:
1. Any protective policy should be compared to a "null case": do nothing, and use the money saved to rebuild and to compensate any victims.
2. Abandon any effort to imagine a terrorist target list.
3. Consider negative effects of protection measures: not only direct cost, but inconvenience, enhancement of fear, negative economic impacts, reduction of liberties.
4. Consider the opportunity costs, the tradeoffs, of protection measures.
The abstract:
This paper attempts to set out some general parameters for coming to grips with a central homeland security concern: the effort to make potential targets invulnerable, or at least notably less vulnerable, to terrorist attack. It argues that protection makes sense only when protection is feasible for an entire class of potential targets and when the destruction of something in that target set would have quite large physical, economic, psychological, and/or political consequences. There are a very large number of potential targets where protection is essentially a waste of resources and a much more limited one where it may be effective.
July 30, 2008 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...
Yes - but to save money, why not just stop checking people's shoes? It's pointless anyway.
July 30, 2008 3:33 PM
***********************************
Yet another logic filled comment. You say its pointless, have you seen the xray images at the start of this thread? I've seen hundreds of images just like them. Here's a thought for all you braniacs who think that the shoes are a harmless entity that should not be screened at all.
1. The insole of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something under.
2. The heel of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something within.
3. If we stopped screening shoes altogeter, we would open a door for MORE stuff to be hidden inside them than has been to date.
So you say abandon the policy, we say shoes must be screened. We're trying to reach a happy medium here folks, work with us please.
July 30, 2008 5:00 PM
Phil said:
Surely you don't think we should all get our legal advice from a low-level security guard at an airport.
***********************************
Low level security guard, wow Phil your level of intelligence shows in that comment for sure! All insults aside Phil, regulations may seem like they are constantly in flux, but you can be assured that as a "low level security guard" who has been working the checkpoint for 3 and half years, I know the rules day to day, even if they were changed that morning! You know I once had a passenger tell me she didn't know what to expect when she showed up at the aiport, and my response surprised her, if we can keep you guessing we can surely keep the bad guys guessing. Phil our job is not to harass you or inconvenience you, as I'm sure whatever your job is it is not intended to harass or inconvenience anybody either. But my job is to make sure that when you get on your plane and get up in the air, that you will land safely on the other end of your flight. So, if all you can think of as an insult is "low level security guard" then I guess I'm doing okay.
July 30, 2008 5:09 PM
Wouldn’t it be great to show up at a checkpoint and just when you were reaching down to untie your shoes, you heard an officer say “You can leave your shoes on.”
Yes, just like it was before you guys brought the security theater to town.
So now we are going to have a series of machines we need to insert ourselves into? One for shoes, one for explosives, one for metals. What are you going to think of next?
July 30, 2008 5:13 PM
ike1954 wrote:
"Guess there just is no satisfying the masses."
Someone anonymously wrote:
"No matter how hard the TSA tries to help relieve some of the burdens placed on us travelers some people will continue to complain. Please give it a rest can't you see that the are at the bare minimum trying to make our lives a little less hasseled"
Both of these people seem to miss the point. TSA are placing the burden on us in the first place, then looking for us to thank them for burdening us less than the previously were -- and making us pay for the special machine to reduce the hassle associated with their ridiculous shoe searches.
Tongue-in-cheek prediction: Years from now, people will be on this blog 1) thanking TSA for formulating and providing a special lubricant to make body cavity searches more comfortable and 2) complaining about those of us who think the searches are unjustified in the first place and have the temerity to say so.
July 30, 2008 5:24 PM
This is rather like the rabbi and the goat story (if you don't know it, google it). First you make everyone miserable by making shoe removal mandatory. Then you present this new technology that avoids the previously imposed misery as a fantastic improvement. Except, to make it worse, it isn't even an improvement, because it isn't there, and we don't know when and if it will ever be!
When will the madness end????
July 30, 2008 5:27 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Here's a thought for all you braniacs who think that the shoes are a harmless entity that should not be screened at all.
"1. The insole of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something under.
"2. The heel of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something within.
"3. If we stopped screening shoes altogeter, we would open a door for MORE stuff
to be hidden inside them than has been to date."
Sir or madam, we could say the same of numerous other things which we do not presently search at our government checkpoints. Those doors are wide open now. Do you think we should close them? How do you propose we do so? Shall we strip-search and perform body cavity searches on all passengers?
Please consider this hypothetical situation: If we were already performing such searches and someone like me said that the policy was unreasonably expensive, intrusive, and ineffective, would you come here to complain about the possibility of "opening a door for more stuff to be hidden inside"?
July 30, 2008 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
I couldn't possibly care less if I have to take off my shoes. I understand why you want me to take off my shoes, and it makes sense. This is among the most harmless, and least offensive, of your policies. It's not even worth worrying about, compared to almost anything else the TSA does.
July 30, 2008 4:07 PM
And here we go again. No matter how hard the TSA tries to help relieve some of the burdens placed on us travelers some people will continue to complain. Please give it a rest can't you see that the are at the bare minimum trying to make our lives a little less hasseled. I would much rather stand in this new gizmo for a few seconds that do the TSA shuffle stocking foot. First the laptop bag (soon, I hope) now the shoe scanner, maybe next will be a liquid scanner and life will be that much sweeter. Please give all the negativity a break and try this instead, Thank You! There, that didn't hurt one bit.
July 30, 2008 4:44 PM
***********************************
Thank YOU anon for your input and understanding. This technology along with others will make MY job that much easier at the checkpoint, so if my job is easier, then your transit through my checkpoint is easier. Imagine this, someone shows up who for some reason can not take his/her shoes off. Right now that person has to be sent for a shoe swab, but this technology will eliminate that and that passenger will be cleared much quicker than current procedures. So I welcome this technology and hope that it is rolled out quickly!
July 30, 2008 5:58 PM
"No matter how hard the TSA tries to help relieve some of the burdens placed on us travelers some people will continue to complain."
Of course we complain. TSA is the one that imposed the pointless burden in the first place.
"So you say abandon the policy, we say shoes must be screened. We're trying to reach a happy medium here folks, work with us please."
Why should we work with the people who are terrorizing us in airports?
July 30, 2008 6:20 PM
Anonymous (July 30, 2008 5:00 PM) said...
Concerning screening of shoes:
"have you seen the xray images at the start of this thread? I've seen hundreds of images just like them"
My question to you is, what happened to the "terrorists" that concealed the items in the hundreds of incidents?
Since in the USA, people that are arrested is public knowledge, you would think with all these "terrorists" arrested that we would at least hear about some of them.
I would think a "terrorist" on trial would be worthy of some news coverage.
Please provide names, cities, and trials of the people involved in these hundreds of obvious terroristic actions.
I am not trying to be difficult, but the TSA, and employees keep fueling the belief that there is much to be feared. Please just give me the name of ONE terrorist that has been caught using all your theatrics?
July 30, 2008 6:38 PM
I don't really mind taking off my shoes. It's the people in front of me that simply can't comprehend "please remove your shoes" and hold up the rest of the line. Anything that will help insure our safety is fine with me.
July 30, 2008 6:39 PM
Regarding point #4 of policy implications in John Mueller's paper The Quixotic Quest for Invulnerability: Assessing the Costs, Benefits, and Probabilities of Protecting the Homeland":
"4. Consider the opportunity costs, the tradeoffs, of protection measures."
Mueller wrote:
"Any sensible policy analysis must include a consideration of what else could have been done with the effort and money being expended on the policy proposed.
The Department of Homeland Security may not know,..."a whole lot about the overall costs and benefits of homeland security", but one study has attempted to shed some light on the issues. It assesses increased post-2001 federal homeland security expenditures, much of them devoted to protective measures. It then compared that to expected lives saved as a result of these increased expenditures and concludes that the annual cost ranges of $64 million to $600 million (or even more) per life saved, great in excess of the regulatory safety goal of $1-$10 million per life saved. Not only do these expenditures clearly and dramatically fail a cost-benefit analysis, but their opportunity cost, amounting to $32 billion per year, is considerable. It is highly likely that far more lives would have been saved if the money (or even a portion of it) had been invested instead in a wide range of more cost-effective risk mitigation programs. For example, an investment of $200,000 per year in smoke alarms will save one life and similar examples can be found in other risk reduction measures or regulations (Stewart and Mueller 2008).
Any analysis that leaves out such considerations is profoundly faulty, even immoral."
Stop wasting money on useless machines and screening, TSA. The money being spent is not worth it and could be much better used in other areas.
July 30, 2008 6:50 PM
Bet they never comment on this.
http://blog.reprap.org/2008/07/tsa-really-wreck-reprap-child.html
July 30, 2008 6:55 PM
What's in the blue balloons inside those running shoes? Drugs?
Another drug bust courtesy of an unconstitutional warrantless search.
Wow, you people must be proud.
I'm no fan of life-destroying drugs, but, I grieve for our country.
July 30, 2008 7:16 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Yet another logic filled comment. You say its pointless, have you seen the xray images at the start of this thread? I've seen hundreds of images just like them. Here's a thought for all you braniacs who think that the shoes are a harmless entity that should not be screened at all."
I find it funny that TSA keeps trotting out the same 3 or 4 images every time if there are literally hundreds of them out there. Surely
there must be more, right?
I also find it interesting that as late as August 2006, there hadn't been a single shoe incident even DETECTED TSA. TSA and the FBI both readily admitted this then.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/08/business/fi-biztravel8
The funny thing is, outside of a false alarm here or there, there's been no evidence that shoes have even been hinted at as an attack. Kippie's "just trust us" doesn't cut it. And I find it hard to believe there are hundreds of shoe incidents out there.
Quote: "1. The insole of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something under."
Anything can easily be hidden anywhere. A woman can kind something in her bra. Stuff can be hidden in any orifice of the body.
Quote: 2. The heel of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something within."
See above.
What it comes down to is if the entire shoe is modified, there is no way for a TSO to really tell.
Quote: 3. If we stopped screening shoes altogeter, we would open a door for MORE stuff to be hidden inside them than has been to date.
Evidence I've seen indicates this is a very, very, very rare problem at best. If we believe what the FBI and TSA tell us, with an average of 700 million travelers a year, that's 1.4 billion shoes screened every year. Over 4 years in which the article was covered, we have nearly 6 billion shoes screened. This negates all the years previously we had an incident. We had exactly 1 incident. We found 1 pair of shoes that had a bomb in it ... Reid's. Statistically, we're investing all this time in money on a threat that was shown to happen .000000000333% of the time. Incidentally, I have a .00000000684425% of winning this week's Powerball. The chance of hitting Powerball is 20 TIMES GREATER.
I think everyone would rightly argue that spending tons of money trying to win Powerball is foolish at best. And yet we're more likely to win that then find a shoe bomb.
There are much bigger and viable threats to address. And given TSA's propensity to trumpet it's Big Catches®, the silence on this issue is rather deafening.
Quote: "So you say abandon the policy, we say shoes must be screened. We're trying to reach a happy medium here folks, work with us please."
The problem is that TSA doesn't listen when people try to work with them. "Do it our way, we know best" is what comes back.
I've suggested time and time again a good measure that uses existing technology and would eliminate the shoe carnival. It would mitigate the threat without spending all the resources and wasting everyone's time.
It's pretty simple. Use puffers/ETD swabs and the metal detectors. If a person alarms on either of them, send them to secondary. Swab the shoes and use the hand wand on the shoes. If the wand alarms, THEN x-ray the shoes. Reswab the shoes if those alarm the ETD to ensure it's not a false positive. If it alarms again, do your thing.
The current means of removing shoes BEFORE going thru the puffer is ridiculous as it trades one screening method that WILL detect explosives (puffers) for one that won't (x-rays).
I know you guys understand this because you USED to do it right before you instituted the mandatory shoe carnival with the liquid carnival in August 2006. I remember going thru SLC before then and being specifically told by the TSO NOT to remove our shoes because the puffer would detect any explosives. So TSA effectively REDUCED security by changing their methods.
This frees up resources in multiple ways. One, TSO's are needlessly wasting their time examining shoes that aren't a threat. Two, passengers aren't inconvenienced and won't slow the line by having to deshoe and reshoe after a screening. Three, the shoes are adequately screened to the point to mitigate the risk on the VERY off possibility a shoe contains something. The whole process frees resources for TSO's to look for real threats like guns and explosives in places where they're MUCH more likely to be found while speeding passengers through the checkpoint. Wait times decrease, resources are better allocated, and screening is adequate to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
Of course, this won't catch every possible thing. Nothing is 100% ... even TSA's current methods. The current mechanisms smack of CYA and show that the TSA practices risk avoidance. This will never work as Dr. Mueller shows in his paper that I and others ahve linked to. However, it will place screening in line with the actual threat. It's called risk management. This is what TSA needs to do.
Robert
July 30, 2008 7:35 PM
Bob Eucher said...
Anonymous (July 30, 2008 5:00 PM) said...
Concerning screening of shoes:
Bob eucher said:
"have you seen the xray images at the start of this thread? I've seen hundreds of images just like them"
My question to you is, what happened to the "terrorists" that concealed the items in the hundreds of incidents?
***********************************
Funny Bob, I don't recall saying anything about incidents, I merely referenced x-ray images that I had seen. Maybe I wasn't clear about it, xray images as in training briefs that had come down. Some of them may have been from actual incidents, and others may have been merely training images from our Bomb Appraisal Officers. In any event, my point is the same, shoes can be used to conceal threat items, be it IEDs/components, blades, or otherwise. The fact remains that shoes must be screened some how, either by taking them off and sending them through the xray (current procedure), or through the use of the new technology, which hopefully will be available at checkpoints soon.
Another poster asks "why should we work with those who terrorize us at the airport?" To which I answer, I'm sorry you feel that way.
July 30, 2008 7:35 PM
Quote from Ellen: "I don't really mind taking off my shoes. It's the people in front of me that simply can't comprehend "please remove your shoes" and hold up the rest of the line. Anything that will help insure our safety is fine with me."
Ellen, if TSA demanded strip searches and body cavities to keep you safe, would you be ok with that?
Bob
July 30, 2008 7:40 PM
Steel toed shoes? Probably still have to remove them. Did that before 9/11.
July 30, 2008 7:50 PM
Phil said...
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Here's a thought for all you braniacs who think that the shoes are a harmless entity that should not be screened at all.
"1. The insole of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something under.
"2. The heel of any shoe can easily be removed to hide something within.
"3. If we stopped screening shoes altogeter, we would open a door for MORE stuff
to be hidden inside them than has been to date."
Sir or madam, we could say the same of numerous other things which we do not presently search at our government checkpoints. Those doors are wide open now. Do you think we should close them? How do you propose we do so? Shall we strip-search and perform body cavity searches on all passengers?
Please consider this hypothetical situation: If we were already performing such searches and someone like me said that the policy was unreasonably expensive, intrusive, and ineffective, would you come here to complain about the possibility of "opening a door for more stuff to be hidden inside"?
***********************************
Phil, I would like to sit here and debate with you all of the possibilities that exist. Fact of the matter is that I have witnessed incidents of "artful concealment" in manners which you would never expect. Passengers have hidden knives in the seam closures of their bags, they've hidden razor blades in the insole of their.....oh my....oh dear shall I say it....THEIR SHOES. Yes that's right Phil, have we actually found bombs or bomb components in shoes? We may have, we don't tell everything that we find for obvious reasons. But if we did reveal everything that was found at the check point, you'd be surprised. For instance, are you aware that 80 some year old Jerry Lewis brought a gun to the airport? Bet you didn't read that in the paper did ya Phil? It was such a small clip in today's paper that I barely noticed it myself, but there it was and it did indeed happen. Although, Jerry's publicist says its a "prop" and can not be fired. So, no we don't tell you everything, and there are some things you probably will never hear about, fact remains that right now, shoes must be xrayed screened.
July 30, 2008 7:50 PM
I asked:
"Bob, how would I, my attorney, a judge, or anyone else know what the current regulation on what can be worn through the magnetometer at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint is? Surely you don't think we should all get our legal advice from a low-level security guard at an airport."
(Note that neither Bob nor anyone at TSA has answered this simple question, though I have asked it again and again and again.)
Someone took such offense at my use of the phrase "low-level security guard" that he or she assumed that I meant to use it as an insult. That would be childish of me, and it was definitely not my intent. I was just making it clear that apparently the only way we have of determining what rules we are required by the TSA to abide by in order to travel within the country via commercial air is the word of people at the very lowest rungs of the TSA hierarchy.
If the position of TSA airport security guard is not considered low-level, I apologize to anyone who feels I mischaracterized the position in my previous comment.
I still want to know where TSA has 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. Can anyone answer this? Please provide a URL or name of the government publication.
July 30, 2008 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...
But my job is to make sure that when you get on your plane and get up in the air, that you will land safely on the other end of your flight.
So you're a pilot, or an aircraft mechanic?
No, your job is preventing weapons, explosives, and incendiaries from entering the "sterile area."
The people responsible for aircraft safety, the FAA, took over a decade to implement the center-wing fuel tank changes after TWA 800. We are well aware of how important our safety is to the government.
July 30, 2008 8:28 PM
Off-topic, but sue me, Tomas put up something I wanted to try to address!
Tomas wrote:
There is NO reason on Earth for TSA to put out a press release saying how proud they are to have confiscated this persons private property AFTER determining it was perfectly safe and broke no rules.
Oh, you're not gonna like me for this one.
Strictly speaking... it did break a rule. Not only are actual explosives and such prohibited items, obviously, but anything that looks realistically like an explosive (or firearm, for that matter) is prohibited as well. The supervisor made the determination that it was a "realistic replica" (which is what it's categorized under on our prohibited items list). But, because it was not an actual explosive, apparently he was given options on what to do with it. The passenger in question chose to surrender it (according to the press release). An actual explosive would have been confiscated. There is a legal, albeit small, difference.
Another great example of a realistic replica that would be prohibited through checkpoints, even after having determined that it was just ducky and nothing dangerous otherwise about it, would be this.
And, maybe it doesn't look like it to you because you're an engineer, man, but just seeing the image of that thing, it looks like nothing else but an improvised explosive device. With a whole crapload lot more battery power than would actually be needed to set it off.
July 30, 2008 9:17 PM
Anonymous said... No matter how hard the TSA tries to help relieve some of the burdens placed on us travelers some people will continue to complain.
Wow, just wow. So well said.
July 30, 2008 10:25 PM
I would prefer to leave my shoes on. As a diabetic any foot injury can lead to severe problems.
On my last trip through a checkpoint I am doing the routine when I notice a cart load of beverages being transported through the checkpoint. A TSA type looked at the cart and waived the cart and worker pushing the cart right through the checkpoint. No inspection of any kind for either.
If I'm a bad guy I would note just how easy it is to get contraband into the secure area and use that method to introduce said contraband and pass off any number of things to a partner and BOOM goes an airplane. Wonder if TSA would have a Press Release patting themselves on back for that one?
So you guys keep checking my shoes while all manner of stuff moves into the secure area, baggage is left unattented and subject to having something added to the bag after inspection and cargo is not inspected at all. Oh, and don't forget all of the people and vehicles entering the tarmac, when are they inspected? Oh thats right they have a badge so can do no wrong.
You call it security, I call it theater, and poor quality theater at that!
July 30, 2008 11:01 PM
HSVTSO said "The supervisor made the determination that it was a "realistic replica" (which is what it's categorized under on our prohibited items list)."
Except that it wasn't a "replica" of anything. It was a battery the guy had made to power some gizmo of his. Asked and aswered, determined and still the guy was forced to surrender it.
This is as bad as the guy who was hastled because he'd made a fizzy drink by pouring a powder into his bottle of water. (I don't feel like taking time to look up a link.)
People have been so conditioned by this administration, the TSA and DHS that they jump at quiver in terror at anything that they don't like, agree with or approve of.
I want my country back.
July 30, 2008 11:18 PM
Oh for God's sake, like people have said in the past, just shut this blog down, even great news is attacked.
You guys can never never never be pleased!
You guys wouldn't be happy until we have a pray the terrorists just try not to attack system.
July 30, 2008 11:20 PM
Hi, Dean.
In response to one of my posts you said...
Strictly speaking... it did break a rule. Not only are actual explosives and such prohibited items, obviously, but anything that looks realistically like an explosive (or firearm, for that matter) is prohibited as well.
Well, I'm sorry, but a bundle of rechargeable batteries still only looks like a bundle of rechargeable batteries to me. :o)
Home made extended life battery pack image.
(Sorry for the poor quality image, but that's the best one the TSA has released.)
In the image pushed by TSA they included the DVD player and the standard aluminum water bottle (I have three), with the water bottle sitting on the wire from the battery pack, making it appear the two were somehow connected.
Now, if that battery pack looks like a bomb, someone has seen too many blow-'em-up movies.
The easiest fix would have been to put the batteries in an empty TSA rubber-glove box or something similar so the easily frightened Luddites wouldn't panic.
...because it was not an actual explosive, apparently he was given options on what to do with it. The passenger in question chose to surrender it (according to the press release).
I assume the choice was to surrender the batteries or not to fly, Dean. Big choice.
A friend of mine is a sculptor - I suppose the Nervous Nellies would get all upset with the blocks of beige plastic modeling clay she usually packs along so she can work in ideas, and make little people instead of getting bored. That stuff sure looks like a "realistic replica" of Semtex or C-4...
Now please keep in mind, the empty water bottle and the battery pack were in no way associate or connected: do you REALLY believe that a dozen or so "C" cells glued together look like a bomb?
Maybe if he used Duracells so they looked more like batteries to those not yet accustomed to this century instead of using the basic unlabeled cells commonly used in battery packs.
Really, Dean, I have a number of rechargeable packs that I used to take camping that look just like that (except most of my batteries were plain green).
An external battery pack is not a "replica" of an "explosive device" it is simply a group of batteries looking exactly like, uh, "a group of batteries."
I still feel, very strongly, that if forcing that traveler to "surrender" his battery pack that was not doctored in any way to look like explosives rated so high in the pantheon of important TSA events to rate a press release from TSA congratulating themselves for making the skies safer, then TSA is just loudly proclaiming that they really don't have anything better to report.
C'mon, if TSA had actually caught someone trying to get a block of Semtex or a stick of dynamite, or maybe a grenade on board an aircraft, yes, that might warrant a press release, but a dozen or so C batteries?
No.
On this one we disagree, Dean. :o)
July 31, 2008 12:42 AM
Well, with L3's logo slapped prominently on the shoe scanner, at least we know who's making a fat profit off this nonsense.
Robert
July 31, 2008 1:31 AM
HSVTSO Dean @ "The supervisor made the determination that it was a "realistic replica"
A realistic replica of what exactly? A stack of batteries? A water bottle? A wire?
No, I don't like you (actually, Supervisory TSO Raiford Patterson and the TSA) for this one. It is an explanation for what they did, but it still is stupid. The TSA article seems to confuse the "bundle of explosives" with something that is clearly recognisable by you as a "crapload lot [of] battery power". The "realistic replica" of an explosive device is the empty metal bottle which, from the article, seems like it might have flown on to Hawaii after they took his silicone-adhesive-wrapped battery pack.
A commercial laptop battery, a set of headphones, and a empty thermos is a functional replica of the items the TSA took out of the "passenger's carry-on bag" and staged in the bin for the picture.
Now that TSA is touting this (clearly staged) image of a replica IED, are all thermoses and commercial laptop batteries at risk of confiscation? Those components are functionally equivalent to this "replica" of a improvised explosive device. If you think it is a stupid question and that TSOs would not make that determination, it is just as stupid for TSA to think that the commercial items are any safer than the homebrewed ones.
July 31, 2008 2:07 AM
The supervisor made the determination that it was a "realistic replica" (which is what it's categorized under on our prohibited items list).
Gi Joe doll accessories were confiscated on more than one occasion due to the 'realistic replica' clause. Were they realistic? No, realistic to me means same size, color, etc, not sub-miniatures. In some cases this realistic replica pushes the limit of common sense. It was a battery pack, homemade and constructed rather well (just judging from the picture). Are battery packs now considered contraband just because they are home built? I wonder if any amateur radio operators have problems getting electronics through airports.
But, because it was not an actual explosive, apparently he was given options on what to do with it. The passenger in question chose to surrender it (according to the press release). An actual explosive would have been confiscated. There is a legal, albeit small, difference.
The passenger had it confiscated nothing more and nothing less. Do you want to fly today was one of the questions asked him. Was this passenger arrested and charged with a crime since carrying a 'realistic replica' (only in TSA's world) is only 'a legal, albeit small, difference' between a real power pack for a bomb and a home made power pack.
Was the bomb squad called out? How was this battery pack disposed of? Has this become a trophy in someone's office for the inefficiency/incompetence TSA has rightfully earned? TSA has no shame.
July 31, 2008 7:41 AM
"I would prefer to leave my shoes on. As a diabetic any foot injury can lead to severe problems."
You are allowed to leave your shoes on if it is related to a health problem or disability. We have other tests where we can clear your shoes without you having to remove them.
A helpful website:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/index.shtm
July 31, 2008 7:58 AM
This is like the X-ray friendly laptop bag story. You are teasing us with something we all want and cannot have! I was scolded last week for leaving my laptop in its protective inner sleeve (cloth, pocket-free, no zippers, etc), despite that post you put up saying we could. Why tell us what you are thinking of doing instead of doing it already?
July 31, 2008 9:09 AM
TSO Rachel said...
"I would prefer to leave my shoes on. As a diabetic any foot injury can lead to severe problems."
You are allowed to leave your shoes on if it is related to a health problem or disability. We have other tests where we can clear your shoes without you having to remove them.
.................................
Try showing up at a TSA checkpoint without any visible impairment and try getting through without removing shows.
TSA may have policies but it seems TSO's are not trained to follow said policies.
One of the chief complaints as exposed here is the uneven application of TSA policies at the nations airports.
While on the subject please tell me where I can acquire a copy of all the rules that the public must comply with to clear a TSA checkpoint.
July 31, 2008 9:29 AM
"We simply cannot prevent people from carrying small prohibited items onto airplanes unless we subject people to a strip searches and body cavity searches."
You are right. But it is our job to check everything we actually can check. If we just let people walk on through, they could hide things anywhere on their person. At least we are limiting their options. That is why jackets are removed. That is why we do random pat downs. That is why TSA does a number of things... it is that lack of being able to ever be 100% that makes us strive to do as much as we possibly can to protect the public. Nothing can ever be protected 100%, but we can sure strive to do our best.
July 31, 2008 9:44 AM
Anonomous said...
"Oh for God's sake, like people have said in the past, just shut this blog down, even great news is attacked."
What great news? A citizen was forced to surrender private property to the government AFTER it was determined to be harmless.
There is no great news here, other than the TSA did a reasonable job of checking out something unusual. After that, the wheels fell off common sence and reasonable behavior. THEN the TSA propaganda machine took it to a new level and published the event as a Big Catch©
Now, can I please keep my shoes on when I fly.
July 31, 2008 10:07 AM
Once again the real question has to be answered first, before the TSA spends millions of tax dollars on these new scanners.
When people fly in Europe they do not have to take their shoes off. Europe has been dealing with homegrown and international terrorism since the 1970's. Yet they do not require shoes to be removed. Inspte of the fact that Richard Reid's flight orginated from England.
So why do we have to take our shoes off? I'd like a valid answer besides "this is not Europe" or "because we say so".
July 31, 2008 10:26 AM
Posted by HSVTSO Dean:
Strictly speaking... it did break a rule. Not only are actual explosives and such prohibited items, obviously, but anything that looks realistically like an explosive (or firearm, for that matter) is prohibited as well. The supervisor made the determination that it was a "realistic replica" (which is what it's categorized under on our prohibited items list)
Huh, TSA looked at the battery pack (fine), hopefully ETD swabbed it (fine), and determined it was not a threat. Then they asked the pax to surrender it????? (Probably under threat of "do you want to fly today?") In short, this guy's battery pack, which probably cost a lot of money and time to construct, was stolen by TSA.
This isn't a replica gun, or toy bomb, it's a battery pack. That the TSOs on the scene (or you) don't have the visual acuity (or intelligence?) to determine the difference is not the passenger's fault. Maybe we should just hire nearly-blind screeners that can't tell a suitcase from a bomb and ban everything since they can't tell the difference? :(
Custom electronics are not on the prohibited items list, nor should they be. I'm an (electrical) engineer too, and I occasionally fly with home-made electronics in my carry-on. It's asinine that I have to be fearful of this sort of TSA bullying every time I do so. Fortunately I've been lucky, but you never know about next time.
TSA and JAN should be ashamed of themselves, particularly for touting this harassment and theft as an accomplishment!!! (http://tinyurl.com/6cbmfo) Jeesh. And TSO Dean, I hate to say it, but you should be ashamed of yourself too. This case is yet another example of what is wrong with TSA and why the only cure for this agency is to disband it and permanently bar the leadership from ever working in public service, let alone security, again.
July 31, 2008 10:31 AM
Do you not see the point, all the cost benifit anaylisis can not take into account the "Economic Impact to the Aviation Industry" of a successful attack. Due some research into the impact of 9-11 on the aviation industry and the ecomomic impact on the U.S. economy and the world economy in the 3+ days after 9-11 that planes did not fly. Now tell me that this is all a waste of money. The U.S. aviation industry might never recover from the next attack and it just might cripple the entire U.S. economy. This MUST be considered, if not then let us just sit back do nothing to prevent it and wait to see what happens. P.S. I hope you can grow your own food. if not how does starvation sound to you. I know this sounds extreme but seriously, consider the consequences.
July 31, 2008 10:36 AM
Fired by Minnesota, hired by TSA.
I can see where someone fired for fired from her Minnesota post for unprofessional conduct, travel improprieties and misuse of state resources would fit right in with TSA. January can't get here fast enough...
July 31, 2008 11:41 AM
Tomas wrote:
Well, I'm sorry, but a bundle of rechargeable batteries still only looks like a bundle of rechargeable batteries to me. :o)
***********************************
Okay, lets forget the "realistic replica" part of this story for just one minute and concentrate on the real issue here....anything that appears to have been tampered or altered in any way to look like something that may be used as a component to an IED is subject to scrutiny and in this case, being prohibited. Now you may say it was just a bunch of rechargeable batteries taped together, fine, but what is the exact purpose of doing so? Why not just leave them loose and not have a wire connected to them? When it's taped up and wired, it can be used as a power source for an IED, plain and simple. No use debating this issue, it was determined to be prohibited. End of story.
July 31, 2008 12:00 PM
In view of the person trying to bring his homemade battery pack through the checkpoint, I was wondering what is and what isn't allowed.
I have seen several post that says the TSA agents are just following rules and doing their job.
Please point me to those rules that outline just what is required of a passenger to clear your checkpoints.
If you say it is up to each agent and their discretion what is allowed, then how in the world am I to know exactly what to expect.
I think a US government agency should at least have a set of rules that they expect the public to adhere to. I am not aware of any other government agency that makes up stuff as they go along.
Please let me know where to find those rules.
July 31, 2008 12:44 PM
Praising TSA for these small (or vaporware) improvements is like thanking a bully for giving you your celery back after he takes your lunch.
TSA's security theatre is clearly a net drain on society. If we could take the billions of dollars and person-hours we spend on them and apply it to much more dangerous activities (like the 40,000 people who die in traffic accidents every year) we'd be far better off than supporting this government bureaucracy of institutionalized bullying.
No, as long as TSA is a crapload* of mismanaged security theatre, I'm not going to be happy that they are thinking about buying some expensive shoe-sniffing machines, selling TSA-approved laptop bags, or redecorating their workspaces.
So, TSA if you want to prove your worth, show how your jobs save more lives than eliminating even 1% of the yearly traffic fatalities. And don't take credit for the armored cockpit doors, or the "adaptive" heroism of the flight 93 passengers.
(*Delete-O-meter approved per HSVTSO Dean)
July 31, 2008 12:46 PM
TSORachel said: ""I would prefer to leave my shoes on. As a diabetic any foot injury can lead to severe problems."
You are allowed to leave your shoes on if it is related to a health problem or disability. We have other tests where we can clear your shoes without you having to remove them.
A helpful website:
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/index.shtm
July 31, 2008 7:58 AM"
In theory, yes. In practice, this is never the case. TSOs treat me rudely when I point out a medical condition so that I need to leave my shoes on. A supervisor always needs to be called. Complaints about the way I was treated go unanswered. There is zero accountability.
Mike
July 31, 2008 1:13 PM
"Try showing up at a TSA checkpoint without any visible impairment and try getting through without removing shows."
Just show the TSO some documentation of your health issue or disability. If they refuse to comply, ask for a supervisor.
"While on the subject please tell me where I can acquire a copy of all the rules that the public must comply with to clear a TSA checkpoint."
I have posted links for these before, but they weren't cut and dry. I am still searching for a clear and concise reference of them.
July 31, 2008 1:16 PM
New Topic (See this is how things roll in cyberspace where topics and conversations move fast!)
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Transportation Security Administration is threatening to fine airlines up to $25,000 when they erroneously tell passengers they are on a terrorist watch list.
So, you guys want to fine the airlines for "erroneously" telling passengers that they are on a terrorist watch list. Should they just say "Your 'name' is on a terrorist watch list, not you"
Or should they just say, "No early check in for you, a super-secret government something not to be called a list contains a name that may or may not have resulted in a flag on your record which means you must prove that you have no relationship to said name ..."
Nice way to bully and threaten the airlines. Another shining example of how the TSA treats a key consumer of their services. BTW it also does NOTHING to help reduce the daily number of false positives that result in SSSS.
(or is that code now not allowed to be typed).
temporary end of rant.
July 31, 2008 2:23 PM
"So why do we have to take our shoes off? I'd like a valid answer besides "this is not Europe" or "because we say so"."
Because it is easy to hide components of an IED in any type of shoe. This is why they have these new scanners- to make it easer for the traveler, but still allowing TSA to effectively clear the shoes. For these same reasons that TSA has stated over and over and over again.
July 31, 2008 2:56 PM
Walk off your job in an emergency, get hired by TSA.
Sonia Pitt, the MnDOT emergency response executive fired for taking an unauthorized, state-paid trip to Washington during the Interstate 35W bridge disaster, is now working for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Safety Administration (TSA).
When asked about the job, Pitt declined to discuss her job responsibilities, her length of employment with the federal agency or her salary.
"All inquiries go through my attorney, same as always," Pitt said.
...at least she didn't invoke SSI.
,>)
July 31, 2008 2:59 PM
So let me get this straight. The TSA thought they had a bomb, it was determined it wasn't, and the passenger had to surrender it in order to fly. Good job TSA, next time you find a bomb or components for a bomb then you can issue a press release. Unless of course incidents like that are SSI.
July 31, 2008 3:11 PM
Metal detectors can not detect IED's that use no metal parts.
Shoes must be screened!!!!
bottom line
with that said...
Xrays can not detect explosives. They can not detect anything. TSO's dectect explosives using xray images.
with that said...
According to a CNN report about red team testing, TSA has a high failure rate at finding IEDs. Best case scenario was 60%. Worst case senario was 30%.
Will the new shoe scanners detect explosives... or will a tso detect explosives?
If its a tso... what efforts are being made to eliminate human error?
July 31, 2008 3:19 PM
"In theory, yes. In practice, this is never the case. TSOs treat me rudely when I point out a medical condition so that I need to leave my shoes on. A supervisor always needs to be called. Complaints about the way I was treated go unanswered. There is zero accountability."
Well then I would like to apologize on their behalf. If you ever fly through ORF, feel free to ask for me by name- I would gladly assist you.
It really is a shame how many TSOs get away with treating people with disrespect. I always strive to be polite and accomodating... I wish all of TSA would embrace that attitude.
July 31, 2008 3:26 PM
re: Just show the TSO some documentation of your health issue or disability. If they refuse to comply, ask for a supervisor.
................................
My word is not good enough for TSA?
Do you usually carry your medical records with you when traveling.
Do you show your records to some low level agent of the government?
July 31, 2008 3:34 PM
Quote from Anonymous: Do you not see the point, all the cost benifit anaylisis can not take into account the "Economic Impact to the Aviation Industry" of a successful attack. Due some research into the impact of 9-11 on the aviation industry and the ecomomic impact on the U.S. economy and the world economy in the 3+ days after 9-11 that planes did not fly. Now tell me that this is all a waste of money. The U.S. aviation industry might never recover from the next attack and it just might cripple the entire U.S. economy. This MUST be considered, if not then let us just sit back do nothing to prevent it and wait to see what happens. P.S. I hope you can grow your own food. if not how does starvation sound to you. I know this sounds extreme but seriously, consider the consequences."
Read Prof. Mueller's essay linked in this thread and others and then tell me be about cost/benefit analysis. Apparently, DHS hasn't done any. TSA's actions show it hasn't done any either. If it is, it's completely ignoring factors like time wasted at airports that cause loss of productivity. Gotta factor in what those terminal dumps cost too.
If you want to bring up that point, bring it ALL up, not just the parts that favor DHS and TSA.
Robert
July 31, 2008 3:43 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Okay, lets forget the "realistic replica" part of this story for just one minute and concentrate on the real issue here....anything that appears to have been tampered or altered in any way to look like something that may be used as a component to an IED is subject to scrutiny and in this case, being prohibited. Now you may say it was just a bunch of rechargeable batteries taped together, fine, but what is the exact purpose of doing so? Why not just leave them loose and not have a wire connected to them? When it's taped up and wired, it can be used as a power source for an IED, plain and simple. No use debating this issue, it was determined to be prohibited. End of story."
I see another genius here.
No, it's not the end of the story. TSA examined it and deemed it not a threat. And THEN they confiscate it? It appears to be examined, and something like that should have been swabbed. If it passed both (and obviously he was secondaried), what's the issue?
How is this a Big Catch®?
Anything can be used to power an IED. Cell phones have been shown to do that. 9V batteries have been. I don't see us banning any of those.
Tell me, why on God's green earth would anyone make something THAT big be used to detonate a bomb? Even one of your own, HSV TSO Dean said that it was way overkill to power a bomb and he's exactly right. Tell me why he would make something that big to power a bomb when the size alone would call attention to it? It makes absolutely no sense.
You can't make this ridiculousness up stuff up. TSA has some of the most active imaginations I've ever seen. It's hilarious and sad at the same time, like a clown on fire. Even more so that they're in charge of "security."
Robert
July 31, 2008 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...
Okay, lets forget the "realistic replica" part of this story for just one minute and concentrate on the real issue here....anything that appears to have been tampered or altered in any way to look like something that may be used as a component to an IED is subject to scrutiny and in this case, being prohibited. Now you may say it was just a bunch of rechargeable batteries taped together, fine, but what is the exact purpose of doing so? Why not just leave them loose and not have a wire connected to them? When it's taped up and wired, it can be used as a power source for an IED, plain and simple. No use debating this issue, it was determined to be prohibited. End of story.
First, we cannot just forget the "realistic replica" part of the story, as that is what the item was classified as in order to keep it off the flight.
Second, without wires, how do you suppose the power source be hooked to the DVD player? ANY battery can be used to power an IED, including the ones in all those notebooks and cellphones and such you clear daily. Do you propose we ban ALL batteries?
Finally, "No use debating this issue, it was determined to be prohibited. End of story." really does explain what is wrong with the TSA better than I could ever hope to. No judge. No jury. Just a finding of guilt and theft of personal property of a passenger by an idiot at a checkpoint.
July 31, 2008 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...
"So why do we have to take our shoes off? I'd like a valid answer besides "this is not Europe" or "because we say so"."
Because it is easy to hide components of an IED in any type of shoe. This is why they have these new scanners- to make it easer for the traveler, but still allowing TSA to effectively clear the shoes. For these same reasons that TSA has stated over and over and over again.
When was the last time an IED, or part of one, was found in a shoe? How often does that occur? Often enough to offset the cost in man-hours wasted in this security theater? Don't worry. These questions are rhetorical, as I'm sure the answers are SSI. The point is valid, though.
July 31, 2008 4:06 PM
"Just show the TSO some documentation of your health issue or disability."
Why on earth should anyone have to prove to the government that they have a health issue or disability just to keep their freaking SHOES on?
Of course, you're the same folks who want to interrogate citizens about their political views and taxes if they lose their ID.
If a citizen tells you they need to keep their shoes on, end of story. Figure out an alternate way to deal with it. Or just drop the pointless shoe removals, for God's sake.
July 31, 2008 4:17 PM
I debated whether or not this was even worth replying to, and finally decided that maybe others had as little understanding of basic technology as the anonymous poster who said...
"Okay, lets forget the "realistic replica" part of this story for just one minute and concentrate on the real issue here....anything that appears to have been tampered or altered in any way to look like something that may be used as a component to an IED is subject to scrutiny and in this case, being prohibited. Now you may say it was just a bunch of rechargeable batteries taped together, fine, but what is the exact purpose of doing so? Why not just leave them loose and not have a wire connected to them? When it's taped up and wired, it can be used as a power source for an IED, plain and simple. No use debating this issue, it was determined to be prohibited. End of story."
To answer the question of what was the purpose of gluing (not taping) the batteries together and having a wire attached (with a plug on the end):
This is an extended life battery pack to power the person's DVD player for the length of a long flight. The batteries are larger than will fit into the DVD player and therefore have to be attached to a wire with a plug on the end to plug into the DVD player.
It is much simpler and less annoying than carrying along extra batteries and trying to change them in-flight, and if the DVD player is one that uses built-in rechargeable batteries or a proprietary battery pack, it is actually the only reasonable way to extend battery life at reasonable cost.
Also since they won't fit inside the player because they are too big, and since the individual cells have to be all connected together into a battery of the proper voltage, they are all attached together into a clump of batteries. Hence "external battery pack."
There actually are commercial products made of the same components for the same purpose, but they are not that easy to find, and generally are priced at four or five times the cost of the components (or more!).
The only difference is generally a case of some sort that the batteries are put into to make them look a little nicer, and a heavier-duty cable with connector instead of the minimal pair of wires with connector this person used.
I have both commercial and home-made external power packs for two of my digital cameras, my large electronic flash, my laptop, a set of powered speakers, a portable radio, a portable LED room light and a general purpose 12 volt power pack that can power many automotive-type accessories for several hours.
My home-made units bear a striking resemblance to the one the TSA caused to be 'surrendered' except for color (mine are mostly plain green batteries rather than black).
Here is one of many do-it-yourself external battery pack pages on the internet...
The commercial ones internally are just the same as the home-mades, but have a fancy case around them that makes them more presentable, larger, and heavier... and one heck of a lot more expensive. (See this link for a quick example of commercial units.)
If you wonder why anyone would whip up an external battery pack, imagine ANY battery powered device that has too short a battery life to do what you need it to do for as long as you need it to do it.
A DVD player on a long flight is one example, using my digital cameras to shoot weddings is another, lighting, radio, two-way radios, portable TV, laptop, etc. for camping and vacation are more.
There are a lot of uses, legitimate uses, for external battery packs, and if one is at all competent to make one's own one can save a large amount of money doing so.
Even Radio Shack has external battery packs for electronic goodies. This isn't rocket science, and it isn't making replica explosive devices.
It's just that apparently some folks aren't comfortable with and don't trust any technology more complicated than salad fork.
OK, I'm off to get a mug of tea and calm back down.
P.S. Do a Google image search for external battery pack to get an idea of the wide variety out there in the real world. Might surprise you.
July 31, 2008 4:36 PM
Someone gave three reasons why he or she thought shoes should be searched at airports, stating that not searching them would "leave a door wide open".
I responded, explaining that lots of similar doors are wide open, so keeping this one closed is pointless:
"[W]e could say the same of numerous other things which we do not presently search at our government checkpoints. Those doors are wide open now. Do you think we should close them? How do you propose we do so? Shall we strip-search and perform body cavity searches on all passengers?
"Please consider this hypothetical situation: If we were already performing such searches and someone like me said that the policy was unreasonably expensive, intrusive, and ineffective, would you come here to complain about the possibility of `opening a door for more stuff to be hidden inside'?"
That person did not answer any of my questions, but wrote, "I would like to sit here and debate with you all of the possibilities that exist." I never suggested debating such possibilities, and this person did not initiate any such debate.
He or she went on to describe places other than shoes where someone could smuggle contraband aboard a flight, supporting my assertion that searching shoes is ridiculous because most anything that could be hidden in a shoe can be hidden in places we do not search.
I maintain that best TSA can possibly hope for with this policy of searching the shoes of every commercial airline passenger is to foil the plans of a person who intended to carry contraband through the checkpoint hidden in his shoe but cannot think of any alternative place to smuggle it -- like in his rectum, under his arm, under his waistband, or in his pocket.
The odds of that "if I can't hide it in my shoe because TSA searches shoes I'll just give up and not try to bomb the plane" plan happening are miniscule, and the cost of avoiding it is enormous. It is a security countermeasure that makes people feel secure but provides little or no improvement to security. It is security theater. We're being forced to pay for it. This misinformed person is defending it.
That person went on to suggest that I have not read in the newspapers about the recent incident where Jerry Lewis was caught with an unloaded handgun in his carry-on baggage. Although it's all over the news, I first read about it on Flyer Talk. I also saw it on Huffingtonpost. Regardless, I don't know what the relevance of this is. It's related neither to shoes nor to all the places that we don't search and probably never will search that could be used to smuggle small amounts of contraband aboard a flight.
July 31, 2008 4:48 PM
Interesting to note that L3 makes the virtual strip search machine. L3 makes the shoe scanner. Just how much did L3 contribute to the Republican party in 2002, 2004, and 2006, and how much has it put in the coffers for 2008?
July 31, 2008 4:54 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Interesting to note that L3 makes the virtual strip search machine. L3 makes the shoe scanner. Just how much did L3 contribute to the Republican party in 2002, 2004, and 2006, and how much has it put in the coffers for 2008?"
And following along with that, GE made the puffers and their deployment has been stalled. Guess they didn't give enough to the cause?
Robert
July 31, 2008 5:30 PM
"Yes - but to save money, why not just stop checking people's shoes? It's pointless anyway."
Ya know, just because you keep saying that, doesn't make it true.
July 31, 2008 5:42 PM
http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/assets/pdf/special_needs_memo.pdf
This memo outlines the fact that people with disabilities are not required to remove footwear for medical purposes. This includes changes in the threat level. If this is a common problem, print this memo out and carry it with you. Its sad that this would have to be an option, all TSOs should know and follow this rule.
July 31, 2008 6:05 PM
"Do you usually carry your medical records with you when traveling.
Do you show your records to some low level agent of the government?"
To question #1, YES. As a diabetic, I also carry something. If my blood sugar does too low, I may pass out or be acting drunk. Hopefully someone can help me if they see the records.
To question #2, NO. If the TSO wants to see it, I'll show them. Usually I get held to have my shoes swabbed.
Hope that helped.
July 31, 2008 6:10 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Do you not see the point, all the cost benifit anaylisis can not take into account the "Economic Impact to the Aviation Industry" of a successful attack. Due some research into the impact of 9-11 on the aviation industry and the ecomomic impact on the U.S. economy and the world economy in the 3+ days after 9-11 that planes did not fly. Now tell me that this is all a waste of money. The U.S. aviation industry might never recover from the next attack and it just might cripple the entire U.S. economy. This MUST be considered, if not then let us just sit back do nothing to prevent it and wait to see what happens. P.S. I hope you can grow your own food. if not how does starvation sound to you. I know this sounds extreme but seriously, consider the consequences.
A little over dramatic. At the height of the IRA bombings in London their economy didn't fail. The Israelis have been dealing with bombings and other terrorist assaults 60 years and their economy has not come to a crashing halt.
Tell me another fairy tale.
July 31, 2008 6:12 PM
Anonymous said...
"So why do we have to take our shoes off? I'd like a valid answer besides "this is not Europe" or "because we say so"."
Because it is easy to hide components of an IED in any type of shoe. This is why they have these new scanners- to make it easer for the traveler, but still allowing TSA to effectively clear the shoes. For these same reasons that TSA has stated over and over and over again.
You still haven't answered the actual question. Why is this practice not occurring in Europe?
Richard Reid's flight originated from England. Is it possible the European security services know something the TSA chooses to ignore. I seem to remember how a couple of months ago a red team member got an IED pass security in a back brace. A brace that a TSA officer saw and did not search.
July 31, 2008 6:17 PM
tso rachel said...
Just show the TSO some documentation of your health issue or disability. If they refuse to comply, ask for a supervisor.
Rachel, first let me say that the vast majority of your responses here have been thoughtful and helpful, thank you.
In this one, though, speaking as a handicapped individual, actually does bother me just a bit. One of the points brought out in the legislation that established the Americans with Disabilities Act was that a person should be considered disabled if they are observably so, if others consider them to be or if they self-identify as being disabled.
What that means is that by federal law, a person does not need to present documentation proving they are disabled, nor do they need to specify what the disability is. That is their own private, personal information.
While I agree that having a letter from one's doctor explaining ones medical problems to all concerned might (Might!) help, that is not really something a federal safety officer should be requesting from a citizen.
Yeah, it can make it easier, but it cannot and should not be demanded.
I don't believe I should have to prove any facet of any medical condition to a non-medical person with no actual connection to its treatment.
Makes for a really tough problem on both sides of the table, and I don't really know of a good answer.
Trust me, many people have medical conditions that they do NOT care to advertise to random strangers...
Take care,
Tom
July 31, 2008 6:20 PM
When you think about it, the government really spends alot of money protecting a private business which is fairly vital to the US economy. I mean, ALOT of money. And the way the airlines treat us, the passengers/customers, I find that more offensive than anything TSA has come up with, yet. The decade is still young.
It's also one of the only places where to travel, you have to prove your innocence, rather then they prove you're guilty.
As for: "Any protective policy should be compared to a "null case": do nothing, and use the money saved to rebuild and to compensate any victims." Kinda sick way to save money. And could you imagine the chorus of people after an attack occured? Makes this blog look like a slap and giggle party.
July 31, 2008 6:21 PM
tso rachel said, regarding shoe removal or not by those with disabilities:
"I have posted links for these before, but they weren't cut and dry. I am still searching for a clear and concise reference of them."
What does that say about TSA policy when one of their own has to do an apparently extensive, and so far fruitless, search for information?
tso rachel, if I were you, I'd stop responding to other posters before the TSA comes after you for openly displaying how inefficient this agency really is.
~~
We're still waiting for answers to our questions. It should not be a difficult thing to do so one must assume that the TSA is scrambling to come up with answers - IOW, they are creating policies to respond to our questions.
July 31, 2008 6:26 PM
Phil said:
I maintain that best TSA can possibly hope for with this policy of searching the shoes of every commercial airline passenger is to foil the plans of a person who intended to carry contraband through the checkpoint hidden in his shoe but cannot think of any alternative place to smuggle it -- like in his rectum, under his arm, under his waistband, or in his pocket.
The odds of that "if I can't hide it in my shoe because TSA searches shoes I'll just give up and not try to bomb the plane" plan happening are miniscule, and the cost of avoiding it is enormous. It is a security countermeasure that makes people feel secure but provides little or no improvement to security. It is security theater. We're being forced to pay for it. This misinformed person is defending it.
***********************************
Okay Phil, lets debate your suggestions for Alternative unsearched areas that items can be hidden in.
Rectum: Come on Phil a bomb in your rectum? Unlikely, but in the event that we had a terrorist who did try it, we don't strip search so it would be a mute point. Unless of course you are suggesting that we DO start strip searching? :-)
Under the arm pit: Passengers are subject to random pat downs at the mag, so this would be a useless concept.
In the pocket: See above
Strapped to the thigh: see above
Strapped to the ankle: see above
In their mouth: Well when they mumbled their answer to "boarding pass please" or "good morning how are you today?" they would probably raise suspicion.
Any other questions Phil? Look, you see the shoe policy as useless because it affects your comfort level at the airport....imagine a terrorist who's comfort level is affected as well by having to remove shoes, etc before walking through the metal detector. It goes without saying Phil that if we can affect the comfort level of those intending to do harm, we have a better chance of stopping them before they enter the sterile area and get onto your plane. No security plan is fool proof and we can come up with a thousand things that someone could use to try to thwart our efforts, and some of them may succeed, its the ones that we stop before they attempt it that matters the most.
July 31, 2008 6:49 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Ya know, just because you keep saying that, doesn't make it true."
Conversely, continuously parroting that certain things are a threat (shoes, liquids, etc) doesn't make it true either.
Robert
July 31, 2008 7:18 PM
@Anonymous: "Tell me another fairy tale."
The TSA provides real security. :D
July 31, 2008 7:20 PM
TSO Rachel is a perfect example of the people that the TSA needs to keep. Could we get rid of the people who willfully (unfortunately anonymously) destroyed an academic research project ( http://blog.reprap.org/2008/07/tsa-really-wreck-reprap-child.html ) while retaining folks like Rachel?
July 31, 2008 7:38 PM
What is so special about American shoes that they are so dangerous within USA and yet so safe almost everywhere else in the world (where shoes do not need to be removed).
July 31, 2008 9:10 PM
Anonymous said... "Do you not see the point, all the cost benifit anaylisis can not take into account the "Economic Impact to the Aviation Industry" of a successful attack. Due some research into the impact of 9-11 on the aviation industry and the ecomomic impact on the U.S. economy and the world economy in the 3+ days after 9-11 that planes did not fly. Now tell me that this is all a waste of money. The U.S. aviation industry might never recover from the next attack and it just might cripple the entire U.S. economy. This MUST be considered, if not then let us just sit back do nothing to prevent it and wait to see what happens. P.S. I hope you can grow your own food. if not how does starvation sound to you. I know this sounds extreme but seriously, consider the consequences."
That is one possible outcome. Extremely unlikely in my view (along similar lines as the chance of being hit by asteroid in my lifetime).
As a contrast, just how badly did the economy suffer in WWII which has much bigger impacts than any plausible terrorism incident?
But you need to balance against the certain costs of the security rules.
A cost benefit analysis should take both costs and benefits into account, including probabilities. Otherwise you could (try) to justify spending any sum at all against the risk of an asteroid collision for example.
July 31, 2008 9:51 PM
Instead of worrying about objects that look like fake explosives, and keeping them off aircraft, shouldn't a MUCH MORE pressing issue be inspecting cargo that goes on the aircraft? I guess the TSA can say the risk vs cost is something they can live with, but the circus surrounding shoes is not something they even want to step back and reconsider. The TSA 's policies are ad-hoc at best, and so flawed, that in effect they are counter-productive in keeping anyone safe.
July 31, 2008 10:08 PM
I do not believe the TSA really wants to develope a method which would allow us to keep our shoes on. The same goes for leaving a laptop in its bag. This might mean fewer TSA agents would be necessary. And as a government agency the last thing it wants to do is reduce the size of its workforce.
July 31, 2008 10:19 PM
To question #1, YES. As a diabetic, I also carry something. If my blood sugar does too low, I may pass out or be acting drunk. Hopefully someone can help me if they see the records.
........................
I would hope you wear a Medi-Alert or simular braclet so any first responder could possibly see that you have some type of issue that needs to be dealt with. Of course you would want some glucose tabs or such at the ready if going low is a problem for you. Awareness of diabetes, both type 1 and type 2 has improved in recent years. I suspect more people know how to deal with someone who has low BG although we still see to many cases of people being arrested or detained for being drunk when all they need is some sucrose.
I carry a card with all meds and dosages I take but do not carry medical records with me. I do not use insulin but if I did I would reconsider the records issue. When approaching a TSA checkpoint I look just like any other traveler so if they don't accept my word I have no recourse other than to submit.
July 31, 2008 10:20 PM
Anonymous wrote:
Dean, I hate to say it, but you should be ashamed of yourself too.
M'kay. I'm not, though. :)
Tomas wrote:
On this one we disagree, Dean. :o)
As civil people are allowed to do.
With all of the people in and out of the Rocket City here that HSV serves, though, you can imagine that we get a lot of electrical engineers and stuff, in addition to the all of the military folks we get from Redstone Arsenal (and, by the way, the whole DoD Civilian ID cards not being allowed as acceptable forms of ID at the TDC? That's going over smashingly well, as you can probably imagine. Ugh.). We've had quite a few of these devices, homemade switch-boards and battery packs and such, come through our checkpoint. They usually cause a micro-stir, and it's generally done exactly the way that they handled it... uh... wherever that thing was found at (I don't remember, just off the top of my head).
The only difference is that our Supervisors usually let it go after it's clear that it's not a threat in any way, but, then again, we probably see them a lot more often than they do at other airports.
Still, it was their Supervisor's call to make, and I can only assume that s/he gave enough justification to back it up. In this way, you'd probably (or not~) be mightily surprised at what some places allow, and others do not, based on the Supervisor's discretion.
Making it a press release was a bit of an overstep on TSA's part though, I think. I actually found something that would've unintentionally served as an IED, and never even got so much as an attaboy out of it. :P I'll tell that story some other time, though.
Robert Johnson wrote:
And following along with that, GE made the puffers and their deployment has been stalled. Guess they didn't give enough to the cause?
It was my understanding that the puffer machines just sucked, and didn't live up to their expectations.
Though it's always interesting how many people talk about "this Administration" and the Republican party and everything. Most of my co-workers don't really give a crap about politics in general, and the rest are a good cross-section of political affiliations (though we only actually have one Republican here in Huntsville that I'm aware of).
What makes it interesting to me is the notion that we are somehow beholden to the political party. When we put on the uniform and go to work, we very seldom talk about politics. We're there to serve the nation as a whole, not the dominant political party (which I doubt anyone can honestly say is the Republicans, right now~) or individual in the position of leadership.
Now, heh, maybe WAAAY up the chain of command, but that goes into the stratosphere over my paygrade. As a private citizen, though, I would say that such acts would be unethical, and irresponsible, if it were true.
I can tell you with full confidence that there's no kind of official doctrine in the TSA of targeting specific political affiliations (or religions, or races, or sexual orientations, or gender identities, et al) when they come through the checkpoints, on a screening level or in our directives or standard operating procedure.
Though we do have one screener that likes to joke about sending anyone wearing Auburn gear over to the fishbowl. It's a big thing down here, the Alabama-Auburn rivalry.
July 31, 2008 10:29 PM
I think this is a great idea, and I'm really impressed with the sharing of your process for evaluating this opportunity to streamline security even more. At least in Minnesota and DC where I do most of my traveling, TSA's service and efficiency is pretty amazing.
I have posted further comments about my experience with TSA here:
http://www.reachthepublic.com/2008/07/tsa-fan-club-continued.html
August 1, 2008 12:49 AM
Having read these blogs for some time, I begin to wonder what the point is. It's security theater at an exorbitant cost with no benefit. What can stop this nonsense? Maybe emails/phone calls to key senators and representatives instead of the DHS/TSA? Pressure the media to pressure the government? Educate the public with what's been lost for so little gain? Anyone have good links on organizations/public advocacy groups that are working to restore our rights?
August 1, 2008 12:51 AM
STOP THE BLOG
The TSA has admitted to over hyping an incident in a press release and they did it in LARGE letters.
You MUST click and see it for yourself.
Ellen you are fantastic. Kudos.
The TSA fired the ex-director of homeland security for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Sonia Pitt.
Once again Ellen broke that development.
TSOs get better whistler blower protection. "The additional protection now afforded to our frontline officers enhances their ability to protect the traveling public," said TSA Deputy Administrator Gale Rossides. "Giving our officers every opportunity to communicate security concerns without fear of reprisal is an important tool in a creative, engaged workforce."
I for one am glad to see the good TSOs get another tool to root our the bad apples.
WOW 3 good things in one week, if Blogger Bob posts some of the answers to our top ten before Friday night, I will start checking the skies for the Four Horsemen.
Ok you can restart the blog now.
August 1, 2008 12:57 AM
There is effectively no way to satisfy you people.
Some of you people are so distanced from reality that it scares me...
Q: "when was the last time a terrorist tried to place an IED in his shoe"
A: In 2002, but then again the last time they attempted to bring down the WTC was in 1993... yes, they waited 8 years to attack again.
Maybe they are just waiting for us to just arbitrarily stop searching shoes.
Oh, and if we see someone that looks bulky enough as if they are carrying an IED strapped to his body, they patted down too...
This is the truth, many of you will still choose to ignore it...
August 1, 2008 4:58 AM
"Do you usually carry your medical records with you when traveling.
Do you show your records to some low level agent of the government?"
Everyone I have come across usually has a small laminated card from their doctor that they always carry when traveling. I'm not asking to see medical records... I'm just ensuring that everyone else in line after you won't suddenly think they can say the same thing and keep their shoes on.
August 1, 2008 7:37 AM
Blog team: Can you please either present posts in the order that they are approved, or at least give readers an option to view them that way? You consistently approve posts out of order, which at best makes it hard to find the new posts and follow the discussion, and at worst seems an effort to obscure posts critical to the TSA by burying them in the middle of the thread. This morning this thread went from 80-some to 90-some posts, but none of the 10 "newest" posts seem new.
If you can't or won't provide these options, at least include an approval time in addition to the post time for approved posts. That way we can scan the timestamps for "new" posts, and get a feel for which posts take longer to approve than others.
August 1, 2008 9:12 AM
kf said:
A cost benefit analysis should take both costs and benefits into account, including probabilities. Otherwise you could (try) to justify spending any sum at all against the risk of an asteroid collision for example.
YES! This is basic management science. It is exactly what businesses do every day, and many people in this country are skilled in the field of cost/benefit analysis. The TSA should hire a couple of them!
If you simply look at risks, while excluding costs and probabilities, then yes of course we have to screen shoes and liquids and laptops and everything else we are screening. I think that's exactly what a lot of the pro-TSA folks on here are saying.
Shoes ARE a potential risk, so if we stop screening them, we increase our risk. TRUE! However, the probability of shoes being dangerous is extremely low and the cost of screening them is very high, so the benefit does not outweigh the cost. It makes no sense to spend so much on such a small risk.
This is exactly the reason that the two sides to this debate don't understand each other. Those who say we must screen everything we can screen are looking only at the risks and ignoring the costs and probabilities.
If we ignore costs and probabilities, we would never get out of bed every morning, because we might be struck by lightening, get fired from our job, or catch a fatal disease. But the cost of protecting ourselves that way is too high: it would mean giving up the possibility of having a real, meaningful life.
When the cost of a protective measure is high and the probability of danger is low, we should not implement that protective measure.
If you disagree with this statement as a general principle, I'd love to hear from you why you think it's wrong!
August 1, 2008 9:24 AM
Popping up for another observation!
KF wrote:
As a contrast, just how badly did the economy suffer in WWII which has much bigger impacts than any plausible terrorism incident?
Depends on which economy we're talking about. All told, the vast bulk of the industrial capabilities and infrastructure of the United States was untouched in WWII, though obviously there was a great loss of human life. If we had suffered the level of infrastructural annihilation that Germany had...?
All things considered, though, I think things are just different from the people standpoint of today than they were in the wonderful days of yesteryear. Take the aftermath of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, and compare it to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There's so many things different just on an economic scale between then and now that it's almost not funny - like having to wait for bidding on government contracts to begin reconstruction, and any various and sundry forms of litigation that crop up to delay the process. I have a friend in New Orleans that's still waiting for their apartment building to be rebuilt, because the landlord and the contractors are deadlocked in court over some kind of contractual issue.
Back in 1871, they just got it the hell on with.
August 1, 2008 9:34 AM
Anonymous wrote:
This might mean fewer TSA agents would be necessary. And as a government agency the last thing it wants to do is reduce the size of its workforce.
First, I really doubt that laptops not being removed from bags and shoes staying on would impact the screening process great enough to where we wouldn't have to have the folks. Generally, one person informs the passengers that these things have to come out/come off, and that one person would be generally be standing at the walk-through metal detector, which is in no danger of ever being eliminated as a screening position and function.
Secondly, I guess you weren't around several years back when TSA decided it had to "Right-size" the workforce, and some 20,000-25,000 airport screening positions were RIF'd.
(That's an estimated number, of course; if memory serves, we had anywhere from 60,000-65,000 screening personnel in the field, and ended with 40,000-45,000. I'm not even aware of where to go to get the actual numbers. I do know that, at Huntsville, we went from 150-ish to about 65.)
August 1, 2008 11:21 AM
Shoes are a minor inconvenience. Other property may be taken from you at will. Poof!, Your property can be taken without court order and kept as long as the government wants to keep it.
Air travel is a last resort.
August 1, 2008 11:50 AM
"I don't believe I should have to prove any facet of any medical condition to a non-medical person with no actual connection to its treatment."
I can promise you that if anyone let me know they needed special assistance, I would be doing everything in my power to make sure it's done, without ever asking for documentation. I have never personally asked to see any proof- although I have had several people offer it to me! I just know that there are TSOs out there without that same attitude, and I have personally seen passengers being asked for "proof". Very rarely have I felt it was necessary.
Now, this has NEVER been done (with my witness) to someone requiring assistance with shoes, etc... I have only seen this done when a person is bringing soda through the checkpoint claiming to be diabetic, but without any evidence to support it- so a supervisor was called, and the supervisor said they couldn't bring the soda through. In instances where it has been juice or a necessary dietary supplement, they have always been allowed (at my airport).
I am guessing that this step is to eliminate anyone who is lying about a condition to avoid further screening for any number of reasons... to get though quicker (which usually isn't the case when you claim a disability), or god forbid, to try to sneak something through. Whatever teh case, I know I am always happy to assist anyone who needs that extra help. Of course, that's probably why I'm in school to work in special education... ;)
August 1, 2008 12:45 PM
With reference to the Washington post article today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2008/08/01/laptops.html?hpid=topnews
As an international traveler I would be interested to hear the reasoning/number of times this has happened and maybe why an indefinite time period is required.
Many thanks
Simon
August 1, 2008 12:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.macuser.com/security/security_can_seize_your_laptop.php?lsrc=murss
August 1, 2008 1:12 PM
In response to someone who complained that my suggestion to end the ridiculously wasteful and ineffective policy of searching all airline passengers' shoes would amount to opening a door for people to begin smuggling shoe-heel-sized amounts of contraband onto flights at-will, I wrote (and later wrote again:
"[W]e could say the same of numerous other things which we do not presently search at our government checkpoints. Those doors are wide open now. Do you think we should close them? How do you propose we do so? Shall we strip-search and perform body cavity searches on all passengers?
"Please consider this hypothetical situation: If we were already performing such searches and someone like me said that the policy was unreasonably expensive, intrusive, and ineffective, would you come here to complain about the possibility of `opening a door for more stuff to be hidden inside'?"
My anonymous discussion partner did not respond to my repeated requests for comment.
I also wrote:
"I maintain that best TSA can possibly hope for with this policy of searching the shoes of every commercial airline passenger is to foil the plans of a person who intended to carry contraband through the checkpoint hidden in his shoe but cannot think of any alternative place to smuggle it -- like in his rectum, under his arm, under his waistband, or in his pocket.
"The odds of that `if I can't hide it in my shoe because TSA searches shoes I'll just give up and not try to bomb the plane' plan happening are miniscule, and the cost of avoiding it is enormous. It is a security countermeasure that makes people feel secure but provides little or no improvement to security. It is security theater. We're being forced to pay for it. This misinformed person is defending it."
That person responded:
"Rectum: Come on Phil a bomb in your rectum? Unlikely, but in the event that we had a terrorist who did try it, we don't strip search so it would be a mute point. Unless of course you are suggesting that we DO start strip searching?"
I didn't write anything about a bomb. We're discussing the feasibility of smuggling aboard a flight a portion of any contraband so small that it can fit in the sole of a shoe. Please forgive me for the rather distasteful image, but anything that will fit in the sole of a shoe will almost certainly fit in a human rectum (I assume it would be quite uncomfortable, but so to would be blowing oneself up with a shoe bomb). If someone wants to smuggle that small amount of contraband onto a flight, he will be able to do so without detection unless we strip search and cavity search him.
"Under the arm pit: Passengers are subject to random pat downs at the mag, so this would be a useless concept.
"In the pocket: See above
"Strapped to the thigh: see above
"Strapped to the ankle: see above"
Thank you for supporting my assertion that the shoe searches are unwarranted. I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that random pat-downs are sufficient defense against the possibility of someone carrying a small quantity of contraband (one small enough to fit in the sole of a shoe) under his arm, in his pocket, or strapped/taped to any number of other places on his body (as it would take a very intrusive pat-down to feel a small, smooth object against the passenger's body), but given that your assertion about random pat-downs is valid, we could sufficiently defend against the possibility of someone smuggling that small amount of contraband in his shoe by performing random shoe searches. I think random shoe searches would be rather silly, but I would be far-more accepting of that policy than this one of searching all passengers' shoes.
I hope my point is clear. If the threat of having one of those random pat-downs is enough to discourage the determined criminal from smuggling contraband that would be discovered via pat-down, then the threat of a random shoe search should be enough to deter that criminal from smuggling contraband in his shoe. If the risk of a criminal smuggling contraband in his shoe is so great as to justify searching all shoes, then the risk of him smuggling it elsewhere must be equally great -- yet we're not performing a search of any of those other places with every passenger.
It's as if we have a building with a dozen entrances, and because a burglar once tried to enter a particular entrance, we're going to great lengths to secure that particular entrance. Only a fool would cancel his plan to walk through that entrance and bomb the building instead of simply using one of the other entrances -- some of which cannot be secured without the equivalent of strip-searching and cavity searching each and every airline passenger passing through our airports. The criminals we are led to believe that the TSA intends to protect against are not that foolish. We are foolish for believing that searching all passengers' shoes provides any significant amount of security.
"In their mouth: Well when they mumbled their answer to `boarding pass please' or `good morning how are you today?' they would probably raise suspicion."
Wrong. Most people don't speak a word while passing through government checkpoints at the airport. There's nothing suspicious about just smiling and nodding.
August 1, 2008 1:31 PM
Oh, and if we see someone that looks bulky enough as if they are carrying an IED strapped to his body, they patted down too...
You’re assuming that it is bulky or if you’re even smart enough to frisk someone. A few months ago someone on the red team got an IED past a checkpoint by hiding it in a back brace that was visible to the naked eye. A quick comment about back pain and the TSA officers present waved him through.
Q: "when was the last time a terrorist tried to place an IED in his shoe"
A: In 2002, but then again the last time they attempted to bring down the WTC was in 1993... yes, they waited 8 years to attack again.
The delivery methods for the two bombings of the World Trade Center were completely different, your comparing apples and oranges.
Okay Phil, lets debate your suggestions for Alternative unsearched areas that items can be hidden in.
Rectum: Come on Phil a bomb in your rectum? Unlikely, but in the event that we had a terrorist who did try it, we don't strip search so it would be a mute point. Unless of course you are suggesting that we DO start strip searching? :-)
Under the arm pit: Passengers are subject to random pat downs at the mag, so this would be a useless concept.
In the pocket: See above
Strapped to the thigh: see above
Strapped to the ankle: see above
In their mouth: Well when they mumbled their answer to "boarding pass please" or "good morning how are you today?" they would probably raise suspicion..
The key word here is ”random pat down”. A random pat downs are no guarantee that you will catch anyone with items hidden on their body. Something inserted into their rectum or any other part of their body won’t sound implausible if you spend a week with security at a major prison. Where security is even tighter than an airport and you would be amazed at the weapons that are created to beat a metal detector and methods used move contraband.
By the way I’ve noticed you still haven’t explained to me why shoes have to be removed in the US and not in Europe. With an answer that does not involve “because we are not in Europe” or “because we said so”. What is the difference between shoes in Europe and in America. Remember Richard Reid’s flight originated from Europe and if anyone would insist on shoe removal it would the Europeans.
This is courtesy of one of the 5 or 6 people who do all the posting
August 1, 2008 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...
There is effectively no way to satisfy you people.
Some of you people are so distanced from reality that it scares me...
Q: "when was the last time a terrorist tried to place an IED in his shoe"
A: In 2002, but then again the last time they attempted to bring down the WTC was in 1993... yes, they waited 8 years to attack again.
Maybe they are just waiting for us to just arbitrarily stop searching shoes.
I just LOVE how people here like to take stuff I say out of context to make me look like a nut job. I do that well enough on my own that I don't need your help ;)
The point is, that there's ONE case, not even originating in the US. And as Phil has pointed out very well, there are better places of hiding an IED than one's shoes. The discomfort of hiding one in one's rectum would, I would imagine, be nothing compared to the discomfort of blowing one's self up, along with the rest of the flight.
August 1, 2008 2:11 PM
tso rachel said...
"Do you usually carry your medical records with you when traveling.
Do you show your records to some low level agent of the government?"
Everyone I have come across usually has a small laminated card from their doctor that they always carry when traveling. I'm not asking to see medical records... I'm just ensuring that everyone else in line after you won't suddenly think they can say the same thing and keep their shoes on.
..................................
I have no such card from my doctors.
Do your policies state that a person must have this card available for your review?
If not are you making policy at the checkpoint?
Do you personally have the authority to create and implement policy without review?
If your answers are no, yes, and no, you would be looking for a new job if you worked for me. Exceeding ones authority is as bad as ignoring certain aspects of ones job.
You can't just make up rules as you go. Even if you mean well.
No where in the TSA information for travelers do I find a requirement to present medical information at the request of a TSO.
August 1, 2008 2:42 PM
I just don't understand why the TSA doesn't get it... Some of us who complain about these ridiculous rules are simply asking for a little common sense and MUCH LESS fear-mongering.
We have this expensive and annoying security bureaucracy that was put in place after 9/11, even though nothing that we encounter in airports today would have stopped that tragedy from happening.
We're spending how many millions of dollars to protect a system that is the safest way to travel, when we could be devoting money and rules enforcement to improving the safety of drivers on roads, for example.
And some high-level idiots decided that everyone has to take their shoes off, but didn't think to give me enough chairs/benches to sit down on for this or some bits of carpet so that we all don't have to walk on dirty floors in our socks or bare feet.
In the process of this screening, we have increasing numbers of complaints about abuse of the elderly, disabled, and health-impaired, and yet somehow the TSA honchos want to claim that everything's wonderful and they have protected Americans from something.
Seriously, send all the TSA employees through customer service training with Disney or Nordstrom and bring in some Fortune 500 folks to actually design a system that works!
August 1, 2008 3:07 PM
Here's some information / Regulations from DOT about traveling with batteries. I was going to say it's good information but it's really just information, not good; but not bad either.
For those that don't want to go to the link, here is the part about "Larger" Lithium Ion batteries:
"Lithium metal batteries are non-rechargeable batteries you discard once they are depleted. Larger lithium metal batteries contain over 2 grams of lithium, and are forbidden.
Most consumer lithium metal batteries such as AA, AAA, and CR-123A sizes, do not fall into the "Larger" category. Just follow the Basic rules.Lithium ion batteries are the rechargeable batteries used in computers, cell phones, and other devices. "Larger" lithium ion batteries are rated between 100 and 300 watt-hours (8-25 g equivalent lithium content, or ELC.) Examples of these larger lithium ion batteries are pictured in the box below.
If you are not sure whether your battery is a larger lithium ion battery, contact the battery's manufacturer, or call the PHMSA Hazardous Materials Info-Center at 1-800-467-4922.
You are allowed one larger lithium ion battery installed in a device, plus up to 2 spare larger lithium ion batteries. These are in addition to any smaller lithium ion batteries. For smaller lithium ion batteries, just follow the Basic rules.
Lithium ion batteries rated over 300 watt-hours (25 g ELC) are forbidden. "
I'm not sure how much this would affect the home-brew batter makers but it is something to keep in mind.
Also I think I remember a couple comments asking for the rules as to what is / isn't allowed. Those rules are here.
This can't be a complete list because it doesn't include the information about the Lithium metal batteries not being allowed and who knows what else. It would seem that DOT and TSA as connected as they should be.
-V.L.D.
August 1, 2008 3:07 PM
"Though it's always interesting how many people talk about "this Administration" and the Republican party and everything."
"What makes it interesting to me is the notion that we are somehow beholden to the political party. When we put on the uniform and go to work, we very seldom talk about politics."
Dean,
I've no doubt this is true for most of the screeners working at airports. However, the folks running your agency -- the geniuses who came up with 3.4-1-1 and mandatory show removals and the absurd new ID policy which TSA still declines to clarify through this blog -- are political appointees who got their jobs because the same people who appointed Michael Brown and Paul Bremer and Lurita Doan and Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling and dozens of other people who were incompetent or corrupt or both to positions in government put them there. The current administration clearly thinks that government is naturally incompetent and should be a tool for rewarding political loyalists and punishing opponents, and there's no reason to think the upper echelons of TSA are any different at all.
August 1, 2008 3:14 PM
Wow, kudos to Ellen Howe of the TSA. Not only did she step up to the plate and admit that the battery back story was overblown in its presentation. She also said that the wire was under and not attached to the bottle as it appears in the photo.
This is not the same TSA that would have admitted to this when this blog was first started. I suspect that given the follow through in the media to debunk this and other stories the TSA is beginning to understand that everything they say is not going to be taken a face value.
Good job Ellen, it takes a brave person to admit an error publicly.
One of the 5 or 6 people who post here regularly.
August 1, 2008 3:39 PM
Phil, how did we get from bombs to contraband? I'm not totally understanding you here, first of all, contraband is NOT at the top of our list of items to LOOK for. If we find it in the course of a search, fine. But we're not looking for it. We are however concentrating on weapons, and IED's...it doesn't matter how long we focus on this issue, it appears that you and others will always have a snappy comeback. Bottom line Phil, we are trying to alleviate some of the discomfort that you experience at the airport, while ensuring your safety at the same time. Next question please.
August 1, 2008 4:29 PM
Anonymous person, by "contraband" I mean that which is prohibited from being carried aboard. This includes but is not limited to: bombs, detonators, weapons, and 3.5 oz bottles of shampoo.
Anything we're spending millions of dollars on finding in a shoe search will be carried aboard by anyone with sufficient determination to do so until we strip- and cavity-search each passenger.
August 1, 2008 4:56 PM
The following note now precedes the TSA Press Release titled "Explosive-Like Item Intercepted at Checkpoint"
________________
Editor's Note:
My name is Ellen Howe and I am responsible for the content of this website. We obviously had a lapse of judgement on this story and you folks in the blogosphere have done a good job of keeping us honest. The points made by Gizmodo, Boing Boing, and Bruce Schneier were compelling.
First, the headline is misleading, we totally over-hyped it.
A suspicious-looking item is not the burden of proof for surrender of said item. This looks much more like the Wylie Coyote bomb of yesteryear. In this case, the item was easy to spot but not harmful. TSA finds far more interesting items through improvised explosive device (IED) drills every day.
To be clear, we did not doctor the photo. The wire was not attached to the bottle, but was resting underneath it as the passenger placed it in the bin.
There is credibility to looking at batteries as they are commonly improvised by terrorists: click here.
- Ellen Howe
________________
Kudos for recognizing the error and making note of it, Ellen.
Sadly, it still happened and the traveler no longer has his personal property in his possession after "surrendering" it at the TSA's "request."
August 1, 2008 5:08 PM
" Poof!, Your property can be taken without court order and kept as long as the government wants to keep it"
Welcome to neo-America comrade!
May I see your papers, please?
,>)
August 1, 2008 5:25 PM
Oh, and to answer that question, "we" never specifically discussed bombs. I've discussed only things which people are barred from transporting on their person or in carry-on luggage (i.e., contraband) that are small enough to fit in the sole of a shoe. To review, see comments from me, TSO Rachel, me, anon, me, anon, me, anon, me, anon, Wintermute, anon, and my last one, which has yet to be approved.
It's unfortunate that we're attempting to conduct a discussion like this without any threading of comments. Blogger.com is really not the best system for this kind of thing. If it did, it would be much more obvious that this anonymous commenter repeatedly ducks questions and changes the subject.
August 1, 2008 5:41 PM
Phil, if you don't like the way TSA conducts security, drive.
August 1, 2008 5:56 PM
Troll: Munch on this: We can't drive to Hawaii. Unless we live nearby, we can't drive to Washington DC to petition our government for redress of grievances and maintain our day-to-day lives of being employed and caring for family. In this day and age, the ability to fly is the ability to travel within your own country. We pay for TSA's ineffective, invasive, and expensive practices whether we fly or drive.
"If you don't like it, don't use it" is not an appropriate resolution to the problems with TSA many of us hope to see changed.
August 1, 2008 6:38 PM
"You can't just make up rules as you go. Even if you mean well.
No where in the TSA information for travelers do I find a requirement to present medical information at the request of a TSO."
You are right; it isn't required. I went on a search, and this is what I found:
'If you have medical documentation regarding your medical condition or disability, you can present this information to the Security Officer to help inform him of your situation. This documentation is not required and will not exempt you from the security screening process.'
But I must emphasise that the only time my supervisor has ever requested documentation was when a passenger was trying to bring sodas through the checkpoint. Since liquids over 3.4 oz are prohibited, my supervisor was trying to allow to through if it were truly necessary for the passenger's blood suger (even though sodas are available beyond the checkpoint and also in flight). The passenger said he had no documentation, and he wasn't carrying anything else related to diabetes, so he was not allowed to bring the sodas. So this wasn't an ordinary clear-cut situation. Other than this type of situation, I don't see any need to request any documentation.
So here's what I'm saying: you don't need to prove anything to TSA unless you are trying to bring prohibited items through.
Does that sound fair?
August 1, 2008 8:13 PM
.We are however concentrating on weapons, and IED's...it doesn't matter how long we focus on this issue, it appears that you and others will always have a snappy comeback. Bottom line Phil, we are trying to alleviate some of the discomfort that you experience at the airport, while ensuring your safety at the same time. Next question please.
Actually we’re just waiting for you to answer our questions since you claim to be a TSA employee, instead of changing the subject. Answers that involve something other than the one above where you have used “trust us because we say so” and “we’re protecting you from terrorists”. Micahel8 summed it up quite nicely in an earlier post ... “Some of us who complain about these ridiculous rules are simply asking for a little common sense and MUCH LESS fear-mongering.”
By the way I am still waiting for you to explain why we have to remove our shoes in the US and not in Europe. Keeping in mind that Richard Reid’s flight originated from Europe and you have to have an answer that does not involve stating “because this is not Europe” and “because we say so”. Is there something American security services know that the others don’t.
One of the 5 or 6 people who post all the time
August 1, 2008 8:16 PM
tso rachel said...
I have only seen this done when a person is bringing soda through the checkpoint claiming to be diabetic, but without any evidence to support it- so a supervisor was called, and the supervisor said they couldn't bring the soda through. In instances where it has been juice or a necessary dietary supplement, they have always been allowed (at my airport).
At the risk of sounding like I'm being facetious, why is juice allowed for a diabetic when it is not allowed for a non-diabetic? There is no difference in the juice regardless of who is attempting to carry it on.
On the subject of diabetics, my wife is on an insulin pump. What is the SOP for clearing her and her pump? I cringe at the thought of her upcoming business trip.
August 1, 2008 11:16 PM
So here's what I'm saying: you don't need to prove anything to TSA unless you are trying to bring prohibited items through.
Does that sound fair?
---------------------------
Yes it does.
I carry a glucose meter and sucrose tablets, ( Smarties candy, pure sucrose) with me at all times. So in a pinch I could show someone that however it really doesn't verify any medical condition.
The point I was trying to make and seems I got the point across is that unless something else is going on you should take a person at their word when they tell you of a medical condition.
Not all conditions manifest themselves openly and I would rather not go into detail with a stranger even if they are working a checkpoint. Medical issues are generally considered to be private matter, in fact federal laws exist to protect peoples medical privacy.
Good exchange!
August 1, 2008 11:23 PM
Wintermute wrote:
At the risk of sounding like I'm being facetious, why is juice allowed for a diabetic when it is not allowed for a non-diabetic? There is no difference in the juice regardless of who is attempting to carry it on.
Because one person uses it for a legitimate medical reason, and the other likes the taste?
On the subject of diabetics, my wife is on an insulin pump. What is the SOP for clearing her and her pump? I cringe at the thought of her upcoming business trip.
In a nutshell?
Sometimes they alarm coming through the WTMD, sometimes they don't. If no alarm, then they just go get their stuff and call it a day. If they do, they go for hand-wanding like normal. If a pat-down is required in the area of the pump, be exceedingly careful not to disturb it or cause the little tube to pull. A visual inspection of the pump only - no physical inspection or ETD swab allowed.
August 1, 2008 11:33 PM
TSO Rachel said...
So here's what I'm saying: you don't need to prove anything to TSA unless you are trying to bring prohibited items through.
Does that sound fair?
Anonymous said...
Yes it does.
Actually, it doesn't. The "prohibited item" is the same regardless of the person carrying it. If it can be exempted for any reason, then why is it even prohibited in the first place? I think this illustrates perfectly why we call it security theater.
August 2, 2008 12:02 AM
Wait, weren't those fluoroscopic machines they used in the 1950s to x-ray children's feet for "perfect fit" shoes eventually found to cause cancer? What is the difference between that technology and the L3s?
August 2, 2008 12:17 AM
Phil said Did TSA not consider this shoe threat until Richard Reid brought it to their attention? Will TSA ignore similar threats until someone forces them into the attention of the public?
What would U.S. Government checkpoints in airports be like today if Richard Reid had carried his explosive under his arm, taped to the small of his back, tucked in his crotch, in his mouth, or in another body cavity?
If Reid did put it in different places then that what should be checked. I've been reading all of the complaints from you people and I'm amazed. When 9-11 happened everyone cried about the security at the time. When TSA and Homeland Security was formed and 9-11 was fresh in everyones mind it was a great thing. Since nothing has happened for 7 years everyone is becoming complacent again and its business as usual. Everyone is for security as long as it dosn't inconvience them. The fact of the matter is if TSA and Homeland Security were disolved and another attack happened with our transportation system all of you people would be the first to say the Government should have done more to protect us. I am one of those screeners that you bad mouth on a daily basis. If it wasn't for the hundreds of people I talk to daily that thank me for doing the thankless job we do I would tell you people that you are on your own and what ever happens to you you can only blame yourself
August 2, 2008 1:35 AM
Anonymous said...
Phil, if you don't like the way TSA conducts security, drive.
Actually if we don’t like the way the TSA conducts security we can say so and urge change to occur. The TSA is not a monolithic entity that answers only to itself, it answers to the two million people that fly every day.
And yes change has occurred. When this blog first came on line several TSA check points at airports were requiring all electronics to be removed from passengers bags, not just laptops. The issue was brought up on the blog, the TSA investigated and determined that it was not approved TSA policy and stopped the practice.
After repeated comments about how difficult it is not get comment cards we now have an option to go online.
TSA releases a misleading photo about a battery pack and an overly dramatic press release, they apologize.
The real problem is employees like you who insist that its my way or the highway. What we are looking for is realistic solutions to outdated policies and procedures and to be treated as part of the solution, not the problem.
One of the 5 or 6 people who post all the time
August 2, 2008 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...
Phil said Did TSA not consider this shoe threat until Richard Reid brought it to their attention? Will TSA ignore similar threats until someone forces them into the attention of the public?
From my perspective, as someone who does not work at the TSA that seems to be the problem. Shoe removal became policy after Richard Reid and this policy is only used in the United States, not in Europe where his flight originated from. Liquids and gels in containers in containers larger than 3 ounces were banned after an incident in Europe.
Its taken seven years to consider screening airport employees who have a higher level of access than passengers and air cargo is still remains uninspected.
What would U.S. Government checkpoints in airports be like today if Richard Reid had carried his explosive under his arm, taped to the small of his back, tucked in his crotch, in his mouth, or in another body cavity?
Good question, I can assure that a policy of patting down every passenger would have been adapted to meet current needs, unlike the shoe policy. I’ll also remind that a member of the red team was able to get an IED past a checkpoint hidden in a back brace that the TSA officers did not search when he explained he had back pain.
Its unfortunate that you have to bear the brunt of passenger complaints and hopefully the new wbe access program for passenger complaints will reduced some of that. However we have another anonymous TSA poster who tells us if we don’t like the policies we can drive. Next time you take that approach with a passenger ask yourself how you would feel that if you don’t like the environment you work in you can quit.
One of the 5 or 6 people who post all the time
August 2, 2008 9:58 AM
"wintermute said in part....
Actually, it doesn't. The "prohibited item" is the same regardless of the person carrying it. If it can be exempted for any reason, then why is it even prohibited in the first place? I think this illustrates perfectly why we call it security theater.
August 2, 2008 12:02 AM"
While you may disagree with the current information as posted on the TSA website and partially extracted below it is clear that allowances are made for pople with medical issues.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/index.shtm
"Additionally, we are continuing to permit prescription liquid medications and other liquids needed by persons with disabilities and medical conditions. This includes:
All prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including KY jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes;
Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition;
Life-support and life-sustaining liquids such as bone marrow, blood products, and transplant organs;
Items used to augment the body for medical or cosmetic reasons such as mastectomy products, prosthetic breasts, bras or shells containing gels, saline solution, or other liquids; and,
Gels or frozen liquids needed to cool disability or medically related items used by persons with disabilities or medical conditions."
There is also no need to prove to any TSO that a medical/disability condition exist.
In my opinion if a TSO prohibits an allowed item or questions ones disability then they should be subject to whatever penalties that a court would find if they in fact violated stated policy.
With authority comes responsibility and it seems that TSA is very weak on holding its employees to any acceptable standards of responsibility, otherwise the abuse of travelers would not exist except in rare cases.
It is certainly not up to a front line screener to formulate policy. That process is done at a much higher level, with legal review. Any time a front line employee oversteps their role then swift positive corrective action should be taken. Again, as many of us know from experience that is not the case at checkpoints at many airports. Checkpoint management appears to be lacking in controlling/monitoring the actions of individual TSO's.
That was the point I was trying to make with TSO Rachel. She was apparently requiring or thought it was ok to require people to prove a medical condition. As she learned and passed on here we all know that just simply is not required under current policy. Where did the training fail?
I personally think beverages should be permitted, the evidence as presented is weak on why they have been banned. I also think that this effort detracts from the TSA's real mission of keeping weapons, explosives and incendaries off aircraft. Way to much effort is spent on tasks that provide zero increased safety.
The current TSA leadership seems to have lost sight of that objective and in order to make it look like they are doing something valuable they focus on things like ID, water, shampoo, etc., instead of screening people, vehicles, cargo and other goods that enter an airport from any number of avenues.
Theater? Yes!
I feel our safety is at real risk under the current leadership. Hopefully some next year house cleaning will improve that situation.
August 2, 2008 11:24 AM
Just an observation, completely off-topic, but I couldn't help myself with this one.
An Anonymous TSO wrote:
If it wasn't for the hundreds of people I talk to daily that thank me for doing the thankless job we do...
You gotta' admit, there's a comical sense of irony in that statement.
Kind of like in Braveheart, where Mel Gibson declares to the Scottish lords that the English will be back because they won't stand together... and then it turns to a shot of them all standing together.
August 2, 2008 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...
If Reid did put it in different places then that what should be checked.
So, the TSA only responds to a threat after someone has tried it? Somehow I find that difficult to believe, and yet that appears to be the case with shoes.
I've been reading all of the complaints from you people and I'm amazed. When 9-11 happened everyone cried about the security at the time.
Not everyone cried about the security at the time. I grieved for the loss of life, but realized that the flaw was with going along with the terrorists assuming that they would eventual release the hostages. That mentality has changed, and 9/11 could not happen today with that shift alone.
When TSA and Homeland Security was formed and 9-11 was fresh in everyones mind it was a great thing.
Homeland Security has never been a great thing.
Everyone is for security as long as it dosn't inconvience them.
No. I am for security if I do not have to give up my liberties for it and it is not simply theater. Most of what the TSA does is to make the people who would rather not think about it feel safer. It does very little to actually make them safer.
The fact of the matter is if TSA and Homeland Security were disolved and another attack happened with our transportation system all of you people would be the first to say the Government should have done more to protect us.
Prove it. Disband the TSA and Homeland Security and see what happens. You've made a couple of flawed assumptions. First, another attack of the sort of 9/11 is highly unlikely because of the shift in mentality that I mentioned. Second, you have no clue what I would actually say if another attack did, in fact, occur.
I am one of those screeners that you bad mouth on a daily basis.
I have never bad mouthed a screener. Period.
If it wasn't for the hundreds of people I talk to daily that thank me for doing the thankless job we do I would tell you people that you are on your own and what ever happens to you you can only blame yourself.
This statement was a little tougher to break into multiple parts, but two things need tackled. First, you are thanked hundreds of times daily for doing a thankless job? Either you are thanked or you are not. Second, I gladly take the blame for my own action and/or inaction. If confronted with a real, live, terrorist, people are less likely to go along with what the terrorist wants than before 9/11. This change in mentality is the single biggest improvement in security, even beyond the hardened cockpit doors.
August 2, 2008 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...
While you may disagree with the current information as posted on the TSA website and partially extracted below it is clear that allowances are made for pople with medical issues.
I do not disagree that liquids should be allowed for those with medical conditions who require them (With a diabetic wife, I am very sympathetic there.) I am simply pointing out that juice is juice, regardless of who is attempting to carry it into the sterile area. Either it is dangerous, or it is not. The fact that the TSA allows it in one case but not another proves that the liquids policy is security theater, and nothing more.
Even though my comment was in response to your exchange with TSO Rachel, it is directed more at the ridiculousness of the liquids policy than either of you.
August 2, 2008 9:05 PM
Fron Ellen's denial of staging the photo Explosive-Like Item Intercepted at Checkpoint
"To be clear, we did not doctor the photo. The wire was not attached to the bottle, but was resting underneath it as the passenger placed it in the bin."
From the original article:
"Transportation Security Officer Scott Peele leveraged his training and experience when he detected the suspicious item while monitoring the X-ray image of the passenger's carry-on bag."
Are you saying that Scott Peele didn't see this in the "x-ray image of the passenger's carry-on bag"? Or maybe that he did, and then allowed the passenger to remove items from the bag and place them in a bin? Or I guess another possibility is that TSA can't write a clear story worth beans.
What did the TSA take? All three items? The replica of a bottle of liquid explosives? Or just the battery pack that HSVTSO Dean clearly identified as a battery pack? (I'll bet a nickle you just took the battery pack.)
Y'all are idiots, and half-baked chicken-little stories like this one show why.
*******************
And Phil: DON'T drive if your journey is more than 120 miles (60 with your seatbelt off) -- your "helpful" anonymous opponent was asking you to do something more life-threatening than flying.
August 2, 2008 9:26 PM
wintermute said....I do not disagree that liquids should be allowed for those with medical conditions.....
I think we both agree that the current liquids policy is based on fantasy rather than reality.
In my opinion the same goes for tossing all of the confiscated materials into a common trash bin. If the material has a potential to be dangerous then it should be treated as such. The lack of concern shown by TSA and its TSO's demonstrates extremely well that they do not consider those items to be a risk.
I think things like this point to the center of the TSA problem.
TSO's do not know policy and make it up as they go through the day. The abuse of travelers happens to often. Violation of ones rights should be countered with legal repercussions. TSO's should be subject to every law just like I am, no pass just because they work at a checkpoint!
I have communicated with my congress critters but they seem to have little care about this abortion of an agency.
The DHS/TSA OIG seems to be less than interested in the abuse of constitutional rights by the TSA and its employees.
All I can do is to promise that I will not give up. I will force the issue with my politicians and if they want my vote, which I do use, then they will eventually give this group some attention.
I will record and complain about any transgression by a TSO anytime I become aware of it.
The political appointees of DHS/TSA should be held to account for their abuse of the constitution.
Sometimes the only course of action is to start over. I think that would be the best course at this point for TSA.
August 2, 2008 9:46 PM
Bad TSA, using the suggestions in this blog and actually DOING something. How dare they!
August 3, 2008 7:12 PM
Posted by V.I.D.:
For those that don't want to go to the link, here is the part about "Larger" Lithium Ion batteries:
"Lithium metal batteries are non-rechargeable batteries you discard once they are depleted. Larger lithium metal batteries contain over 2 grams of lithium, and are forbidden.
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that you are implying that the batteries confiscated by TSA at JAN were prohibited. That would be false. At best, you are obfuscating the issue with this theft of private property by mentioning the battery rules.
Based on the photograph, the batteries taken were most certainly neither Lithium-ion nor Lithium-metal. Lithium-ion batteries have a cell voltage of 3.7V, so they are not useful for making 1.5V AAA/AA/C/D-type batteries, among other reasons. To my knowledge, nobody makes C or D sized lithium-metal batteries, and besides, they're not rechargeable.
The batteries stolen by TSA at JAN were either Nickel Cadmium or Nickel-Metal Hydride cells. Neither of these are restricted as to quantity by either TSA or DOT in passenger carry-on.
The only acceptable outcome to this situation is for TSA to issue a public apology to the passenger, return his property or pay him compensation, and terminate the TSOs who decided to steal a non-prohibited item. But as is typical at this out-of-control agency, there will be no accountability. It's amazing they even admitted the over-hyped the press release, but doing so was only a small start.
August 4, 2008 1:47 PM
"I do not disagree that liquids should be allowed for those with medical conditions who require them (With a diabetic wife, I am very sympathetic there.) I am simply pointing out that juice is juice, regardless of who is attempting to carry it into the sterile area. Either it is dangerous, or it is not. The fact that the TSA allows it in one case but not another proves that the liquids policy is security theater, and nothing more."
We actually have a liquid screening test that we are required to perform on all prohibited liquids that we allow through the checkpoint- so in these cases, each person's drink that we deem allowable due to a medical reason needs to have additional screening. I guess TSA's logic is that we can't perform this test each and every time due to how much time is would take.
August 4, 2008 1:59 PM
TSO Rachel said ..... We actually have a liquid screening test that we are required to perform on all prohibited liquids that we allow through the checkpoint- so in these cases, each person's drink that we deem allowable due to a medical reason needs to have additional screening. I guess TSA's logic is that we can't perform this test each and every time due to how much time is would take.
August 4, 2008 1:59 PM
.............................
How long does this liquid test take?
If I have a bottle of OJ for example and state I am diabetic and need the OJ incase my bloodsugar goes low you have the ability to clear that item. Are you required to test the OJ in this case or just accept my explanation?
Surely as one of the traveling members of the public I should know what to expect at a checkpoint.
I seems that Japan has the ability to determine if a liquid is dangerous without any lengthy test, why can't TSA do the same? If liquids are the big risk claimed by TSA then all effort should be made to eliminate that risk, and testing seems the most reasonable method.
Since all of those dangerous liquids just get tossed into the trash bin any reasonable person can tell that TSA really does not consider these items to be hazardous.
August 4, 2008 2:27 PM
Quote from TSO Rachel: "We actually have a liquid screening test that we are required to perform on all prohibited liquids that we allow through the checkpoint- so in these cases, each person's drink that we deem allowable due to a medical reason needs to have additional screening. I guess TSA's logic is that we can't perform this test each and every time due to how much time is would take."
But TSA wastes an inordinate amount of timme screening shoes. What's the difference?
Robert
August 4, 2008 2:48 PM
tso rachel said...
We actually have a liquid screening test that we are required to perform on all prohibited liquids that we allow through the checkpoint- so in these cases, each person's drink that we deem allowable due to a medical reason needs to have additional screening. I guess TSA's logic is that we can't perform this test each and every time due to how much time is would take.
I could sort of understand that logic, except all untested liquids go into the same trash instead of being handled as if they are hazardous. If they're safe enough for the trash, they're safe enough for the secure area.
August 4, 2008 4:54 PM
TSO Rachel wrote:
I guess TSA's logic is that we can't perform this test each and every time due to how much time is would take.
A whole crapload of time, I might add. Each and every single container would take... what? A minute, I think? A full sixty seconds, thereabouts?
And then there's the costs, since each test is only good for that one container, and then it has to be disposed of and you have to grab a new one.
Efficient, it ain't.
August 4, 2008 6:12 PM
The liquid testing does take a lot more time than x ray of shoes with other property. The liquids would have already been x rayed and then opened and tested. We don't do the liquid test on all oversized liquids, gels, or aerosols but some are tested. This is done on top of other screening of the passengers property adding to the time. Allowing all passengers to carry over sized liquids and testing them all would add an extreme amount of time to the screening process. It's just not feasible.
August 4, 2008 9:49 PM
Anonymous said...
The liquid testing does take a lot more time than x ray of shoes with other property. The liquids would have already been x rayed and then opened and tested. We don't do the liquid test on all oversized liquids, gels, or aerosols but some are tested. This is done on top of other screening of the passengers property adding to the time. Allowing all passengers to carry over sized liquids and testing them all would add an extreme amount of time to the screening process. It's just not feasible.
August 4, 2008 9:49 PM
...............................
How does the Japanese version of TSA accomplish this magical feat of liquids testing?
Are they more able and adept at screening than US TSO's?
August 5, 2008 9:50 AM
HSVTSO Dean said...
A whole crapload of time, I might add. Each and every single container would take... what? A minute, I think? A full sixty seconds, thereabouts?
I know you don't set policy, so this is not directed at you. However, if liquids are presumed hazardous until proven otherwise, then why are they not handled as such? Confiscated liquids, without debating the legal and/or moral implications of the word "confiscated," are handled as common, non-dangerous, trash. One could argue that the liquids policy causes a greater risk, as a terrorist could easily slip their liquid bomb right into the trash bin at a security checkpoint.
August 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Wintermute wrote:
One could argue that the liquids policy causes a greater risk, as a terrorist could easily slip their liquid bomb right into the trash bin at a security checkpoint.
One could very, very easily argue that. After all is said and done, the "stuff" (for lack of a better term~) is disposed of in ways native to whatever they say that they are. If it says flammable on the container, for example, then it's considered HazMat and disposed of appropriately from that point, likely at the end-of-shift whenever the designated person has time to take care of it.
That doesn't change the fact that all of the stuff is unceremoniously dumped into containers (or even, at some airports, just trash cans) right there at the security checkpoint. It's not something most TSOs are very happy about, I don't think.
But, as has been pointed out before, there's practically nothing at all protecting the security checkpoint or anything in the public area from anything at all. An explosive or two detonated at the security checkpoint would rate pretty high on the suck-o-meter, and probably do about as much damage in terms of human casualties as one going off on a plane would do.
August 6, 2008 11:09 AM
Ok its nice and all that TSA is trying to alleviate some of the stress on passengers by not requiring them to remove their shoes. Well, this new machine detects explosives. Needless to say, but I'd say roughly 1/3 of all shoes worn have steel shanks in them. How will passengers pass through a metal detector? They will alarm it every time. The shoes will then have to come off to be checked under x-ray to ensure no prohibited items are being carried onto the aircraft.
August 6, 2008 2:42 PM
OK, I am truly sick of all the infantile, whining, crying bull that I constantly hear from the traveling public. GET OFF THE TSA'S BACKS. They have a job to do. When 9/11 happened, the entire country yelled, "something has to be done to protect the country!" Guess what folks? Now, every one is screaming about the result. Can't have it both ways people. So here is my question: Do you want to be safe or do you want to feel all warm and fuzzy inside and have someone pat you on the head? I hope you can feel the dripping sarcasm with every single fiber of your being. I know I would rather feel safe.
August 14, 2008 2:38 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"When 9/11 happened, the entire country yelled, `something has to be done to protect the country!'"
Actually, sir or madam, some of us said, "We need to find out who committed this horrible crime and bring them to justice." Then our leaders resisted the initiation of an investigation, and only after much pressure from family members of those who died in the WTC destruction was exerted did any investigation occur.
Note that (as reported by Peter Tatchel of The Guardian on September 12 2007) chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have since stated that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges. Also note that despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.
The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Despite these unanswered questions, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.
Since, we've had to put up with numerous intrusive, expensive, and unconstitutional policies from the new Department of Homeland security, all because people were so frightened by a horrendous crime (one that clearly could have been avoided) that they have since sat by idly while our Constitution is subverted in the name of keeping us safe from an overblown threat that is likely to be no more dangerous than was Communism during the Cold War.
Let's find out who did it -- it's clear that we don't know for sure. "We told you already; just trust us" no longer cuts it.
August 14, 2008 6:07 PM
It's amazing how so many people go along with this ridiculous shoe-obsession policy. Anything that a passenger can hide in a shoe, they could just put in their pocket.
Everyone should be allowed to keep shoes on, just as they are in every other part of the world. If there's enough metal to set off the metal detector, then screen to see where and what it is.
August 21, 2008 7:19 PM
OK. Let's summarize this thread:
- The TSA knows something about shoe bombs that the rest of the world (incl. Israel, Ireland, Spain, etc.) doesn't
- The TSA can't tell us what this magical different knowledge is
- Shoes are magically better a transporting contraband than body cavities
Great to see that my tax dollars are going to support magical thinking!
Also, thanks TSA for causing untold tens of thousands of contact infections every year by making people put dirty shoes with their personal belongings. Richard Reid would be proud!
August 25, 2008 7:09 PM
I have some very expensive shoes. There have been a variety of stories about possible theft - is there a way for me to flag the fact that these could be targeted on the other end of the security line? Or should I bring a bag to conceal them?
August 30, 2008 4:11 PM
It always amazes me how many TSA individuals will let me walk through the magnetometer with my shoes on. Because it's so inconsistent though I simply take them off as a general rule just in case I come upon that one irate TSA official that wants to make an example of me.
September 17, 2008 11:19 PM
It would be nice to leave my shoes on. Will this work with high heels? Also, will this be yet another machine I have to walk through or will it be integrated with the puffer or the thing that beeps when you have metal on your person?
October 8, 2008 3:30 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home