Welcoming the New Secretary
Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is now officially on board as the new Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.
Earlier this week, she published her first post on the DHS Leadership Journal titled “Getting to Work.” I suggest you follow the link and give it a read.
Also, TSA was happy to welcome Secretary Napolitano to its headquarters earlier this week for her first visit.
The Secretary was given three brief presentations on Security Operations, Technology, and Public Engagement. I was lucky enough to be able to present the latter, and the Secretary seems to be very interested in social media and wants to look into various ways the blog can be used. She has also stated that she plans to be a regular poster at the DHS Leadership Journal.
I look forward to seeing what new challenges we can all tackle together.
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
12:27 PM
Subscribe in a reader
133 Comments:
You look pretty with the blue tie. ;-)
I just woke up so I don't have much more to say, I just wanted you to know blue is your color.
January 30, 2009 1:44 PM
Welcome to the new Secretary.
Why not deal with the old challenges that have not be addressed or resolved before rolling out new stuff.
Security of Checked Baggage comes to mind.
Plenty of other items need attention.
January 30, 2009 2:08 PM
The new administration and secretary should take steps to reassure American citizens of their right to domestic travel free from government restriction, monitoring, or permission requests. The new administration should address the concerns of The Identity Project (www.papersplease.org) summarized below.
Two major issues have emerged in the last year in relation to personal data about travel: (1) The overall goal of the government of the USA in its various policy initiatives on “travel security” has become increasingly clear. The USA is seeking to establish a global norm that:
1. Government-issued identity credentials should be required for all forms of travel, domestic and international.
2. All travel transactions should be recorded in a lifetime “travel history”.
3. Pre-departure government permission should be required for all travel (based on the identity credential and the associated historical dossier), particularly for air travel or international travel.
January 30, 2009 4:31 PM
Meet the new boss...Same as the old.
January 30, 2009 4:54 PM
I suggest inviting Secretary Napolitano to spend some time reading this blog, and particularly the comments. That will give her a direct, unfiltered idea of how at least some members of the public perceive the TSA and its problems, and also how TSA officials have handled questions and criticisms.
She obviously needs to keep a whole shaker of salt near the monitor as she reads it, and recognize that it's neither a scientific nor unbiased sample of public opinion. But it represents a viewpoint she would not get from official government briefings, and thus is something she most definitely needs to see and consider when setting policy.
Even better would be a guest post from her, preferably expressing her intent to carefully review the TSA's operations and policies and emphasizing her agreement with President Obama's stated commitment to transparency and civil liberties in his administration. Even if it doesn't lead to immediate tangible changes at airport checkpoints (which I would neither expect nor demand), I think such a statement would do much to improve the TSA's standing with the traveling public and represent a good hopeful start to cleaning up the mess the previous administration left us.
January 30, 2009 4:55 PM
Although it does not pertain to this thread, thanks to all those in the "Kip's last post" thread who pointed out what a poor representative of the TSA this person who calls him/herself "Office Giordano" is. You did it far better than I ever could have.
If "Officer" Giordano is representative of TSA employees, then we are in far deeper doo-doo than we ever believed.
Ms. Napolitano, please start with a housecleaning of all those screeners who don't have a clue as to what their job is.
Thank you.
January 30, 2009 5:55 PM
I look forward to seeing what new challenges we can all tackle together.
How about the challenge of earning, instead of merely demanding, the traveling public's trust and cooperation?
January 30, 2009 8:50 PM
Heheheheh... Wish we could see a video of what YOU had to say about US, Blogger Bob. :o) Probably interesting...
I'll give the new secretary a chance to get up to speed and start setting new goals for her groups before I have any comment other than she IS a good administrator, and seems to have her head screwed on straight.
Hopefully she will find a way to reinforce President Obama's "Nation of Laws" ideals within DHS, and especially TSA.
Thanks!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 30, 2009 11:00 PM
Madame Secretary, I have three requests:
1. Remove FEMA from DHS and allow the agency to once again function as an agency. FEMA can't function inside the glacial DHS bureaucracy and it must stop competing for dollars, priority and resources with counterterrorism dollars.
2. Give us our Constitution back -- at the airport and in every other aspect of our lives where your agency has intruded in the past eight years.
3. Prominently place a 2'x 3' poster of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote in your office, in every senior manager's office, and in every conference room in every DHS facility worldwide. I further request that you evaluate performance of your SESs against their compliance with this fundamental precept of our liberty and freedoms.
January 31, 2009 9:12 AM
Secretary Napolitano, on then President-Elect Obama's website, Citizen's Briefing Book, there were many, many calls to drop the word "Homeland" from your department's name, substituting the word "national."
When might we expect that to happen?
Such a name-change could help your department to be seen in a more favorable light.
January 31, 2009 11:43 AM
Why does the SSL certificate for https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/gotfeedback/GotFeedback.aspx only work for IE? Visitors using Firefox, Opera, and Safari get certificate errors. Is TSA trying to teach those users to ignore SSL errors, and computer insecurely?
January 31, 2009 5:26 PM
Sandra wrote...
Secretary Napolitano, on then President-Elect Obama's website, Citizen's Briefing Book, there were many, many calls to drop the word "Homeland" from your department's name, substituting the word "national."
When might we expect that to happen?
Such a name-change could help your department to be seen in a more favorable light.
________________
Very good point, "Department of National Security" sounds a lot less like it should be wearing well polished jackboots than "Department of Homeland Security" does.
I'm sorry, Madam Secretary, but I'm old enough to remember "Homeland" and "Fatherland" and "Motherland" being used by the folks on the other side of wars.
Can we PLEASE get away from that very emotionally loaded term?
Thanks!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
January 31, 2009 6:53 PM
Having been "graced" by having her for governor, with her propensity for issuing executive orders, allow me to remind you that her position on the border fence was:
"Show me a 50-foot border fence and I will show you someone with a 51 foot ladder."
And when she starts bragging about how she put the national Guard on the border, it might be well to temper those boasts with the knowledge that they were unarmed, and assigned to such tasks as digging ditches.
And you expect her to do what for airline security?
January 31, 2009 9:59 PM
Gunner said...
Having been "graced" by having her for governor, with her propensity for issuing executive orders, allow me to remind you that her position on the border fence was:
"Show me a 50-foot border fence and I will show you someone with a 51 foot ladder."
And when she starts bragging about how she put the national Guard on the border, it might be well to temper those boasts with the knowledge that they were unarmed, and assigned to such tasks as digging ditches.
And you expect her to do what for airline security?
Not to defend her but I believe that all the National Guard can do is support unless an emergency has been declared.
February 1, 2009 3:50 AM
Tomas said...
Heheheheh... Wish we could see a video of what YOU had to say about US, Blogger Bob. :o) Probably interesting...
I'll give the new secretary a chance to get up to speed and start setting new goals for her groups before I have any comment other than she IS a good administrator, and seems to have her head screwed on straight.
I wonder if my name was mentioned.
Tom you did not tell me we were supposed to wait. I already commented on her leadership journal.
BTW Blogger Bob, I told her she should keep in contact with you. So if you get a phone call from her don't freak out.
February 1, 2009 4:56 AM
Gunner commented:
"Having been ‘graced’ by having her for governor, with her propensity for issuing executive orders, allow me to remind you that her position on the border fence was:
‘Show me a 50-foot border fence and I will show you someone with a 51 foot ladder.’
And when she starts bragging about how she put the national Guard on the border, it might be well to temper those boasts with the knowledge that they were unarmed, and assigned to such tasks as digging ditches.
And you expect her to do what for airline security?"
Gunner, I expect her to hold her administrators accountable. Exactly what she plans to hold them accountable to perform, we shall see with time.
If that’s an accurate quote, then I do have to agree with her – the bad guys are nearly always a step ahead of the good guys; that’s the nature of the beast, and security processes have to try to anticipate it. Quite honestly, right now it appears to me that TSA is focusing on building ever-higher fences in reaction to their perception of the ever-increasing length of the bad guys’ ladders. They’re trying to establish a “zero-risk” environment, and that’s simply not possible. Security isn’t an “either-or”. It’s a “more-or-less”. TSA needs to demonstrate their understanding of that.
Being proactive instead of merely reactive is the most difficult part of the whole process; it’s easy to be reactive, and the tendency is to be over-reactive (viz., TSA’s shoe and liquid policies). Even over-reactivity has its place when a previously unanticipated security threat is discovered, but the initial over-reaction then should be promptly tempered to address the real-world risk of the threat when it’s completely understood. TSA did a fairly good job with that on the lighter issue. The initial over-reaction – banning lighters altogether – was finally tempered to a sensible security restriction which addresses the real-world risk of potential ignition sources aboard aircraft. It wasn’t done in what I would call a prompt way, but it was done. It’s my hope that Secretary Napolitano addresses those other areas where the initial over-reactions have never been tempered. I hope she does that.
It’s my hope that Secretary Napolitano does what so many administrators promise to do, but so few actually do: that she listens to her feet-on-the-ground, front-line staff. It’s disturbing to me, as a (non-TSA) program director myself, whenever I hear (as I have on this blog, among other places) from a few thoughtful, erudite front-line workers that coworkers don’t seem to understand or apply their procedures properly, and supervisors aren’t adequately addressing the problem. She can’t micromanage down to that level, but she can notice what appears to be a pervasive problem and hold the feet of senior management to the fire to get it corrected, and to raise the standards of professionalism for her front-line troops. I hope she does that.
It’s my hope that Secretary Napolitano recognizes that the traveling public really is her partner in working for transportation security, and inculcates that spirit all the way down to the front-line workforce. As another poster noted: if the traveling public can clearly understand that TSA’s security actions are lawful and serve a purpose, we will comply. It’ll still be a nuisance, but we will comply. Will there still be malcontents, willing to complain about it (loudly)? Yes. But, by and large, we will comply. When TSA becomes more transparent and lifts the self-imposed veil of secrecy and stealth that shrouds it, we will not only comply – we will become their active partner to accomplish their mission and perhaps TSA will stop being the object of ridicule and scorn. For all my gripes, I believe most TOS’s are hard-working people with the best of intentions. They generally deserve our respect and their management should give them the tools to be able to earn our respect. I hope she does that.
She has inherited an agency with serious procedural and public relations problems. Does TSA make air travel safer? Yes, they do. Unfortunately, they do it with a lot of unnecessary smoke, mirrors and theater, and while treading some very gray areas of the law. FEELING safer is not the same as BEING safer. She has a big job ahead. I wish her luck.
Irish
February 1, 2009 8:35 AM
Some suggestions for the new secretary:
Stop requiring ID. Be a government organization that upholds civil rights, rather than one that erodes them. As has been demonstrated numerous times, requiring ID does not appreciably impact security.
Roll out technological methods for screening liquids to every security checkpoint you're responsible for. Do this fast. We are tired of arguing about what is medically necessary with TSA agents who've heard it all before and don't care. We know you have the technology so there's no excuse for not rolling it out. Get cracking!
Publish a list of rules that must be followed at the checkpoint. Stop adding the "btw, the TSA agent can actually do whatever they want" clause to your literature. It is high time that the flying public got some rights.
The basic gist of what I am saying is listen to the public and make us your priority. A secure hassle-free checkpoint is well within the realm of possibility. You just have to make it happen.
Also, I have a personal favor to ask, can you please stop outlawing multi-tools? I'm tired of not being allowed to fly with my leatherman micra. There's no way you could hijack a place with this tool. It needs to be recognized that the rules for carryons don't really work.
February 2, 2009 3:03 PM
Anonymous said:
"Also, I have a personal favor to ask, can you please stop outlawing multi-tools? I'm tired of not being allowed to fly with my leatherman micra. There's no way you could hijack a place with this tool. It needs to be recognized that the rules for carryons don't really work."
I have to agree with this poster. 4" scissors are legal, 12" knitting needles are legal, a pocket multi tool with a handle that an infant could barely wrap its fist around- somehow is a threat to aviation because it has a 1 inch blade. It would be nice to see an even handed sensibility applied to all aspects of what is, and is not permitted. We really need smarter security, not rules so dumb that the average TSO is embarrassed to apply them.
February 2, 2009 3:45 PM
Why did it take 3 days for my post of January 30th to show up?
February 2, 2009 4:38 PM
Sandra: You must be on the no comment list. ;)
More than likely it is because of the weekend.
February 2, 2009 5:49 PM
Sandra said...
Why did it take 3 days for my post of January 30th to show up?
Well you had the pre pre pre game show, the pre pre game show, the pre game show and the game.
In other words FOOTBALL, woot.
;-)
February 2, 2009 7:38 PM
"Enhanced Red Team Thinking - DHS should also look for mechanisms to enhance "red team" thinking and capabilities among its leadership by incorporating programs that provide alternate world-views and build the capacity of leaders to think in a more flexible and adaptive manner. Leaders should learn to think like our adversaries, or to simply look at problems through different lenses and test institutional assumptions."
I was excited to read this recommendation from the Homeland Security Advisory Council. This is my favorite recommendation so far for the new secretary. I just wanted to post it here. I think it deserves some limelight.
-H2H
February 3, 2009 8:03 AM
Bob-
Would you make available your presentation to Secretary Napolitano on Public Engagement?
February 3, 2009 10:23 AM
I work as a TSO. But I also worked for a number of years as a security officer in and for private security companies for the airports. Ans let me tell you the people who are complaining are the first ones to cry foul if something goes wrong. They want things done now. Their way who cares if it inconveinces someone else as long as it is not them.
Lets let the new secretary do her job. She can,t be any worse in some cases then what we've already have had. We the little airports are always lasts in the line of passenger defense.
February 3, 2009 11:30 AM
Anonymous @ "Why does the SSL certificate for https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/gotfeedback/GotFeedback.aspx only work for IE? Visitors using Firefox, Opera, and Safari get certificate errors. Is TSA trying to teach those users to ignore SSL errors, and computer insecurely?"
################
Bottomline: It is because ID doesn't matter.
Alternately, it is yet another example of security theatre: Because the illusion of security (an SSL tag) is more important that actual security (good certificate management practices), TSA again chose the cheap and sloppy way.
February 3, 2009 1:54 PM
Madam Secretary,
Please read this article about how much the no-fly list costs us per year, and end this shameful and pointless waste.
A Concerned Citizen
February 3, 2009 4:41 PM
Does anyone up there in the hypoxia zone (excluding the Verizon Guy on the right) know how to use the services of a tailor, or even know what one is? Please folks.. look in the mirror before you go anywhere there might be photographer.
February 3, 2009 6:07 PM
Hey Blogger Bob is the TSA going to have a comment on the case decided on Feb. 3rd by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit? (pdf warning)
While the TSA won over the airlines something real interesting came out of the decision.
From the ruling (bottom of page 6, top of page 7)
"TSA argues that the reference to “screening passengers” is ambiguous, that the word “screening” may mean something
more than the simple evaluation of whether a passenger poses a threat to aviation security.
“To screen” may also mean “to protect.” (“The mother screened her child from the pounding hailstones.”)
Therefore, TSA suggests, the phrase “screening passengers” can be read to include anything done to protect passengers,
which of course would include exerting control over the access of potentially dangerous non-passengers. But “[a]mbiguity is a creature not of definitional possibilities but of statutory context.” Brown v. Gardner, 513U.S. 115, 118
(1994).
In the context of airport security, the phrase “screening passengers” has a widely understood meaning:
it refers to the process of searching airline passengers at an airport security checkpoint,
not to the entire set of activities undertaken to promote passenger safety. "
So if the access to the sterile area is granted THROUGH screening of persons and property exactly where does the forced ID verification at the checkpoint come in? It can't be a part of "screening passengers" as the Court has said that refers to the process of SEARCHING airline passengers at an airport security checkpoint.
BTW Blogger Bob the TSA blog got a mention on the Federal Times website.
The TSA blog is being held up as an example of good "Citizen engagement".
Good job.
February 4, 2009 1:48 AM
Has TSA yet published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply only at the checkpoint)? (On November 12, 2008, Paul at TSA wrote, "Still working on the comprehensive list of regulations both definite and situational.")
Note that I'm not asking for tips for travelers, suggestions on how to pack our bags, hints, clues, guidelines, or press releases. I'm not asking to see TSA's super-secret procedures (those that thousands of lowest-level-of-TSA airport security guards who turn over at a rate of somewhere around 25% per year, are allowed to see), not a pointer to the entire TSA "guidelines for travelers" page, the entire TSA Web site (filled, as noted here and acknowledged by EoS staff with inconsistencies and inaccuracies), the entire U.S. Government Web, or the whole Internet -- just a list of the rules TSA imposes on travelers at a U.S. Government airport checkpoint.
We can't be expected to follow your rules if you won't show them to us.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 4, 2009 3:16 PM
Ms. Napolitano:
Last November, a group known as The Identity Project posed the following ten questions for nominees for Secretary of Homeland Security or Administrator of the TSA. Readers of TSA's Evolution of Security blog would surely appreciate seeing your answers to the questions.
1. Do you believe that individuals should have a right to travel in the USA? Why or why not?
2. What substantive (e.g probable cause) and procedural (e.g. due process and judicial review) standards do you believe should apply to actions by or directed by your agency, or other government agencies, that would restrict that right?
3. Should individuals in the USA be required to have or display government ID in order to travel by common carrier or on public rights-of-way by plane? By train? By bus? By ship or ferry? By private car? On foot? Why or why not?
4. Should individuals in the USA be required to obtain government permission in order to travel by common carrier or on public rights-of-way by plane? By train? By bus? By ship or ferry? By private car? On foot? Why or why not?
5. Should US citizens be required to have a passport and/or obtain government permission in order to leave the USA? Why or why not?
6. Should US citizens be required to have a passport and/or obtain government permission in order to return to the USA from abroad? Why or why not?
7. Should the government maintain records of the travel or movement of people who are not suspected of a crime or subject to a court order authorizing surveillance and logging of their movements? Why or why not?
8. Should the government mandate the collection or maintenance by travel companies of records of the travel or movement of people who are not suspected of a crime or subject to a court order authorizing surveillance and logging of their movements? Why or why not?
9. Should travel companies or other third parties to whom individuals are required by the government to provide personal information be free to use, sell, or “share” that information, or should it be protected by laws? Why or why not?
10. What do you think should be done with existing government files of travel records about innocent people?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 4, 2009 3:19 PM
Does anyone up there in the hypoxia zone (excluding the Verizon Guy on the right) know how to use the services of a tailor, or even know what one is? Please folks.. look in the mirror before you go anywhere there might be photographer.
___________________________________
Not that I even care about this topic. You people are so funny. You try so hard to cut everyone down. I am not sure what you are talking about. I looked at the photographs and no one seems to look sloppy. I think that everyone looks nice and professional.
February 4, 2009 3:41 PM
TK Said...
So if the access to the sterile area is granted THROUGH screening of persons and property exactly where does the forced ID verification at the checkpoint come in? It can't be a part of "screening passengers" as the Court has said that refers to the process of SEARCHING airline passengers at an airport security checkpoint.
I'm not sure where you are going with this TK. The opinion was on the wording used in PART 1511—AVIATION SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE.
This case has nothing to do with PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES definition of “sterile area.” Don't see the connection.
The opinion you reference even points out the authority TSA uses besides § 44901(a), such as: 49 U.S.C.§ 44903(h) (authorizing TSA screening of “all individuals” before entry into a secured area of covered airports) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 1540.105, 1540.107 (including 49 U.S.C. § 44903 among sources of authority for certain airport screening activities.)(reference)
If you are referencing Francine's post “Furthering the Dialogue on Ids,” the reason she used a different definition of screening (instead of screening function) is because § 1540.105(a)(2) should not be read so narrowly when in application, and a ID check is valid under that section.
-H2H
February 4, 2009 8:17 PM
Why should security be hassle free? Are "routine traffic stops" hassle free? The people that are providing the security for the traveling public have been subjected to extensive background checks. What has the traveling public had to endure to get beyond a security checkpoint? Typically they buy a ticket and wait in a line, and occasionally they may get stopped. Quit complaining security screening is not that big of a hassle. If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake.
February 4, 2009 8:51 PM
Anonymous wrote:
"...The people that are providing the security for the traveling public have been subjected to extensive background checks."
A law enforcement officer wrote on FT/T within the last couple of days:
"And yes, I have the pleasure of arresting TSA (actually contractors since screeners at MCI are not US Gov employees) around the greater MCI area. Several for warrants, some for speeding and being idiots once they got stopped, and one for having a TSA cloth badge in his wallet....and wanting me to give him a break on speed/running a stop sign....because....we were fellow LEOs..... He did go to jail because he had a little thing called a warrant for Failure to Appear
...I have (to the dismay of TSA Management) went (sic) to gates and pulled Screeners off the gates and arrested them for warrants....."
So much for extensive background checks.
February 6, 2009 10:04 AM
Anonymous writes:
If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake.
Tell that to Mr. Gel-Pack, who posts here occationslly, who knew that "the rules" said that he & his wife were allowed to bring a frozen gel-pack aboard to preserve breast milk, but was forced to surrender it at a TSA checkpoint because the TSO didn't know that "rule".
Tell that to the engineer who brought aboard a home-made extended-life battery for his DVD player, even though such items are not prohibited by "the rules", and was still forced to surrender it ... even after TSA determined that it wasn't dangerous.
Tell that to Michael Nygard, who missed his flight because he was detained at a TSA checkpoint while the screeners tried to figure out what a MacBook Air was, even though laptops are not prohibited by "the rules".
Tell that to the active-duty member of our armed forces, who lost a day of leave, because the TSO on-duty wouldn't let him check his firearm, even though "the rules" explicitly permit it.
Tell that to the countless people who have posted here, who pass through a TSA checkpoint on their way to a destination with a particular item, with no problems, only to be forced to surrender that item on the way back home because a different TSA checkpoint enforces "the rules" differently.
Frankly, it's impossible to know "the rules". TSA employees have stated numerous times on this blog that they are unwilling to post the full set of "the rules" with which passengers must comply. So, not only is it impossible for passengers to "know the rules", there's no recourse for a passenger when a given TSO doesn't know the rules as well as the passenger.
February 6, 2009 10:34 AM
"If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake."
And what ARE the rules? Oh wait, TSA thinks the world would fall apart into pieces if they told us what the rules are. Must be some pretty poorly written rules to be that fragile.
February 6, 2009 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...
Why should security be hassle free? Are "routine traffic stops" hassle free? The people that are providing the security for the traveling public have been subjected to extensive background checks. What has the traveling public had to endure to get beyond a security checkpoint? Typically they buy a ticket and wait in a line, and occasionally they may get stopped. Quit complaining security screening is not that big of a hassle. If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake.
February 4, 2009 8:51 PM
Yes, if we only knew the rules!
Please supply us with a list of rules. Thanks
February 6, 2009 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...
If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake.
And what are all of these "rules" you mention? There is no place that all the rules are together in one section. You can get information on tsa.gov but the information is all over the place and not updated to current procedures. Signs at the airport are "bland" and do not offer enough specific information.
SUGGESTION: Why not put on your TSA signs the reason why you are doing whatever the sign mentions? Get the public involved. Make the signs interesting. Some people will still not look at them though.
February 6, 2009 11:28 AM
To Anonymous @ 8:51 PM
So security screening is "not that big of a hassle" huh?
It was for Star Simpson. It was for Mandi Hamlin. It was for Cheryl Cirillo-Tarica. It was for Mario Labbé. It was for Daniel Brown... I could go on.
All these people were victims TSA's business as usual, and we complain because it's not right that law abiding people get put through 10 kinds of hell just because they want to fly somewhere. The next one could be you.
February 6, 2009 11:34 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Are `routine traffic stops' hassle free?"
What do you mean by "routine traffic stop"? If a police officer has reason to believe that someone has violated a law while driving, that officer is allowed to stop the driver to investigate.
A TSA search at an airport is an entirely different situation. At their checkpoints, TSA stops everyone who comes upon the checkpoint, regardless of whether there is any reason to believe that a person has violated any law. That's the primary difference. In the United States, we are supposed to be allowed to go about our business without interference from our government unless it thinks we have done something wrong. We've made some special exceptions for TSA, purportedly in an attempt to improve transportation security.
Though we've allowed them to stop us and search us even when they have no reason to suspect wrongdoing, it is still reasonable for us to expect as little hassle from them as possible.
"What has the traveling public had to endure to get beyond a security checkpoint?"
We must endure a search of ourselves and our belongings -- a search not only for items that are likely to pose a danger if they are carried onto an airplane, but for anything a TSA employee thinks might indicate wrongdoing. We must endure a policy of requiring us to identify ourselves to a government agent, convince him of the accuracy of that information, and wait for permission to proceed. The criteria by which the decision to allow us to proceed is made is partially secret, but we do know that blacklists are used to restrict our movement, and we do know that a TSA baggage inspector is ultimately allowed to restrict our movement for any reason he chooses. The U.S. government may now prevent anyone from traveling by commercial airline for any reason it chooses or no reason at all, without any explanation.
"Quit complaining security screening is not that big of a hassle."
You're missing the point. Any hassle created by the searches TSA performs is the least of our trouble. Their actions are an infringement upon our liberties. TSA makes us less free.
"If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake."
It is effectively impossible for us to know those rules. If you had been following the discussion that has happened here for the past year, you would know that TSA openly admits to its refusal to show us the rules it requires us to follow. Bizarrely, TSA seems to believe that if their rules -- those which are purportedly intended to ensure transportation safety -- were published for all to see, then everyone, including criminals, would be able to follow those rules, and TSA would prefer to have people violate the rules.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 6, 2009 1:11 PM
@Anonymous, February 4, 2009 8:51 PM: Why should security be hassle free?
Nobody ever said security should be hassle free. However, security should be free of unnecessary hassle that serves no apparent purpose, or whose purpose is only to provide the illusion that officials are reacting to a publicized past threat. The requirement to present ID for matching with a boarding pass falls into the former category. The War One Shoes And Liquids falls into the latter category.
Quit complaining security screening is not that big of a hassle. If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake.
In theory this should be a true and simple statement. In practice, it's neither true nor simple. As many people have stated here, it's not possible to "know the rules" to which we are subject. The published rules aren't complete and accurate, and aren't enforced and "interpreted" with any consistency. Further, the published rules even state that TSOs have unlimited discretion to declare items prohibited even if they website says they're permitted. So even the official published rules say that they can't be relied on. And since we can't know what rules we might be violating, or how crowded the checkpoints might be, what does it mean to "show up on time" anyway?
Even if someone meticulously follows the published rules, there's no assurance of avoiding hassles. The rules are whatever the TSO at that particular checkpoint decides they are at that particular moment, and there's no way to know what that actually means. So it's possible to get to a checkpoint and have the TSO insist on confiscating a one-ounce bottle of sunscreen from a Freedom Baggie because it violates an unpublished unknowable rule, in effect at that airport at that time, that liquids in the Freedom Baggie must be in the manufacturer's labeled bottle. And if the passenger protests, the answer is "If you want to fly today, you'll give me that bottle NOW!"
Or a TSO could confiscate a container of expensive hard-to-find crystal deodorant because he determines it's a "liquid" that wasn't in a Freedom Baggie. And it's not good enough to just put it in the Freedom Baggie (and it does fit) because the TSO decided I needed to be punished for the violation. Of course, the reason the deodorant wasn't in the Freedom Baggie is because anywhere else in the universe outside that checkpoint at that moment, and for anyone other than that TSO, the deodorant is a solid that isn't subject to the War On Shoes And Liquids. And again, the TSO's response to my protest with "Do you want to fly today?"
Both of those stupid and utterly pointless hassles happened to me. So you might understand why I have no respect for the TSA, and why I have to call "foul" to anyone who defends the TSA's arbitrary and stupid procedures or says it's "not that big a hassle." Yes, Kip loyally defended it all to the end with official mumbo-jumbo about "layers" and "unpredictability as a Security Strategy," and reminders us to recall the terror we felt on 9/11 instead of questioning the TSA. But based on my own experience, along with the unclassified reporting of objective audits, I have to conclude that it's all a CROCK. It's nothing more than security theater that wastes enormous amounts of time and money, and also damages national security by creating public distrust and resentment.
That's why I call on the new Secretary to carefully review the misguided policies and rules promulgated by the previous misguided administration. Get rid of the unnecessary hassles, remove the unnecessary shroud of secrecy that most likely covers up waste and incompetence, and earn the respect of the public that's necessary for effective security.
February 6, 2009 2:32 PM
HappyToHelp said...
TK Said...
So if the access to the sterile area is granted THROUGH screening of persons and property exactly where does the forced ID verification at the checkpoint come in? It can't be a part of "screening passengers" as the Court has said that refers to the process of SEARCHING airline passengers at an airport security checkpoint.
---------------------------
I'm not sure where you are going with this TK. The opinion was on the wording used in PART 1511—AVIATION SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE.
This case has nothing to do with PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES definition of “sterile area.” Don't see the connection.
The opinion you reference even points out the authority TSA uses besides § 44901(a), such as: 49 U.S.C.§ 44903(h) (authorizing TSA screening of “all individuals” before entry into a secured area of covered airports) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 1540.105, 1540.107 (including 49 U.S.C. § 44903 among sources of authority for certain airport screening activities.)(reference)
If you are referencing Francine's post “Furthering the Dialogue on Ids,” the reason she used a different definition of screening (instead of screening function) is because § 1540.105(a)(2) should not be read so narrowly when in application, and a ID check is valid under that section.
-H2H
I hope your response here does not preempt the response I have been eagerly waiting for on the other thread.
When an argument is made in court often times other cases are referenced to back one side or the other.
In this case the Court was very clear that in spite of the TSA's argument "the phrase “screening passengers” can be read to include anything done to protect passengers" the phrase "screening passengers" has a definite meaning.
The Court wrote "In the context of airport security, the phrase “screening passengers” has a widely understood meaning: it refers to the process of searching airline passengers at an airport security checkpoint, not to the entire set of activities undertaken to promote passenger safety. "
Note they did not write "in the context of this case".
In Francine's post Furthering the Dialogue on Ids, she wrote "Verifying the identity of passengers who access the sterile area falls within this rubric and is, in fact, part of TSA’s screening process."
As you see above the Court has decided that Francine's and the TSA's overreaching definition of screening is wrong.
While the case before the Court was about airline fees it still served to define what the "widely understood meaning" of "screening passengers" is.
Sorry but the forced ID verification at the checkpoint does not fall into that definition.
Well off to work, I look forward to your response on this and my post on the other thread.
February 6, 2009 2:42 PM
"Why should security be hassle free? Are "routine traffic stops" hassle free?"
This is an absurd comparison. Traffic stops are based on observed violations of the law (like driving 65 in a 40 mph zone), or probable cause (a car matching this description has been reported stoled, or was seen driving away from a crime scene, or somesuch). In the absence of either of these reasons, there's no justification for police to pull a car over. Moreover, in such cases, drivers are given a ticket that explains exactly why they were stopped, and can go to a court to make their case if they feel they were stopped improperly.
"If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake."
Please tell me, where on the TSA web site can I find a list of all of the rules I am expected to comply with? And can you also tell me what redress I can seek if a TSO violates those rules?
February 6, 2009 3:25 PM
Yet another Anonymous wrote...
Why should security be hassle free? Are "routine traffic stops" hassle free? The people that are providing the security for the traveling public have been subjected to extensive background checks.
________________
(1) At a "routine traffic stop" I would have been stopped because an officer believed he observed me breaking the law. There is no such probable cause for the hassle at a TSA Chokepoint.
(2) I have also been subjected to extensive background checks - probably much more extensive and detailed since my checks actually gave me a security clearance, and in fact allowed me to be an "Original Classification Authority (OCA)," to officially determine the classification status of government documents.
I strongly doubt that is the status of TSA's folks checking me exceeds that level...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
February 6, 2009 4:28 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Why should security be hassle free?"
Other people addressed the other points.
Only in DHS world does security have to equal hassle. Effective security doesn't have to be a hassle - it's not an "either/or" proposition.
It's all part of the TSA security theater: if it's a hassle, then it must be strong security. Hassle doesn't secure anything - it just makes what's protected harder to use.
Ideally, the best security would be that which is invisible to the user while still protecting what needs to be protected. A good example of this is in computer security - if it's done right, a computer can be secured and be completely invisible to the user. While that may or may not be possible in a given situation, security should be designed to be effective with as little hassle as possible.
You didn't hear about airport security being a hassle prior to 9/11. People may have griped about the people doing it (which is no different today. Man of them were hired on at TSA). And before it's brought up, airport screening failures weren't what caused 9/11.
Bottom line: effective security doesn't have to be a hassle. Lots of hassle usually are attempts to hide poor security.
Robert
February 6, 2009 6:37 PM
TK said...
Note they did not write "in the context of this case".
Let me just add some quotes in.
In the context of airport security, the phrase “screening passengers” has a widely understood meaning: it refers to the process of searching airline passengers at an airport security checkpoint, not to the entire set of activities undertaken to promote passenger safety.
It points to 49 U.S.C. § 44901(a), which directs TSA to “provide for the
screening of all passengers and property.”
And if “passengers and property” includes non-passengers in § 44901(a), TSA argues, the phrase should have the same meaning in § 44940(a)(2)(B)(i).
In addition, although the question of § 44901(a)’s meaning is not before us, we note that we are not convinced that it is the only possible source of TSA’s power to screen non-passengers.
In short, TSA violated the plain meaning of the ATSA’s overall limit when it included the costs of screening non-passengers in its estimate of the costs of covered screening in 2000.
Francine Kerner said...
Given the Administrator’s fundamental statutory responsibility pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 44901 to secure the aviation transportation system, a unduly narrow construction of § 1540.105(a)(2) cannot be justified.
Certainly, the common definition of screening encompasses methods other than physical intrusion.
The court did not rule on the meaning of “passenger screening” in § 44901(a). That does not kill Francine's argument. Also, Francine points to the entire 49 U.S.C. § 44901 and not just § 44901(a).
In Francine's definition of screening, she did not use the same argument used for 07-1279. She just says that screening involves more then just the physical and shes right. I think a court would agree with her. I don't see this case being anything worth talking about, as far as the case affecting the checkpoint.
Two very large reasons for that.
One). Passenger screening definition issued by the court only counts for “passenger” screening. A VID is not a “passenger”. Checking a VID is not part of “passenger” screening but is part of the screening process. A example of non passenger screening is the X-ray machine. A VID is property.
Reference: TSA also notes that the statute refers not merely to
screening passengers, but also to screening “property.” True
enough; and the statute does not limit the relevant “property”
to that of passengers.
Two). Don't see the relevance in the ruling when applied to PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES.
Have a good weekend everyone.
-H2H out
February 6, 2009 8:34 PM
George said...
Get rid of the unnecessary hassles, remove the unnecessary shroud of secrecy that most likely covers up waste and incompetence, and earn the respect of the public that's necessary for effective security.
I have to disagree with you on the shoes being unnecessary. Richard Reid got away with it. He was just too dumb to carry out the plan. Someone along the line could perfect that plan and execute it. That is why the shoes coming off is absolutely a necessary hassle. Same with the liquids. The policy may not be perfect BUT someone could perfect it and make it happen.
February 7, 2009 11:55 AM
Another Anonymous Soul posted ...
“Why should security be hassle free? Are ‘routine traffic stops’ hassle free?”
First, no one suggested security should be hassle-free. But security should be “hassle-minimum”. Second, define “routine traffic stop”. Do you mean a traffic stop for which a patrolling police officer has determined there is probable cause to believe I’ve broken a law? I don’t think so. I think the sobriety checkpoint system comes closer to what you have in mind. What you ignore is, sobriety checkpoints are still subject to the “probable cause” provisions of the law – I may have to chat with a police officer for a moment or two, but the officer is simply screening and must STILL establish probable cause that I have violated a CLEARLY-DEFINED provision of the law before (s)he snatches me up for a sobriety test. If all (or even a majority) TSO’s followed the same procedures as are followed at sobriety checkpoints, we’d be much closer to the hassle-minimum standard. At this point in time, that’s well-neigh impossible. There are no clearly-defined rules for me to refer to, and whatever secret rules there are applied inconsistently and, in far too many cases, inappropriately or erroneously.
Moreover, sobriety checkpoints must be clearly identified in advance, and the signage must be placed in such a way to give me the opportunity to chose another route to my destination and avoid the checkpoint altogether. While you might argue about my ability to use another mode of transportation, that’s really not a viable option in many cases.
“The people that are providing the security for the traveling public have been subjected to extensive background checks.”
Oh, please. Background checks can only measure what one has done in the past. They aren’t predictive – for good or for bad behavior – of the future. Ask yourself this: does the possession of a security clearance (which, by its mere possession, would indicate the holder has undergone an extensive background check) exempt that holder from your screening process? If not, why not? The obvious conclusion here is left as an exercise for the student.
“What has the traveling public had to endure to get beyond a security checkpoint?”
The risks of:
Secret rules. Rules which are questionably legal. Rules which are illegal. Inconsistently applied standards. Inappropriately applied standards. Erroneously applied standards. Made-up-on-the-spot standards. Inappropriate confiscations and the consequent losses. Missed transportation and the consequent losses. Poorly trained TSO’s. Poorly trained Supervisors. Need more?
Not to mention:
Demeaning treatment, simple rudeness, and the risk of outright theft.
“Typically they buy a ticket and wait in a line, and occasionally they may get stopped. Quit complaining security screening is not that big of a hassle. If you show up on time and know the rules, it is a piece of cake.”
If it was such a piece of cake, I’d shut ma big mouf and move on to bigger windmills. It just ain’t that simple. Have you not been following this blog? NO ONE KNOWS THE RULES. Not (obviously) each TSO on duty, and certainly not the traveling public. Reality check: How can the public know the rules? TSA refuses to publish the rules because they’re “SSI”. Then, they give clearly conflicting advice about the rules it IS willing to publish (see, e.g., the 3 oz vs 3.4 oz rules, and TSA’s own clearly conflicting advice on another thread). How can the TSO’s know the rules if their bosses don’t know the rules?
Irish
February 7, 2009 12:01 PM
In response to Jim Huggins's post on February 6, 2009 10:34 AM, I have to agree with Jim on this. I am a TSO at SDF and as much as I think security is necessary, I do not believe some of the things that DO happen. I agree that if we are to enforce rules on passengers, 90% are willing to follow those rules if they are clear cut (which I also agree that they are NOT clear cut). Also, if we make such a big deal to make these rules, we as TSO's should know them as well so things like what happened to Mr. Gel Pack don't happen.
It's not fair to the traveling public to have something taken when they clearly have a right to have it, but on a side note to passengers, it's not fair to treat TSO's badly when they are doing their job correctly. So just b/c you got away with a certain liquid at one airport but is taken away at another, if it is over 3.4 oz, it's not going. Not everything is going to be caught.
You don't get caught speeding every time, but when you do, you're getting a ticket!!! (most likely) ;)
SDF TSO
February 7, 2009 1:30 PM
I've been on this blog for quite some time and agree with many things from passengers. One thing that always comes up is the list of rules. I have not actually looked at this website for a while so I took it upon myself to see just how unclear this site is. Well, I agree the rules should be clear and apparenlty they are not to many, but when I navigated through the page, I could not find anything that was not clear except for the liquids were still 3oz. instead of 3.4oz. I don't really understand what is unclear on the rules or what is missing from the site. Could the passengers that have trouble with the "list of rules" please explain to me what is unclear to you about these rules? I would be happy to know what your questions are and maybe I can help you navigate through the website a little easier.
SDF TSO
February 7, 2009 1:53 PM
kellymae81 said...
Could the passengers that have trouble with the "list of rules" please explain to me what is unclear to you about these rules?
How about they are not compiled in one nice neat place? Clearly there is inaccurate information ie. Liquids oz wrong. Enforcement is poorly executed from airport to airport. "Unpredictability" is a poor excuse.
February 9, 2009 9:28 AM
KellyMae81 writes:
It's not fair to the traveling public to have something taken when they clearly have a right to have it, but on a side note to passengers, it's not fair to treat TSO's badly when they are doing their job correctly.
If TSA isn't willing to publish "the rules", then how am I to know that a given TSO is actually doing their job correctly? In all of the situations I posted above, the TSOs earnestly believed they were following "the rules" correctly, except that they weren't.
So suppose I'm a passenger in a disagreement with a TSO over whether or not a particular item is permitted or prohibited. The TSO says "it's against the rules, but I'm not allowed to show you the rules, because the rules are SSI." Two possibilities exist: the TSO is right, or the TSO is wrong. In the former case, the TSO deserves my respect; in the latter, the TSO deserves ... well, less respect. How am I to know the difference?
And, regrettably, the situation puts good TSOs like you into the same cart as the (hopefully) few bad TSOs. There's no way for the general public to know the difference. It would actually be to your advantage to have a complete version of "the rules" well-publicized, so that the public would be able to verify that you are doing your job correctly.
I don't really understand what is unclear on the rules or what is missing from the site.
First, there's no way to know what is missing from the site because ... well, it's missing. :)
Several people have asked here, repeatedly (paging Phil ...), for a simple, comprehensive list of all the rules that a passenger must follow when undergoing screening. Various TSA employees have said that this list will never be produced, because it would reveal too much about screening to "the bad guys".
And so the inevitable consequence is that TSA really only has one rule:
To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart
is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint."
In other words ... "We don't have to follow the published rules on permitted and prohibited items. If we decide that something you have is prohibited, then it's prohibited --- and our decision is final."
Can you see how this can be frustrating to a passenger?
Second ... the blog here has pointed out several contradictions on the website. The 3.0oz versus 3.4oz problem has been discussed extensively, but there are others. For example, one TSA webpage states that "adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show" ID, when they're not. If you don't have an ID, you can still get through the checkpoint, albeit after going through an intrusive alternative procedure to establish your identity.
And those are just the errors we know about. If TSA says "the rules are on the website", which has these obvious errors, how many other errors are there that we don't know about? And why should we trust that these are the only errors?
Publishing the official set of rules helps everyone. It helps passengers know what they're supposed to do (and not do), and it helps them to see the rules that TSOs are required to follow. It helps TSOs by providing public accountability for following the rules, and helps deflect some of the resentment of the screening process from individual TSOs to the policies they must enforce.
February 9, 2009 10:05 AM
kellymae81 said...
re rules:
...........................
If the rules you talk about are so clear why is conflicting information received from TSA?
Please give a pointer to a concise list of these rules that you think are so clear.
Do you think I should have to comply with a rule/standard that I cannot read and comprehend?
If the rules are so clear to everyone why did the cold packs to keep a woman's breast milk cool get confiscated?
Why did the traveler who had a homemade battery pack have the item taken from him when it was allowed by the rules?
Why did the man who uses a solid crystal deodorant have that item confiscated when it is permitted by the rules?
Why do TSO's not understand the difference between 30z of liquid and 30z of weight? They are not the same. Consider 3oz of lead may not equal 3oz of volume. Tubes of toothpaste are stated as a measure of weight not volume, yet a typical TSO will confiscate a 4oz (by weight) tube of toothpaste.
Why are TSO's going through peoples personal papers? How could papers in my wallet be of concern to anyone in TSA?
Why are TSA approved luggage locks routinely cut? Are TSO's not trained on the use of keys?
These are just a few examples that I have read about here. For these events to have happened indicate not only do travelers not know the rules but TSO's apparently are just as confused also.
I eagerly await your response!
February 9, 2009 10:08 AM
Blog Team, please tell me why with five (5) Blog Ops that we go days at a time with no comments posted and then only a couple when post are put up.
Have comments dropped off that much that only two or three new posts are submitted over 3 or 4 days?
Something seems off around here!
How about an answer on why the TSA Contact Center states that there remains a 3oz limit for flights within CONUS and 3.4oz if coming from another country.
I can asked as many times as it takes to get an answer.
February 9, 2009 11:00 AM
"Hypoxia Zone":
Perhaps they don't know better than buying 'off the rack'? Not everyone can afford tailored clothes. The "Verizon Guy" does look sharp though.
I.D. related stuff:
I was rather shocked [surprised, not tasered] when I heard a SeaTac TSO refer to the whole 'CAC card not being valid ID until recently' issue as "ridiculous". There are TSO's out there who understand what the upper levels don't. Once the TSA figures out what a TWIC card is I'll be a little happier. I still don't like the "papers please" attitude, but small victories are small victories.
February 9, 2009 12:23 PM
RB said...
Blog Team, please tell me why with five (5) Blog Ops that we go days at a time with no comments posted and then only a couple when post are put up.
Government employees don't work on the weekends and holidays. We apparently only pay them for weekdays. They can't have different days off for operational needs.
February 9, 2009 12:38 PM
How about an answer on why the TSA Contact Center states that there remains a 3oz limit for flights within CONUS and 3.4oz if coming from another country.
I can asked as many times as it takes to get an answer.
___________________________________
Here is your answer, how can I put this nicely?! Who cares!
February 9, 2009 1:18 PM
That is why the shoes coming off is absolutely a necessary hassle. Same with the liquids.
NOT the same with liquids.
Not at all.
It is theoretically possible that the shoe bomber may have succeeded.
It is not theoretically possible that the liquid bombers may have succeeded.
There is no policy that is necessary when someone tries to break a law of physics. Enforcement isn't necessary.
February 9, 2009 1:30 PM
RB said...
kellymae81 said...
re rules:
...........................
If the rules you talk about are so clear why is conflicting information received from TSA?
Please give a pointer to a concise list of these rules that you think are so clear.
Do you think I should have to comply with a rule/standard that I cannot read and comprehend?
If the rules are so clear to everyone why did the cold packs to keep a woman's breast milk cool get confiscated?
Why did the traveler who had a homemade battery pack have the item taken from him when it was allowed by the rules?
Why did the man who uses a solid crystal deodorant have that item confiscated when it is permitted by the rules?
Why do TSO's not understand the difference between 30z of liquid and 30z of weight? They are not the same. Consider 3oz of lead may not equal 3oz of volume. Tubes of toothpaste are stated as a measure of weight not volume, yet a typical TSO will confiscate a 4oz (by weight) tube of toothpaste.
Why are TSO's going through peoples personal papers? How could papers in my wallet be of concern to anyone in TSA?
Why are TSA approved luggage locks routinely cut? Are TSO's not trained on the use of keys?
These are just a few examples that I have read about here. For these events to have happened indicate not only do travelers not know the rules but TSO's apparently are just as confused also.
I eagerly await your response!
February 9, 2009 10:08 AM
___________________________________
The rules are clear. I just looked over the TSA web page last week in an effort to figure out why everyone is so upset about how unclear it is. You people just like to complain. Thats a fact! The rules are simply stated for everyone to understand. Actually more rules than I even expected. And you don't need to know anything more. Keep bringing it up, your not going to get anywhere.
If you can not comprehend the rules than maybe you are special, because they are not rocket science!
The ice packs to a womens breast milk should have never been taken away. The person that took them was obviously wrong. This has nothing to do with the rules. It has to do with someone who does not know how to do their job.
As for the person with the home made battery. That is their fault. A battery is a main component for a bomb. There is no reason to bring a home made battery that probably looked very suspicious to an airport in your carry on. There is no reason for it. That is the passengers fault.
Someone with solid deoterant should not have had it taken away. That again has nothing to do with the rules, it has to do with a screener that does not do their job correctly.
The toothpaste size.... The TSO's are not here to figure out how much fluid is in a toothpaste tube.
Why would anyone go through someones papers? Your right there is no reason for a TSO to go through paperwork. Unless they are fanning through a book or a whole lot of paper to make sure that there is nothing hidden between the pages. But other than that no one should be going through a passengers papers.
Here's your response!
February 9, 2009 1:35 PM
@Jim Huggins: Publishing the official set of rules helps everyone. It helps passengers know what they're supposed to do (and not do), and it helps them to see the rules that TSOs are required to follow. It helps TSOs by providing public accountability for following the rules, and helps deflect some of the resentment of the screening process from individual TSOs to the policies they must enforce.
This is absolutely correct. However, I think the reasons you give for the benefits of clear, well-defined rules are exactly the reasons the TSA has so far regarded clear, well defined rules as an anathema. In particular, they have made a special priority of avoiding any "public accountability for following the rules." The Bush administration considered all aspects of Homeland Security to be above the law, exempt from any scrutiny or oversight, and unaccountable to anyone but themselves.
That explains their belief that agents of Homeland Security, including TSOs, need maximum discretion and flexibility to protect the Homeland against the Enemy. Just as the Constitution and inappropriate laws passed by Congress hamper the ability of the President and Vice President to protect America from an infinitely adaptable Enemy, clear well-defined rules for airport security would inappropriately hamper the ability of TSOs to protect aviation from a continually changing threat.
So they'll grudgingly offer the public some vague, incomplete "guidelines," intended more to reduce the workload of TSOs than to help passengers avoid hassles. And they'll insist that the actual rules need to be not merely SSI but "unpredictable," to prevent the Enemy from gaining enough information to circumvent the TSA's protection. Of course it's impossible to discern whether rules and procedures shrouded in "necessary" secrecy actually protect aviation or merely cover up ineptitude, incompetence, arrogance, and waste. But since accountability is inimical to security, such questions are irrelevant-- not to mention unpatriotic.
Yes, there still remains the problem of resentment. From a passenger's perspective, there's no difference between a "secret rule" and one made up on the spot; or between a "good" TSO "interpreting" a vague guideline and a "bad" TSO confiscating an item out of ignorance of the rules, or just because he's a bully who takes pleasure from watching passengers get upset at his whim. And as we've seen, if a conflict between a TSO and a passenger escalates enough to generate embarrassing publicity, the TSA leadership will issue a press release resolutely standing behind the TSO (e.g., the nipple piercing incident).
I somehow suspect that the old DHS and TSA leadership actually considered "resentment" a Good Thing. They clearly equate "hassle" with "strong security," and thus seek to maximize the hassle. So perhaps they see "resentment" merely as affirmation of their effectiveness, something to brag about in classified briefings. If this is the case, I can only hope the new leadership recognizes how dangerous this really is and changes course sooner rather than later. As even Kip noted, security requires active engagement with the public. And that requires earning our respect and confidence. Clear, well defined rules and accountability for following them are vital prerequisites to the respect and confidence that are key to effective security.
February 9, 2009 1:36 PM
@ Anonymous #542: I have to disagree with you on the shoes being unnecessary. Richard Reid got away with it. He was just too dumb to carry out the plan. Someone along the line could perfect that plan and execute it. That is why the shoes coming off is absolutely a necessary hassle. Same with the liquids. The policy may not be perfect BUT someone could perfect it and make it happen.
If you'll recall, the TSA did not declare War on Shoes after Richard Reid's escapade. The shoe hassle was actually instituted along with the War On Liquids, to "strengthen security" in reaction to the London plot. And there's still no convincing evidence that the liquid plot represented an actual threat. Just because the TSA says it does (and the details are secret) doesn't make it so. Don't forget that just about anything could potentially be used as a weapon by someone intent on doing so. That means the TSA has nearly infinite discretion to ban or restrict just about anything.
The TSA's reactive "security strategy" has a clearly obvious weakness that a clever terrorist could exploit to cause significant disruption at a minimal cost. A terrorist group need merely make intelligence officials aware of some incipient plot that they have no intention to actually realize, involving some commonplace innocuous items that could plausibly be used as a weapon. The officials will then stage a spectacular raid, and hold a news conference triumphantly crowing about their latest Victory in the Global War On Terror. And the TSA will then react in its usual fashion with a completely bone-headed ban or restriction on whatever item or items were connected with the plot, incrementally increasing the hassles for millions of passengers.
Repeat these "plots" every so often (in an unpredictable pattern), and let the TSA reliably deploy the "weapon of mass disruption" each time. Soon enough they'll succeed in causing catastrophic harm to the American economy by making air travel unusable, all without firing a shot or blowing up anything.
February 9, 2009 2:05 PM
""To ensure traveler’s security, transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart
is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint.""
Perhaps I can clear this up for everyone. If it's not to your satisfaction, (or doesn't get posted) maybe a TSA official can get on here and sum it up.
The fact of the matter is, these dangerous explosives that TSA are always looking out for, are made from common, household materials. So, if TSA suspects you are testing the system, or you are just unlucky enough to have these items arranged in your carry-on, they can pick the safer course of action, and make these items prohibited to take onto the plane.
Mind you this doesn't explain any occurences where an officer doesn't know the proper procedure and confiscates an item that would otherwise be allowed on board. Maybe one day TSA will be able to weed out the officers who can't follow proper procedure.
February 9, 2009 3:26 PM
"I have to disagree with you on the shoes being unnecessary. Richard Reid got away with it. He was just too dumb to carry out the plan. Someone along the line could perfect that plan and execute it. That is why the shoes coming off is absolutely a necessary hassle."
No, it's not. No one has tried to do anything that could harm an airplane with their shoes since Reid. No one in countries that do not impose a show carnival on citizens traveling by air has tried to do anything with their shoes that could harm an airplane since Reid. During the period when the show carnival was not mandatory in the US, no one tried to do anything with their shoes that could harm an airplane. The reason for this? Is because NO ONE IS TRYING TO HARM AIRPLANES WITH THEIR SHOES. We know it, you know it, TSA knows it, and we're sick of being lied to.
"Same with the liquids. The policy may not be perfect BUT someone could perfect it and make it happen."
No, they could not. It is impossible to mix liquids into an explosive form on an airplane. TSA knows this, which is why TSA refuses to present us with any independent reports that support its inane policy.
February 9, 2009 4:43 PM
I can't believe I'm going to respond to this ...
Anonymous writes:
The rules are clear. I just looked over the TSA web page last week in an effort to figure out why everyone is so upset about how unclear it is. [...] The rules are simply stated for everyone to understand. Actually more rules than I even expected. And you don't need to know anything more.
And then a few paragraphs later:
As for the person with the home made battery. That is their fault. A battery is a main component for a bomb. There is no reason to bring a home made battery that probably looked very suspicious to an airport in your carry on. There is no reason for it. That is the passengers fault.
Then please show me the TSA webpage that says that DVD battery packs are not permitted aboard an aircraft. I can't find it on the list of prohibited items.
And the owner of the battery pack did have a reason. He was taking a long flight to Hawaii, and wanted to be able to watch videos the entire way. The last time I checked, DVD players weren't on the list of prohibited items, either.
This passenger was denied the opportunity to bring his personal items on board because of a rule that can't be found anywhere on the TSA website. So much for your assertion that "the rules are clear" ...
February 9, 2009 5:01 PM
Anonymous writes:
The fact of the matter is, these dangerous explosives that TSA are always looking out for, are made from common, household materials. So, if TSA suspects you are testing the system, or you are just unlucky enough to have these items arranged in your carry-on, they can pick the safer course of action, and make these items prohibited to take onto the plane.
Then TSA should publicize what it's looking for.
Suppose, just to be ridiculous, that TSA determines that you can't bring Mentos aboard the aircraft, because you could buy a Diet Coke onboard and then create a mess. Then TSA ought to announce on its website that it's banning Mentos, put out press releases that will be carried on local TV and newspapers, and so on. (After all, people keep telling me that "all the rules are on the website", so why not just put the new rules there?)
Is this a ridiculous amount of work? Probably no more so than the amount of work TSA put into publicizing that pies are permitted.
Someone will counter-argue that this will somehow tip off the terrorists that we're on to their nefarious plot to drown the aircraft in Diet Coke. To which I would say ... who cares if we tip off the terrorists? The goal of TSA is to make flights safer, not to make arrests.
February 9, 2009 5:10 PM
anarchy continues....
It is not theoretically possible that the liquid bombers may have succeeded.
do you know if gasoline is flammable? if i shake it up will it explode in my face? According to you it does...
Continue with whatever it is you do...
February 9, 2009 6:12 PM
RB said: If the rules you talk about are so clear why is conflicting information received from TSA? Please give a pointer to a concise list of these rules that you think are so clear. The rules are on the TSA website under "for travelers".
I went through and looked at everything that I know happens on the checkpoint from the liquids to how to make things easier with people with special needs and the only thing I found is the 3-1-1 is still incorrect. What specifically is a problem for you and I'll tell you where to find it on the site.
Do you think I should have to comply with a rule/standard that I cannot read and comprehend?
No, but what specifically can you not understand? Do you actually have a specific problem you face when you go thru security?
If the rules are so clear to everyone why did the cold packs to keep a woman's breast milk cool get confiscated?
It should never have been taken. I agree that if we are doing a job, we need to know what our job is.
Why did the traveler who had a homemade battery pack have the item taken from him when it was allowed by the rules?
From TSA's point of view, that is a very suspicious item. You may not agree, but that's why we are here, to see the "out of the ordinary" and unfortunately, that kind of homemade item is just not normal and a very major component of an IED, sorry. I take TSA's side on this one.
Why did the man who uses a solid crystal deodorant have that item confiscated when it is permitted by the rules?
Another item that should not have been taken.
Why do TSO's not understand the difference between 30z of liquid and 30z of weight? They are not the same. Consider 3oz of lead may not equal 3oz of volume. Tubes of toothpaste are stated as a measure of weight not volume, yet a typical TSO will confiscate a 4oz (by weight) tube of toothpaste.
Another thing that I agree with you on. It clearly says on the website 3oz by VOLUME not weight. But unfortunately, that can get way too complex when trying to get passengers thru the checkpoint quickly. They should just eliminate the "by volume" rule on the website and just make it 3.4oz period b/c the ones measured by weight usually have the density of an explosive and 3.4oz should be the limit with that also.
Why are TSO's going through peoples personal papers? How could papers in my wallet be of concern to anyone in TSA?
Huh? You've seen this happen? I have never heard of it at my airport. Could you elaborate a personal experience with this and what paper it was?
Why are TSA approved luggage locks routinely cut? Are TSO's not trained on the use of keys?
I work checked baggage most of my shifts. We have the keys, but sometimes they do get broken or misplaced...it just happens. We dont have several extra sets as to avoid them being stolen (by maybe airline personnel) thus contradicting the reason for having them. If your bag alarms, it must me checked. So you can have a broken $5 lock (price?) or no baggage at all when you get to your destination. I'm guessing you'll want your bathing suit for that cruise!!!! ;)
SDF TSO
February 9, 2009 7:21 PM
Anon #542 said:How about they are not compiled in one nice neat place? Clearly there is inaccurate information ie. Liquids oz wrong. Enforcement is poorly executed from airport to airport. "Unpredictability" is a poor excuse.
I am really trying to see how the website is unclear, but I dont see it. Yes, the 3-1-1 is incorrect, I agree, but everything else is pretty easy to follow. I'm sorry, but I don't see the chaos you see on the website.
On the unpredictability, it's never going away. Change is the ONE thing with TSA that is consistent. We can't be reactive, we must be proactive. We have to constantly change so terrorists are one step behind instead of two steps ahead.
SDF TSO
February 9, 2009 7:28 PM
Jim Huggins said:First, there's no way to know what is missing from the site because ... well, it's missing. :)
Good point!! ;)
Several people have asked here, repeatedly (paging Phil ...), for a simple, comprehensive list of all the rules that a passenger must follow when undergoing screening. Various TSA employees have said that this list will never be produced, because it would reveal too much about screening to "the bad guys".
That is true to a certain extent. There are some things we cant reveal, but there should be a solid set of rules, I agree. In (my opinion), the website lays everything out pretty clearly on what to do to get thru security efficiently. There will be things that come thru that are not normal and you may get stopped, but once it's figured out, you are on your way. I know some airports have officers who can take it too far, but for the most part, more people than you think get thru no problem.
SDF TSO
February 9, 2009 7:40 PM
I can asked as many times as it takes to get an answer.
___________________________________
Here is your answer, how can I put this nicely?! Who cares!
February 9, 2009 1:18 PM
It would seem your a typical TSA employee.
Not intelligent enough to understand the problem in the information provided by the TSA Contact Center.
Par for the course!!
And if it matters, I care as do most people who travel!
February 9, 2009 10:14 PM
Anon said....
Here's your response!
February 9, 2009 1:35 PM
........................
You make a compelling case for the creation of concise, published rules that one must comply with when transiting a TSA Checkpoint.
TSA screener's have no accountability when they make poor decisions. The traveler has no means to challenged the decision and if property is confiscated there is no means to recover that property even if TSA is wrong.
Anytime a person has property confiscated the person making that call should be on the hook for the full replacement value of the item if it is later determined that a wrong call was made.
The person with the battery pack should not have had the item confiscated. Even your senior leadership admitted that after the fact. Still the traveler suffered the loss of the property not TSA. The person also had every right to have that item with them since it was not prohibited or dangerous to the safe operation of the aircraft.
TSA needs an immediate policy change that holds TSO's personally accountable for all decisions they make. If a TSO is incapable of applying the secret rules in a proper manner then sanctions should be implemented and the traveler directly compensated for any loss.
Any property confiscated should be held in a secure place until all attempts to challenge the confiscation have been exhausted.
There must be means of recourse for a traveler!
February 9, 2009 10:37 PM
Here's something to add to George's post of February 9, 2009 2:05 PM --
While concocting these plausible but non-operational plots, the plotters all adopt common Anglo-Saxon names as aliases, especially aliases with only a first initial and a last name.
Soon, everyone with a name like T. Kennedy, J. Smith, B. Jones, etc. is on the no-fly list. (Oops, T. Kennedy is already there -- just ask the Senator from Massachusetts.)
That way, not only will common substances all be banned or restricted, people with common names will be unable to fly.
February 10, 2009 11:16 AM
@Anonymous, February 9, 2009 3:26 PM: The fact of the matter is, these dangerous explosives that TSA are always looking out for, are made from common, household materials. So, if TSA suspects you are testing the system, or you are just unlucky enough to have these items arranged in your carry-on, they can pick the safer course of action, and make these items prohibited to take onto the plane.
So now it's a matter of luck whether a particular random arrangement of innocuous items triggers the TSO's "suspicion" and results in "the safer course of action" of forfeiting those items? That sounds more like an entirely capricious "hair-trigger" approach rather than any rational strategy, since it means that potentially anything can end up prohibited once you reach the checkpoint. Does the passenger then have any recourse in such a case? Probably not, if he or she wants to fly today.
Mind you this doesn't explain any occurences where an officer doesn't know the proper procedure and confiscates an item that would otherwise be allowed on board.
But how do you even know whether the officer knows or is following the "proper procedure" when that procedure is SSI? In my case, how do I know whether confiscating the unlabeled one-ounce bottle of sunscreen in my Freedom Baggie was "proper procedure?" I was following the published rules, but the TSO was either following an "unpublished rule" that I could not possibly know about or was ignoring the rules "to provide extra security"? On what grounds could I complain to anyone about possibly violating procedures and rules when the TSA insists that the rules have to be secret and "unpredictable"?
I suspect that the TSO who confiscated my solid crystal deodorant was mindlessly following some recent training briefing about "stick deodorant," which arguably is a gel or semi-solid. Those were his orders, and he lacked the intelligence and/or the authority to distinguish between this kind of item (deliberately chosen at some expense to avoid this problem) and what he was trained to confiscate. Although the TSO got angry at me when I foolishly tried to explain, it's not his fault. It's the fault of an arrogant TSA that encourages mindlessness that only frustrates passengers without adding any security.
Maybe one day TSA will be able to weed out the officers who can't follow proper procedure.
Maybe one day they'll make the proper procedures clear and accountable so that both the public and the TSA can actually identify when officers are not following proper procedure. But for now, TSOs have carte blanche to make up whatever rules and restrictions they want. And if it results in an incident that generates bad publicity for the TSA, the TSA will issue a press release standing resolutely behind the TSO. In effect, that rewards officers who can't follow proper procedure.
February 10, 2009 12:50 PM
George said
If you'll recall, the TSA did not declare War on Shoes after Richard Reid's escapade. The shoe hassle was actually instituted along with the War On Liquids, to "strengthen security" in reaction to the London plot. And there's still no convincing evidence that the liquid plot represented an actual threat. Just because the TSA says it does (and the details are secret) doesn't make it so. Don't forget that just about anything could potentially be used as a weapon by someone intent on doing so. That means the TSA has nearly infinite discretion to ban or restrict just about anything.
___________________________________
You are correct George. Which is why I have made the suggestion over and over again that there should be no carry ons what so ever, period! This would make things so much easier for everyone. Everyone would comprehend the horrible uncomprehendable rules on TSA's webpage. There would be no misunderstandings. You would not even be allowed into security with a bag in your hand. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. Maybe one day this will happen. No carry ons allowed!
February 10, 2009 1:28 PM
kellymae81 said...
RB said: If the rules you talk about are so clear why is conflicting information received from TSA? Please give a pointer to a concise list of these rules that you think are so clear. The rules are on the TSA website under "for travelers".
I went through and looked at everything that I know happens on the checkpoint from the liquids to how to make things easier with people with special needs and the only thing I found is the 3-1-1 is still incorrect. What specifically is a problem for you and I'll tell you where to find it on the site.
;;;;;;;;;and more;;;;;;
..................................
Lets try to flesh this discussion out a bit.
First, I do not claim all of the things I posted happened to me personally, but all of these things have happened to others who post here. Read the archives.
Now you agree that TSO's have applied the rules in odd ways at times. How am I as a traveler to know if the application of said rule is correct or not if they cannot be referred to? I have every right to know exactly what I must do to transit a TSA checkpoint or any other government checkpoint for that matter.
Let's look at the 3oz thing for a moment. Just a few days ago I received a response from the "TSA Contact Center" stating that 3.4oz is only allowed for travel from outside of the US to the US. 3.0oz is still the rule for travel within the US and from the US to other countries. It would seem that you disagree with that. What does it say on the official TSA web pages. Who is right? Who is likely to suffer if I have 3.4oz and travel from New York to LA? Not TSA!
Let us remember TSO NY who posted here a few times and said to the effect, "if a medicine doesn't have a prescription it doesn't go".
See any problem with that?
I have to believe that if you highly trained TSO's have problems with enforcing these rules then they must not be so clear as you make out. Otherwise we wouldn't hear about these problems.
Take the guy with the homemade battery pack. I find no fault for the TSO alerting to this item. However, once it was determined that it was just that, a battery pack, then confiscation of that item was the same a theft. No reason remained to not allow the traveler to take his property. TSA pretty much conceded this point on the TSA web page.
Since I cannot trust TSO's to apply the rules correctly the only way to protect myself is by knowing what I must do.
The policy that a TSO can take an item just because they decided to is wrong. A clear case should be required that the item is dangerous and a method to challenge that claim available to the traveler on the spot.
Additional means should be provided for a person to reclaim their property at a later date if the challenge fails. By this I mean like the battery pack that was wrongly taken from the traveler. That item represented a fair amount of cash.
I truly believe that a wrong decision by a TSO should have penalties. Take something that is permitted and the TSO should be required to compensate the traveler for the cost of the item themselves would certainly make one an expert on these rules.
Life is not without penalties and people who provide services to others are always held accountable for their actions. Why should a TSO be any different?
So a set of rules should be available to both the TSO and the traveler.
TSO's should be held accountable and compensate travelers if they apply the rules incorrectly. Continued employment would be at risk also if a pattern shows the person is untrainable.
Theft of a travelers property should result in a mandatory prison sentence of at least 5 years. No exceptions. Firing is not enough of a punishment!
I could go on but I think you get the picture.
A traveler should not suffer at the hands of TSA.
February 10, 2009 3:06 PM
@Anonymous, February 10, 2009 1:28 PM: I have made the suggestion over and over again that there should be no carry ons what so ever, period! This would make things so much easier for everyone. Everyone would comprehend the horrible uncomprehendable rules on TSA's webpage. There would be no misunderstandings. You would not even be allowed into security with a bag in your hand. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. Maybe one day this will happen. No carry ons allowed!
That is actually an excellent suggestion. It is a very simple measure that would not only make things easier for everyone, but would significantly improve the safety and security of aviation. Unfortunately, it would also make passenger aviation nearly impractical, since we'd have to rely on the checked baggage system to deliver all of our belongings. And we all know how dependable and reliable checked baggage is. Anyone who needs to travel with belongings they are unable or unwilling to be without either temporarily (for however it takes to track down and return a lost checked bag) or permanently (in the event of theft or unrecoverable loss of a checked bag) would have to FedEx their property in advance, at both ends of the trip, at considerable expense.
An even better solution would react to the fact that all airline terrorism is caused by people. So if the TSA banned passengers or anyone else from getting anywhere near airplanes, they could legitimately crow about having instituted perfect protection from terrorism!
That said, I think clear rules and accountability would be a much more practical approach, even though it provides less air-tight security than a ban on carry-on bags.
February 10, 2009 3:12 PM
kellymae81 wrote...
Why did the traveler who had a homemade battery pack have the item taken from him when it was allowed by the rules?
From TSA's point of view, that is a very suspicious item. You may not agree, but that's why we are here, to see the "out of the ordinary" and unfortunately, that kind of homemade item is just not normal and a very major component of an IED, sorry. I take TSA's side on this one.
________________
Not to beat on an obviously dead horse, Kellymae, but only the front-line TSO who first saw the home-made extended-life battery pack for powering a DVD player the length of a long flight may have found it "suspicious."
The higher level TSA employee who actually inspected the item found it absolutely non-threatening, quite safe, perfectly legitimate, and not against any TSA rules, secret or otherwise.
TSA STILL requested the traveller to "voluntarily surrender" the battery pack if he wished to fly.
Not only that, but afterwords a much higher (political appointee) level TSA person crowed in an official public news release that requiring the traveler to "voluntarily surrender" the thoroughly inspected and passed battery pack in order to travel was a wonderful event that made air travel so much safer that everyone needed to know about it.
I'm sorry, but my professional engineering bovine waste detector was sounding it's alarm very early in her press release...
OK, back to what you said. The battery pack WAS a suspicious item to the bottom level TSO who had no idea what he/she was looking at, but the higher level folks eliminated that suspicion and found the item officially benign.
The only differences between the home-made external battery pack and the commercially available external battery packs are a fancy case hiding what's inside and much higher price.
A fancy case hiding what is actually inside that case IF ANYTHING makes the commercial item MORE SUSPICIOUS and LESS SAFE because of that concealment factor. Think about that for a moment.
Which is safer? An assembly of batteries that is obviously an assembly of batteries and nothing else, or a featureless case with a wire hanging out that CLAIMS to be full of batteries.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
February 10, 2009 3:49 PM
"So now it's a matter of luck whether a particular random arrangement of innocuous items triggers the TSO's "suspicion" and results in "the safer course of action" of forfeiting those items? That sounds more like an entirely capricious "hair-trigger" approach rather than any rational strategy, since it means that potentially anything can end up prohibited once you reach the checkpoint. Does the passenger then have any recourse in such a case? Probably not, if he or she wants to fly today."
There are fewer items than you think in the average carry-on that would lead to a non-prohibited confiscation. Even fewer if the bag is properly screened, and investigated by a Bomb Appraisal Officer. I agree that there should be a way to store an expensive item, or an item that has sentimental value, for a passenger that intends to fully dispute the confiscation, especially in cases that result in a WRONGFUL confiscation.
"It would seem your a typical TSA employee.
Not intelligent enough to understand the problem in the information provided by the TSA Contact Center."
Again, I completely agree with the fact that TSA needs to do something about hiring more officers who are able to use common sense when it comes to confiscating an item. Also, that someone who is obviously an officer should think about what they post, before they post it.
I also agree that many times it's not the officers fault for having to follow a foolish rule, such as confiscating a small pocket knife, and not a large letter opener, or even large knitting needles that could easily be used to injure someone.
For these reasons I don't believe it's right to generalize everyone in TSA as an "uneducated" idiot who doesn't know how to use common sense, or understand the problems with some of TSA policy. Many officers get thousands upon thousands of passengers through the checkpoints, and safely on their flights every day. Many with a generally better mood, than when they first walked in, expecting an enormous hassle, and expecting to be treated with no respect at all.
"You are correct George. Which is why I have made the suggestion over and over again that there should be no carry ons what so ever, period! This would make things so much easier for everyone. Everyone would comprehend the horrible uncomprehendable rules on TSA's webpage. There would be no misunderstandings. You would not even be allowed into security with a bag in your hand. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. Maybe one day this will happen. No carry ons allowed!"
I disagree with you completely. Not only is this not possible for long flights, or even short flights with people who have infants. It's also just conforming to the idea that TSA is an unholy agency that wants to become the "Hitler" of transportation in America. A policy like that would just prove EVERYTHING the nay-sayers say is 100% correct. TSA just needs to get the technology out there that would allow for MORE items to be taken onto the plane.
The airlines also need to allow for MORE items to be checked under the plane. I've recently learned that many airlines are even charging for the FIRST bag to be checked. Tickets cost enough these days, passengers should be entitled to more for their flights.
I apologize for getting slightly off subject. I tend to ramble.
- A TSO from ORD who hasn't signed up for a screen name yet.
February 10, 2009 4:01 PM
Anonymous: "You are correct George. Which is why I have made the suggestion over and over again that there should be no carry ons what so ever, period! This would make things so much easier for everyone. Everyone would comprehend the horrible uncomprehendable rules on TSA's webpage. There would be no misunderstandings. You would not even be allowed into security with a bag in your hand. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. Maybe one day this will happen. No carry ons allowed!"
But then you'd be out of a job ...
February 10, 2009 4:12 PM
KellyMae81:
I'm going to pick on you just a little bit here ... because a couple of your recent postings make my point.
In response to RB, you wrote:
I went through and looked at everything that I know happens on the checkpoint from the liquids to how to make things easier with people with special needs and the only thing I found is the 3-1-1 is still incorrect.
And then a little later in the same response, you wrote:
From TSA's point of view, that [homemade DVD player batter] is a very suspicious item. You may not agree, but that's why we are here, to see the "out of the ordinary" and unfortunately, that kind of homemade item is just not normal and a very major component of an IED, sorry. I take TSA's side on this one.
Two questions:
a) If you believe that the TSA website contains all "the rules", can you please tell me which web page says that this item is not permitted?
b) Do we really want TSA to treat every "unusual" item as "suspicious"? And who gets to define what "suspicious" means? This is what Bruce Schneier has called the War on the Unexpected.
February 10, 2009 5:28 PM
"We can't be reactive, we must be proactive", wrote KellyMae.
The TSA is all about reacting...shoes and liquids.
She also wrote: "We have to constantly change so terrorists are one step behind instead of two steps ahead."
KellyMae are you aware that your new Secretary said to the effect that "if we build a taller wall, the terrorists will just bring a taller ladder" which means, in effect, that any terrorists will ALWAYS be ahead of any security.
February 11, 2009 10:35 AM
Anonymous wrote: "You would not even be allowed into security with a bag in your hand. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. Maybe one day this will happen. No carry ons allowed!"
This would mean the end of many airlines as many would not fly if they were not allowed to take any carry-ons. Therefore, it will never happen.
February 11, 2009 11:41 AM
anonymous continues
anarchy continues....
It is not theoretically possible that the liquid bombers may have succeeded.
do you know if gasoline is flammable? if i shake it up will it explode in my face? According to you it does...
Continue with whatever it is you do...
Perhaps you forgot to read the description of the liquid bomb plot.
The plot was binary liquid.
The plot was two items that are safe on their own, undetectable.
The plot was to mix them on the other side of security.
THAT plot is the one I'm discussing when I point out that it is completely and utterly impossible.
THAT plot is the one that is used as the justification for the 3-1-1 rule.
The plot wasn't gasoline.
Gasoline would be forbidden entirely on its own, without any reference to it being a liquid.
February 11, 2009 6:39 PM
kelliemae81 said "
I went through and looked at everything that I know happens on the checkpoint from the liquids to how to make things easier with people with special needs and the only thing I found is the 3-1-1 is still incorrect. What specifically is a problem for you and I'll tell you where to find it on the site."
############
The link about breastmilk and formula on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/index.shtm is broken.
And it doen't matter anyway, because what the website says does not match the reality of the screening process. It is all PR fluff that you use to present youselves as reasonable folks, but when you are at the screening point, you have TSOs and screeners making up rules and justifying them with the catch-all "if a TSO determines it to be suspicious..." that you use over and over in your justifications of taking the TSA's side in taking battery packs, items of less than 3.4 fluid ounces, and everything else odd that makes your jobs less "efficient". Do you seriously think that if some passenger shows up with a couple printouts saying that "Breast milk is in the same category as liquid medications" and "Gels or frozen liquids needed to cool disability or medically related items used by persons with disabilities or medical conditions" a TSO or supervisor is going to change his mind and think that the item is allowed? How about "formula" or "liquids including water"? I guess your TSOs already trust documents printed out by potential terrorists (boarding passes), so I guess they could similarly trust copies of the website, but they don't.
TSA makes travel less "efficient" since you cannot be certain that your non-weapons and non-explosives won't be taken by some whack TSO that is confused by something they've never seen before.
Since your TSO supervisor in STL confiscated our gel packs, which led to the spoiling of 13 oz of her breast milk, my wife doesn't trust TSA to not confiscate her breast milk or gel packs. She avoids travel because of TSA's narrow-minded "efficiency".
"Innocent until proven guilty" is an efficient method of authoritarian control, but it isn't American.
February 12, 2009 10:46 AM
"The plot was to mix them on the other side of security.
THAT plot is the one I'm discussing when I point out that it is completely and utterly impossible."
If it is impossible, could you try to explain... if it's allowable on here, of course.
Didn't a school girl get killed by the blast of the first attempt?
In theory, wouldn't bringing a larger amount on board create a larger blast?
I thought that was the reason behind the liquid ban.
February 12, 2009 1:52 PM
As requested, here is the video of my presentation to Secretary Napolitano.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
February 12, 2009 6:13 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
The plot was to mix them on the other side of security.
You guys are talking about the same subject but not the same information. In the public domain it was wildly believed, never confirmed, that the explosives would be mixed after security(such as “Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?”). Now that the trial is done, more information has made it into the public domain(such as “British Muslims 'planned to kill thousands by bringing down SEVEN transatlantic airliners in one go with liquid bombs'”).
The issue here, as I see it, is why didn't the UK do a independent lab test for confirmation. I think the main reason for that was the government EOD teams and the government contractors had similar results with the same conclusion. From their standpoint, I could see why they decided not to have a third test. I will hope in the future they decide to have a independent lab check their results when the time is appropriate(hopefully in the next couple of years). More then likely it won't happen.
Ayn R. Key said...
Third, this is, sadly, pre-mixed. According to the wild goose you had us chasing for months, mixed with the facts of this story, one guy comes through with H2O2, another guy comes through with tang powder, and together they make a bomb while in the terminal.
June 6, 2008 3:34 PM "The Science Behind 3-1-1"
I'm going to have to question your motives. I never attack the person. I try my best to attack the argument. I'm not sure why you posted “The plot was to mix them on the other side of security.” I have to admit, I raised a eyebrow when I read this.
-H2H
February 12, 2009 6:14 PM
THANK YOU, BOB, FOR THE VIDEO! :o)
Tom
February 12, 2009 6:16 PM
But H2H, do you know how volatile a pre-mixed liquid bomb is? It would be incredibly risky just getting it to the airport.
"7 muslims did a suicide bombing on an empty road, killing nobody but themselves. The car they were in was a total loss, and a near by fence was scorched."
The reason I keep mentioning the liquid bomb plot is because BOTH alternative scenerios are not feasible. Either it was mixed on the other side of security (won't work without a decent lab) or it was mixed on this side of security (maybe it could possibly survive the trip).
Ok, there, I've given both scenerios. Now nobody on the pro-TSA side can bait-and-switch the two. You can't switch to saying "but we're talking about pre-mixed" just because I mentioned mixing it in the terminal, and you can't switch to saying "but we're talking about mixing it in the terminal" just because I mentioned pre-mixed. I mentioned them obth.
Are the pro-TSA crowd members going to say "well, on the pre-mixed half of your statement we're talking about mixing them in the terminal and on the mixing them in the terminal half of your statement we're talking about pre-mixing them so you haven't shown anything because we're talking about different things the whole time" or something like that?
February 12, 2009 8:00 PM
Interesting article from MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29142020/
It says that the new interpersonal skills training was rolled out in October. I thought it was starting sooner as part of Checkpoint Evolution.
Can the blog team shed any light?
Also, I'd still love to hear what the TSA does to hold its personnel accountable for how they treat passengers.
February 12, 2009 8:03 PM
@Anonymous [TSO from ORD], February 10, 2009 4:01 PM: There are fewer items than you think in the average carry-on that would lead to a non-prohibited confiscation. Even fewer if the bag is properly screened, and investigated by a Bomb Appraisal Officer.
That's good to know. But I still have no way of knowing whether my perfectly innocuous items might get confiscated just because of "bad luck." And what assurance do I have that my bag would actually be "properly screened, and investigated by a Bomb Appraisal Officer"? At a crowded checkpoint it's surely far easier for the low-level TSO to simply demand that I "voluntarily abandon" something if I want to fly today.
Since I don't know about the protocols (where would I find them anyway?), and I had never heard of a Bomb Appraisal Officer until I read your post, how could I possibly know whether the TSO is properly screening my bag, or making a "non prohibited confiscation" just because that's the quickest nd easiest thing to do? And besides, the published rules specifically state that a TSO can confiscate anything he decides is "suspicious," even it it's explicitly listed as permitted. So if that happens to me at the checkpoint-- and it has happened to me twice, with the unlabeled sunscreen bottle and the crystal solid deodorant-- what realistically are my options other than to obey if I want to fly today? After which I'd have every reason to "generalize everyone in TSA as an 'uneducated' idiot who doesn't know how to use common sense."
The majority of TSOs may well be dedicated workers who both believe in what they do and respect the public. But all it takes is one (or two) bad experiences to create a negative impression that's hard to correct. TSA screening is "unpredictable" after all, so when you get to a checkpoint you have no way of knowing whether you'll get a good TSO or a stupid bully.
And in reference to Tomas's post about the battery pack "voluntarily abandoned" after a higher-level official cleared it, the negative impression is merely reinforced when the TSA leadership publicly defends the "non prohibited confiscation" and even insists that it improved aviation safety. When you know that the TSA leadership will stand resolutely behind any TSO no matter what they do (e.g., the battery pack and the nipple piercing incident), you know you're absolutely powerless. Every TSO's capricious whim carries the full force of Law, as it's fully backed by the weight of the TSA bureaucracy that will publicly defend the TSO when necessary. So even if a TSO does something clearly "improper," your only options are to either meekly surrender or turn around and go home. Powerlessness promotes neither respect nor actual security.
I agree that there should be a way to store an expensive item, or an item that has sentimental value, for a passenger that intends to fully dispute the confiscation, especially in cases that result in a WRONGFUL confiscation.
That is unacceptable. Mostly because it would be a costly bureaucratic nightmare to administer, but more importantly because it would make the TSA accountable for its mistakes. The current DHS regime clearly believes that accountability is completely incompatible with security. I can only hope Secretary Napolitano recognizes the dangerous fallacy of that belief.
Many officers get thousands upon thousands of passengers through the checkpoints, and safely on their flights every day. Many with a generally better mood, than when they first walked in, expecting an enormous hassle, and expecting to be treated with no respect at all.
Yes. But one bad experience with an unnecessary hassle-- whether due to the mindless, pointless application of a foolish rule or actual bullying-- will instantly undo whatever goodwill previous good experiences might have produced. Maybe the dedicated TSOs (who know the rules and protocols passengers can't know) should take responsibility for bringing the improprieties of their peers to the attention of management, since those improprieties needlessly harm the TSA and make their own jobs more difficult. But somehow I don't think the TSA's culture encourages this approach. I rather suspect it discourages it. And that's the fault of leadership.
February 13, 2009 12:17 PM
"And what assurance do I have that my bag would actually be "properly screened, and investigated by a Bomb Appraisal Officer"? At a crowded checkpoint it's surely far easier for the low-level TSO to simply demand that I "voluntarily abandon" something if I want to fly today."
Chances are if it's not investigated by a Bomb Appraisal Officer, then it's not serious enough to demand that you hand it over. You'll recognize most BAO's by their black polos, with the DHS stamp on their sleeves. These men and women come anywhere from Bomb Squad specialists, to ex-military demolitions.
You, the passenger always have the option of either checking the item with your checked baggage, handing it off to someone you know isn't flying today, or just voulantarily abandoning it. I see no reason why you couldn't have kept your unlabeled lotion if it was of proper size, if it wasn't proper size you should have had the option to check it. Your crystal deoderant (which I have personally seen at the checkpoint, and properly tested, and let it fly) also should have been let go, or at least checked in your baggage.
If I see a wrongful confiscation, or something that should be confiscated that was let go, I ALWAYS bring it up to that officer. If the problem happens again, I've gone higher up the chain of command, and had that problem corrected. I encourage every officer that knows better to do the same. Unfortunately I obviously can't do that at EVERY checkpoint, or every airport.
It's also important to know that TSA will never be perfect, because... well, people aren't perfect. There's always someone out there who will make a stupid decision. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to improve the way they do things, or improve the training of their officers.
I also can't say that TSA will EVER post our procedures, and every possible way something may go down at a checkpoint. If you're not satisfied with what is posted, you should put what you DO want added to the list (I've seen many of you have) and hopefully the word gets passed on to the techs for the website, and the list gets updated. To post ALL of our procedures (whether you believe there's a threat or not out there) would be a breach to security, and WE don't even know every possible situation that may occur out there. There are items out there I've never seen before, BUT I've determined aren't dangerous. One day I hope EVERY officer out there will be able to do the same.
As for the 3-1-1 policy not being exactly correct on the website, or why the center told you you're only allowed to travel with 3.0 oz in the United States. I'm baffled. I know it should be corrected, for newcomers to the site, but I don't understand why it is such a big issue, whether you bring 3.0, or 3.4, you're allowed both. You're still in no danger of having to abandon the liquid. It still doesn't explain people attempting to bring 5.0 to 20 oz containers.
I cringe at the thought of some of the experiences that passengers tell me about from other airports, and try my best to get them through hassle free.
I've worked in the security field for many years now. Encountered many situations, with many different people. I encourage passengers to not have a negative attitude, or take out their frustrations on officers. Many times (as naive as it may sound) having a positive attitude makes getting through the checkpoint easier, and doesn't seem so bad half the time.
After all, if I held a grudge everytime someone did something I thought was wrong, I wouldn't have stuck to this field, and I would have become a hermit living in the mountains far away from a living person.
In turn, if I see an officer being rude, or unprofessional to a passenger (whether it was provoked or not, believe it or not, we do get provoked as well) I will continue to make it known that it's unacceptable, and if continued, take it up the chain of command if the situation isn't resolved.
As far as why we're worried about liquids, or shoe bombs. There are reasons why these items are screened, there are reasons why loose bulky clothing is patted down. A liquid explosive doesn't have to go BOOM to take down a plane, (contradicting the word explosive, I know) and doesn't have to be as volatile as you think. A shoe bomb IS possible to make, and easy to conceal. I won't go into further detail on these subjects, because I don't want my long rant to have the possibility of not being posted.
Please don't hold anything I say on here against me, or if it's not the perfect reason for something you're looking for. It's just one lowly TSO's opinion. I respect all of your views (most of them are very reasonable).
-Anonymous TSO from ORD
February 13, 2009 5:56 PM
Sandra, I agree that TSA has been reactive in the past, but we are currently working towards being a more proactive organization. The changes we make are geared towards that and we do understand that terrorists will work just as hard to anticipate our next move but that doesn't mean we just give up. Everything we do does not guarantee that terrorists will go away, but it increases our chance of keeping those threats off our planes. Nothing will ever be 100% guaranteed.
RB said: A traveler should not suffer at the hands of TSA.
You are absolutely right!! I would be just as angry if I were in some of the positions as the passengers on here have stated. There should be a clearer set of rules and both parties should follow accordingly.
Jim Huggins said: Do we really want TSA to treat every "unusual" item as "suspicious"?
Yes. I try to be as helpful as possible with your questions, but I could argue all day with you on this issue. Our job is to notice the unusual and take the necessary steps to clear that item. I don't know the whole story on the homemade battery pack, but lets just say they took it b/c there was no electronic that it went to. Something to that effect could be the reason. If it was taken for no good reason, then yes, it is wrong.
Here to help...SDF TSO
February 15, 2009 5:27 PM
George said...
When you know that the TSA leadership will stand resolutely behind any TSO no matter what they do (e.g., the battery pack and the nipple piercing incident
Sorry that nipple ring thing I love hearing because that is all her fault. She shouldn't get her nipples pierced if she don't know how to take them out. She was a complete idiot obvioulsy for tearing her nipples. TSA needed to clear the area so the passenger had to take the nipple rings out. The passenger took the rings out not TSA, therefore it is her fault.
As for this battery story. I do not think it was right for TSA to take a perfectly fine suspicious item that they cleared away from a passenger. People are going to have homemade stuff all the time. TSA needs to use their best judgement and common sense and clear the benign. Who cares if it is a part of an IED? I carry parts of an IED all the time when I fly. They are benign though. A homemade battery is no different than a 9-Volt battery if there are no other suspicious items. Shame on TSA for taking someone's battery away!
February 16, 2009 10:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
As for the 3-1-1 policy not being exactly correct on the website, or why the center told you you're only allowed to travel with 3.0 oz in the United States. I'm baffled. I know it should be corrected, for newcomers to the site, but I don't understand why it is such a big issue, whether you bring 3.0, or 3.4, you're allowed both.
Why do we make an issue out of this? Because TSA tells me that I should "become an active partner in your security experience by knowing the rules".
Of course, when I ask the see the rules that I'm supposed to know, I'm told that I can't see them. "Just go to the website" is what I'm told instead. But then I go to the website, and I find that the rule is 3.0oz --- even though every TSA employee posting on this blog says the website is wrong, and that the limit is really 100ml.
So, TSA won't show me the rules that it wants me to follow. It sends me to a website which has some of the rules ... except that TSA employees tell me that some of the rules on the website are wrong. How am I supposed to know which rules on the website are correct and which aren't?
This blog is filled with stories of people who follow "the rules" on the website, only to be denied the use of their items at a checkpoint by a TSO. Is the website wrong again, and the TSO correct? Or is the TSO wrong and the website correct? There's no way for passengers to know what to do.
February 17, 2009 11:44 AM
Someone claiming to be a TSO from ORD wrote:
"You, the passenger always have the option of either checking the item with your checked baggage"
I can't do that if I have no baggage to check, and I can't do it if I have already checked my baggage.
"handing it off to someone you know isn't flying today"
I can't do that if the only people who came to the airport with me need to be there to board a flight.
"or just voulantarily abandoning it."
It's quite a stretch to call that a voluntary action when my only alternative is to have TSA restrict my freedom of movement.
"I also can't say that TSA will EVER post our procedures, and every possible way something may go down at a checkpoint."
I've yet to see anyone ask you to post your procedures. What we have asked, clearly and repeatedly, is for you to publish the rules that you require us to follow at your checkpoints in order to avoid having our freedom of movement restricted by your staff (not including all the rules we are required to follow anywhere, just the TSA-checkpoint-specific ones). Whether or not the public should also be able to examine the procedures that our TSA staff perform on our behalf is an entirely different manner.
ORD TSO, do you understand the difference? It is ridiculous that we can be punished for failing to follow rules that you refuse to show us. It is tiresome to repeatedly have requests to see the rules we are required to follow be responded to with commentary on the secretive nature of your internal procedures.
"If you're not satisfied with what is posted, you should put what you DO want added to the list (I've seen many of you have) and hopefully the word gets passed on to the techs for the website, and the list gets updated."
We cannot know what rules to ask for because we don't know what rules exist. If we did, then we wouldn't need to ask to see them. Our capability to follow your rules should not hinge on hopes that TSA Web site technicians update some list. Please just show us all the rules you require us to follow.
"To post ALL of our procedures (whether you believe there's a threat or not out there) would be a breach to security"
If your security hinges on keeping your procedures secret -- those procedures that you communicate to thousands of lowest-level TSA staff -- then we have a serious problem. You would be well off to assume that a well-funded criminal who wants to know about your procedures will have little difficulty finding someone to communicate them to him.
And again, please forget about your procedures for the purpose of this discussion and focus on the rules you require us to follow. Those of us who do not wish to do harm on airplanes (roughly 100% of us who board them) just want you leave us alone so we can go about our business.
When we're walking through an airport minding our own business and our government stops us, then requires us to wait for permission to proceed, we should have the right to know -- not just to guess -- that we are in compliance with all rules and regulations by which we are required to abide. Presently, you require us to guess. We are not allowed to know whether we have violated a rule or were simply the victim of intentional or accidental error on the part of our TSA staff.
"As for the 3-1-1 policy not being exactly correct on the website, or why the center told you you're only allowed to travel with 3.0 oz in the United States. I'm baffled. I know it should be corrected, for newcomers to the site, but I don't understand why it is such a big issue,"
The information TSA publishes should be corrected not just for newcomers to the TSA site, but for all people who want to follow the rules you set. Subjecting people to secret laws is one mark of a repressive government. Many of our ancestors fought a revolutionary war to break away from such a government.
"whether you bring 3.0, or 3.4 [fluid ounces of liquid to a TSA checkpoint], you're allowed [to carry] both [past the checkpoint]. You're still in no danger of having to abandon the liquid."
No, you're mistaken. As long as the rules are unclear -- hidden from us, in fact -- we will have no choice but to accept whatever rules are described by the TSA bag checker at the checkpoint. We are absolutely incapable of pointing to the actual rules that we are required to follow and saying, "See? These are the things I'm required to do, and I'm doing them, so please step aside so I can go on about my business."
TSA, please show us the rules you require us to follow at the checkpoints you have erected in our airports.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 17, 2009 12:01 PM
kelliemae81 @"Yes. I try to be as helpful as possible with your questions, but I could argue all day with you on this issue. Our job is to notice the unusual and take the necessary steps to clear that item. I don't know the whole story on the homemade battery pack, but lets just say they took it b/c there was no electronic that it went to. Something to that effect could be the reason. If it was taken for no good reason, then yes, it is wrong."
##############################
The battery pack was for "the electronic" described and shown in tsa battery pack story, a DVD player.
So what is the rule? If a perplexed TSO can think up a good excuse, then anything can be confiscated? And where is that rule on the current website?
I don't mind y'all being suspicious, what I do mind is that you can just make things up and then confiscate stuff. Not being secure in my effects is unamerican.
February 17, 2009 2:41 PM
@Anonymous TSO from ORD: You, the passenger always have the option of either checking the item with your checked baggage, handing it off to someone you know isn't flying today, or just voulantarily abandoning it. I see no reason why you couldn't have kept your unlabeled lotion if it was of proper size, if it wasn't proper size you should have had the option to check it. Your crystal deoderant (which I have personally seen at the checkpoint, and properly tested, and let it fly) also should have been let go, or at least checked in your baggage.
In both those cases, my bag was already checked before I got to the checkpoint (which, as far as I know, is how checked baggage always works). I was also traveling alone, so there was nobody I could hand it off to. So that left "just voluntarily abandoning it" as my only option. I think that would be the only option available to nearly any passenger in this situation.
The sunscreen was a one-ounce bottle that fit loosely in my Freedom Baggie, in full compliance with the published rules. But at that particular airport, at that particular checkpoint, at that particular moment, (and perhaps for that particular TSO?) a rule was in effect that was not published, not announced, and not knowable to me in any possible way. That unknowable rule was that my one-ounce bottle was prohibited because it wasn't a manufacturer's labeled bottle. Because I was in violation of that unknowable rule, the TSO demanded that I either "voluntarily surrender" that prohibited item or be denied entry into the sterile area.
I was carrying this bottle in my Freedom Baggie because I believed that doing so was permitted, based on all the information that was available to me. The sunscreen is a hard-to-find titanium dioxide lotion that I use because I've had reactions to the more common chemical sunscreen. I had a full-sized bottle in my checked baggage, but carried the one-ounce bottle so that in case my checked bag was lost or delayed I'd have some time to make the necessary phone calls to locate a new supply (or if necessary have a mail-order vendor FedEx it to me overnight, of course at great expense).
The same situation applied to the deodorant, which is also a hard-to-find item that I need because I'm allergic to the zirconium that is in practically all other deodorants. In this case, since the deodorant is a crystal solid, I believed I would have no trouble with it in my carry-on, again based on all the information that was available to me.
The TSO did not test the deodorant, but brusquely informed me that all deodorant needs to be in the Freedom Baggie. When I protested that the deodorant in question was a solid, he scowled at me and again told me that all deodorant needs to be in a Freedom Baggie. When I asked if I could put it in the Freedom Baggie, he bellowed "No! You'll put it in the bag next time! You'll give it to me now if you want to fly today!" This was surely arrogant bullying, presumably to punish me for my insubordination in challenging his Authority.
It's also important to know that TSA will never be perfect, because... well, people aren't perfect. There's always someone out there who will make a stupid decision. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to improve the way they do things, or improve the training of their officers.
I'm sorry, but I've had two experiences with "stupid decisions," which may well have been "wrongful confiscations." But since whatever rules I violated in those cases were unknown (and unknowable) to me, I also have no way of knowing whether the confiscations were in fact "wrongful" or merely an arbitrary and stupid "rule" that the TSO made up on the spot. In practice, there seems to be no such thing as a "wrongful confiscation," since by definition whatever a TSO does is right. And if I complain enough to cause TSA senior management to take notice, they'll issue a press release praising the TSO for his or her excellent work at protecting aviation.
In the meantime, I carefully washed out a small properly labeled shampoo bottle, in which I now carry my sunscreen. That would seem my only defense against another TSO or airport that imposes an unpublished, unknowable rule that items in the Freedom Baggie have to be officially labeled containers. It only proves that the War on Liquids, at least as it's implemented at some checkpoints, is utterly stupid and does nothing but hassle passengers without improving security. And I put my deodorant in the Freedom Baggie, even though there's absolutely no logical reason to do so, to avoid another TSO who mindlessly enforces an unpublished, unknowable determination that all deodorant is a "liquid." It seems that the only feasible defense against stupidity is to be stupid.
I cringe at the thought of some of the experiences that passengers tell me about from other airports, and try my best to get them through hassle free.
I'm glad someone in the TSA considers the experiences cringe-worthy. But obviously the two TSOs who made what looks to me like idiotic mistakes thought they were doing the right thing. I'm sure many TSOs are as professional and conscientious as you. But since TSA screening is "unpredictable," there no way to know whether I'll get a TSO like you or a mindless bully when it's my turn to be screened.
I've worked in the security field for many years now. Encountered many situations, with many different people. I encourage passengers to not have a negative attitude, or take out their frustrations on officers. Many times (as naive as it may sound) having a positive attitude makes getting through the checkpoint easier, and doesn't seem so bad half the time.
Yes, but after these experiences I find it impossible to have anything other than a negative attitude toward the TSA and its employees. I have good reason to believe that I will again be subject to bone-headed "interpretation" of stupid rules, and be punished for questioning it. Even though I've done everything I could to comply with the rules I'm allowed to know, when I get to a checkpoint I have no way of knowing what rules actually apply to me at that moment, or what items will be confiscated for unknowingly violating them. Yes, I'm afraid of the extremely rare possibility of terrorism. But I'm even more afraid of the rather likely possibility of my own government needlessly confiscating my property or otherwise hassling me in the name of "protection from terrorism."
What I will try to do, however, is to remain as calm and cool as I can if I'm again the victim of a TSO mindlessly enforcing a stupid rule. I'll be properly meek, docile, and respectful, and immediately hand over whatever he or she demands, with respectful understanding even though it makes absolutely no sense to me. And afterwards I'll even thank the TSO for doing such a good job of protecting the Homeland. Some TSOs surely get pleasure from exercising their power to get passengers upset. So I'll at least do whatever I can to deny them that pleasure, since that's the only thing I have any hope of controlling in that situation.
Again, I can only hope that the new DHS and TSA regimes will have a different attitude toward the public and toward the rule of law from the Bush crowd, and that there will thus be less reason to fear being pointlessly hassled. But I'm not holding my breath.
February 17, 2009 5:46 PM
@Anonymous #542: "Sorry that nipple ring thing I love hearing because that is all her fault. She shouldn't get her nipples pierced if she don't know how to take them out. She was a complete idiot obvioulsy for tearing her nipples. TSA needed to clear the area so the passenger had to take the nipple rings out. The passenger took the rings out not TSA, therefore it is her fault."
Oh give me a break!
What, exactly, is the threat to aviation that is contained in a nipple ring?!?!
It should be pretty obvious what was causing the alarm once the ring was showed. Then again, TSA wands bare feet too, so maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
"Clearing the area" sounds like a way of getting a cheap feel.
You blaming the woman here is like blaming a woman who is scantily clad for getting raped. "Yeah, maybe if she didn't dress like a hooker, she wouldn't have gotten raped." It completely discounts the responsibility of the perpetrator who did the wrong thing.
She's well within her right to wear a nipple ring if she so chooses.
I may not be an expert on nipple rings, but common sense tells me that pliers aren't the way to get it off.
Unbelievable.
And you wonder why people don't respect TSA? Case and point right here.
Al
February 18, 2009 3:40 PM
George said...
What I will try to do, however, is to remain as calm and cool as I can if I'm again the victim of a TSO mindlessly enforcing a stupid rule. I'll be properly meek, docile, and respectful, and immediately hand over whatever he or she demands, with respectful understanding even though it makes absolutely no sense to me. And afterwards I'll even thank the TSO for doing such a good job of protecting the Homeland. Some TSOs surely get pleasure from exercising their power to get passengers upset. So I'll at least do whatever I can to deny them that pleasure, since that's the only thing I have any hope of controlling in that situation.
So if you start just doing whatever the officer wants when they are clearly in the wrong that action will never be corrected. I encourage passengers to talk with (not get angry) officers to try and iron out what is the cause of suspicion. Now let us dive into your stories a little more so I can express my views on them.
The unlabled bottle does make it more difficult to judge the size. Officers should use their best judgement in determining the size of an unlabled container and should also probably be more stringent when doing so. To you as a passenger know that your sunscreen really is sunscreen could make you say that a container is much smaller than it really is. From an officers point of view they are looking at the true size of the container and trying to judge the size the best they can. If they can not say that the size is meeting the required 3.4 oz limit then I agree with what they officer did. I have seen lots of passenger take labels off of things and say it is 3 oz when we see containers all the time and sometimes know that the container they have unlabeled is indeed 4.6 oz. When you have an unlabeled container you should know that you are "taking a chance" when it comes to clearing it through security. I hope that all officers just use their best judgement in clearing liquids as such.
Your deodorant goes a little far. It is hard to believe there are officers like that in the field and treat the public like so. Solid deodorant does not need to be in a ziploc bag. The officer should also not of been so abrupt about taking the item from you. In these instances I believe a supervisor or lead should be called. Again don't get worked up about such problems.. try to take the time to settle them right there so corrective action can take place. If you don't win anything at least if the officer knows they did you wrong you can throw some embarrassment on them.
-An LTSO with answers
February 19, 2009 12:12 PM
Someone who signed his comment "An LTSO with answers" (great -- I have questions) wrote:
"The unlabled bottle does make it more difficult to judge the size. Officers should use their best judgement in determining the size of an unlabled container and should also probably be more stringent when doing so."
How much does a label that could have been printed and applied by anyone mean to you when airline security is at stake? You at TSA believe that liquids in individual quantities greater than about 3 fluid ounces are potentially dangerous, right?
What is most significant: the size of a container that contains some liquid, the volume of liquid it can contain, or the volume of liquid that it does contain?
"From an officers point of view they are looking at the true size of the container and trying to judge the size the best they can."
So they're just guessing? When I assemble my belongings for travel, how am I to know how well some TSA luggage inspector will be able to guess the volume of individual containers of my belongings? How am I to know whether I am in compliance with your rules if the rules involve someone playing carnival guessing games at your checkpoints?
"When you have an unlabeled container you should know that you are `taking a chance' when it comes to clearing it through security."
So it is the label you're most concerned with? What, sir or madam, are the criteria by which your colleagues will judge a label trustworthy or untrustworthy? Can the label be hand-written? What if it appears to have been created with a typewriter? What if it looks like it was screen printed, but is rather "amateurish"? What if it looks like it was printed at a factory by Acme Travel Products, but the volume on the label is different than what you have judged the volume of the container to be?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 19, 2009 3:53 PM
Al Ames said: What, exactly, is the threat to aviation that is contained in a nipple ring?!?!
Okay, it's not what they could hide IN a nipple ring, it's what could be hidden there if its not a piercing. For all we know, they could have a detonator there and claim its a piercing. B/c we can not pat down a sensitive area, they are taken to private screening, left alone to remove piercing, then we fully rescreen passenger and private screening area and then they are left alone to put their piercings back on. Do you understand now its not the piercing, its the possibility its something else? Contrary to what alot of you think, we are fully aware that nothing can be hidden inside a nipple ring that can cause harm.
And as a side note, this story has gotten way out of hand. This is what you call "rumor". No TSO visually saw the sensitive area in question and no one touched which means no one ripped out the piercings unless done by the passengers herself.
SDF TSO
February 19, 2009 6:39 PM
RB said:And TSA can afford to place $270,000.00 each MMW Whole Body Imagers at all checkpoints in quanity? A machine that cost 27 times what a WTMD does? A machine that is nothing less than a strip search? A machine that was stated on this very blog would be voluntary? TSA has a problem with the truth!!
--------------------------
Not that the real cost is any better but, where in the world did you get the cost of these machines as $270,000? (they cost $170,000) I was sincerely hoping you made a typographical error but since you said "27 times more", I'm guessing you didn't. This would be one of the examples I spoke of in a previous post of someone taking something and "elaborating" with the sole intention of trying to make TSA look bad. I know we are not the greatest organization, but don't make it worse with rumors.
Here to help (both sides)
SDF TSO
February 19, 2009 7:12 PM
KellyMae81 writes:
And as a side note, this story has gotten way out of hand. This is what you call "rumor". No TSO visually saw the sensitive area in question and no one touched which means no one ripped out the piercings unless done by the passengers herself.
With respect ... you're missing the point of that story.
The passenger in question offered to allow a TSO to visually inspect the piercing, in order to verify that the alarm was only caused by the piercing. Her request was denied, because the SOP would not permit such a voluntary inspection. The only alternative she was given was to remove the piercing, with tools inadequate for the task, and with TSOs snickering nearby.
Afterwards, TSA admitted that the SOPs should allow such voluntary inspections. Unfortunately, the TSOs on duty were required to follow the procedures in place, even when common-sense could have allowed for a much better result.
I am hopeful that TSA's new direction (Engage!, or whatever it's called) will give TSOs the ability to keep situations like this one from occurring.
February 19, 2009 8:02 PM
Jim Huggins said... With respect ... you're missing the point of that story.
The passenger in question offered to allow a TSO to visually inspect the piercing, in order to verify that the alarm was only caused by the piercing. Her request was denied, because the SOP would not permit such a voluntary inspection. The only alternative she was given was to remove the piercing, with tools inadequate for the task, and with TSOs snickering nearby. February 19, 2009 8:02 PM
-----------------
Jim, you are correct that the procedure was changed after the incident. It is extremely simple to ask someone to raise their shirt, but at the time, it wasn't permitted due to privacy reasons. I agree it makes much more since to just let an officer see the ring. With all the flack we've received on the millimeter wave portals, I'm shocked to see that folks are OK with this new procedure.
Maybe it is logical to assume that someone with a piercing in a sensitive area probably wouldn't be too bashful about showing it. :)
As far as the alleged snickering, how would she have even known if the officers were snickering at her? She was inside a private screening area and couldn't see outside. In a situation like she was in where the attention was on her, I understand it would be very easy to assume the snickering was directed at her, but there is no way of really knowing.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
February 19, 2009 9:19 PM
kellymae81 said...
RB said:And TSA can afford to place $270,000.00 each MMW Whole Body Imagers at all checkpoints in quanity? A machine that cost 27 times what a WTMD does? A machine that is nothing less than a strip search? A machine that was stated on this very blog would be voluntary? TSA has a problem with the truth!!
--------------------------
Not that the real cost is any better but, where in the world did you get the cost of these machines as $270,000? (they cost $170,000) I was sincerely hoping you made a typographical error but since you said "27 times more", I'm guessing you didn't. This would be one of the examples I spoke of in a previous post of someone taking something and "elaborating" with the sole intention of trying to make TSA look bad. I know we are not the greatest organization, but don't make it worse with rumors.
Here to help (both sides)
SDF TSO
..............................
I did note that error after posting, my mistake.
So the WBI's or only $170,000 verus the $10,000 or so for a WTMD.
How many of these $170,000 machines would be required? Would there use be voluntary like Nico stated several months ago?
And for the minor mistake in total dollars, it's much like 3 ounces or 3.4 ounces, either one must be correct because TSA uses both numbers.
February 19, 2009 10:06 PM
As far as the alleged snickering, how would she have even known if the officers were snickering at her? She was inside a private screening area and couldn't see outside. In a situation like she was in where the attention was on her, I understand it would be very easy to assume the snickering was directed at her, but there is no way of really knowing.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
........................
Are you claiming that these private screening areas are sound proof?
That tje lady in question could not have heard "snickering'?
February 19, 2009 10:08 PM
Bob writes:
As far as the alleged snickering, how would she have even known if the officers were snickering at her? She was inside a private screening area and couldn't see outside. In a situation like she was in where the attention was on her, I understand it would be very easy to assume the snickering was directed at her, but there is no way of really knowing.
From the description in the CNN article, I'm not sure how "private" the screening area really was. All that was separating her from the rest of the checkpoint was a curtain. This, after her case attracted the attention of two female TSOs, four male TSOs, and a crowd of onlookers, all curious in how this case would be resolved. Frankly, with all the unwanted attention she received up until that point, I'm inclined to give the passenger the benefit of the doubt.
But neither you nor I were there, and neither of us will know for sure. So we may have to agree to disagree and move on.
To bring this back around to the point (What? Reigning in a blog posting? Can't have that ...)
TSA chooses not to publish its rules for passengers, nor its screening procedures. Then something like this incident happens, and there's no way for passengers to know if (a) the TSOs followed the required and appropriate procedure, (b) the TSOs followed the required procedure, which was inappropriate, or (c) the TSOs did not follow the required procedure.
Yes, we know the answer now. But I suspect that we know the answer mainly because the incident became a national news story due to its salacious nature. I'm sure there are other problems with TSA rules and procedures that go undetected by both TSA and passengers, because those actions don't get the same national scrutiny.
There's a principle in software design advocated by Eric S. Raymond: "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." Right now, TSA has to rely on its thousands of employees to find problems with its rules and procedures. By going public, TSA could get hundreds of thousands of passengers to help find more problems. (Just look at the problems we've been able to identify through the short lifetime, and relatively small readership, of this blog.)
February 19, 2009 10:45 PM
I will try to help answer your questions to the best I can. Note some things may be SSI and some things are just above my pay grade. I could give my opinions as such but they would mean nothing to answering your questions.
How much does a label that could have been printed and applied by anyone mean to you when airline security is at stake? You at TSA believe that liquids in individual quantities greater than about 3 fluid ounces are potentially dangerous, right?
A label that I can see was applied and nothing taken off in the first place shows no tampering to the container itself. Granted that is why the best judgement must be made and why such judgement needs to be applied in a more stringent manner. We see containers all the time so we can make some good determinations on container size. Just having the label say the ounce limit on the label it is a better comparison to the size of the bottle.
What is most significant: the size of a container that contains some liquid, the volume of liquid it can contain, or the volume of liquid that it does contain?
This Phil would be my opinion in most cases. This answer you seek I believe needs to come from much higher leadership in TSA. I think this goes into the parts that are classified.
So they're just guessing? When I assemble my belongings for travel, how am I to know how well some TSA luggage inspector will be able to guess the volume of individual containers of my belongings? How am I to know whether I am in compliance with your rules if the rules involve someone playing carnival guessing games at your checkpoints?
We see containers all the time so it is a good guess. Some officers have more experience than others and therefore you will see different results. This is how TSA becomes unpredictable in this policy. You have different discretions working. It is an obvious gray area and is cleared by the human element which is the officer. Security is going to be unpredictable. You will not know every single time that you are in compliance. You have to trust that the officer is using his best judgement at these times.(I know that is hard for some people to do)
So it is the label you're most concerned with? What, sir or madam, are the criteria by which your colleagues will judge a label trustworthy or untrustworthy? Can the label be hand-written? What if it appears to have been created with a typewriter? What if it looks like it was screen printed, but is rather "amateurish"? What if it looks like it was printed at a factory by Acme Travel Products, but the volume on the label is different than what you have judged the volume of the container to be?
It just gives me, when I clear items, a better understanding of a comparison and a discretion call I can make. Sometimes I know a bottles size just by looking at what type of bottle it is. Labels that appear to be "homemade" would be held to a higher scrutiny by me. The fact is people will try to do what they can to keep their items and you can not always trust a label. The human element (officers) will always be able to make a judgement call.
I hope some of my views helps you to better understand reasons we do what we do.
February 20, 2009 9:55 AM
@An LTSO with answers: When you have an unlabeled container you should know that you are "taking a chance" when it comes to clearing it through security. I hope that all officers just use their best judgement in clearing liquids as such.
Perhaps, but the real point is that the published rules about liquid containers say nothing about any requirement for manufacturer's labels. My sunscreen is available only in four-ounce bottles, so it is apparently impossible to comply with this (unpublished) requirement. I put it in a one-ounce bottle in the Freedom Baggie specifically to comply with the rules that were available to the public. But as I found out at the checkpoint, despite my careful effort to comply with the officially published rules I nonetheless was punished for violating an unpublished rule that I could not possibly have known about. Or was I perhaps punished for having "chosen" a TSO who failed to "use their best judgement in clearing liquids as such"? But I can't know that in advance either.
Either way, on what basis could I possibly have asserted that the TSO was doing anything wrong? She was correctly enforcing the rules as they existed at that checkpoint at that time. The fact that I did not know about that rule-- and indeed, that I could not possibly have known about it-- doesn't matter at all. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. She was right. I was wrong. And surely if I had pushed the point any further, I would have faced punishment more severe than having to "voluntarily abandon" my prohibited bottle if I wanted to fly that day. I think all levels of the TSA actually like things that way. The ability to do whatever they want under the cloak of secrecy makes them immune to accountability and impossible to challenge. And you wonder why I and so many other people have such a negative attitude toward the TSA.
In practice, we're all "taking a chance" when it comes to clearing anything through security. When the actual rules that apply at any particular checkpoint at any particular time are unpublished and unknowable, a TSO is empowered to confiscate anything. And there's no way to protest that the TSO is doing something wrong when you don't know (and can't know, and according to Kip must not know) what is right and wrong! Kip always insisted that this unknowable arbitrariness was a "security strategy of unpredictability" that enabled the TSA to provide effective protection of aviation. But I'd bet that for every terrorist who was actually stopped because of the "unpredictability" there were millions of innocent passengers who were needlessly hassled.
Your deodorant goes a little far. It is hard to believe there are officers like that in the field and treat the public like so.
Yes, it goes a little far. But you had better believe there are officers in the field who treat the public like so. They may not be the majority of TSOs, but all it takes is a few stupid bullies to sully the reputation of the entire agency. After all, TSA screening is "unpredictable," and there is no way to know whether the TSO who processes us is a good one or a stupid bully. So I can only assume that they're all stupid bullies until proved otherwise.
Solid deodorant does not need to be in a ziploc bag. The officer should also not of been so abrupt about taking the item from you.
That should be obvious to anyone with a microgram of brain in their head, but it clearly wasn't obvious to the TSO. I believe he was "abrupt" because I made the mistake of insisting that the deodorant was solid. That belief came from the fact that he told me that I will put it in the baggie next time, but this time I'll give it to him (presumably so I'll learn an effective lesson not only about deodorant, but about unquestioning obedience to the TSA). So what would have happened to me if I committed further insubordination by asking for a supervisor?
(My suspicion is that the local supervisor had made some sort of statement in a training session to the effect that all deodorant comes under the War On Liquids and thus needs to be in a Freedom Baggie. Or else this TSO heard or interpreted a less specific statement that way. So he was just mindlessly following what he was told-- or what he thought he was told-- with no common sense at all. When I committed the unforgivable offense of suggesting that he was wrong, he decided I deserved to be punished for it.)
Again don't get worked up about such problems.. try to take the time to settle them right there so corrective action can take place. If you don't win anything at least if the officer knows they did you wrong you can throw some embarrassment on them.
Why does that make me think that if I actually tried to "settle them right there" I'd end up getting strip-searched and/or placed on the list to receive secondary screening every time I fly? Why do I suspect that the officer fully believed that what he did was absolutely appropriate? And why do I suspect that if I somehow managed to "throw some embarrassment on them" I'd end up missing my flight (or worse), after which we'd see a gushing TSA press release praising the officer for his fine work at protecting aviation from the threat of solid deodorant.
We do need to "get worked up about such problems," since they are symptoms of a failed government agency that needs to be fixed. But the airport checkpoint is not the place to do it. Until the agency is fixed, we need to be meek, submissive, respectful little sheep, unquestioningly obedient to whoever is wearing an itchy uniform at airport checkpoints. That's what the TSO taught me when he confiscated my solid deodorant. But that doesn't extend outside the airport, at least for now.
February 20, 2009 1:00 PM
In response to Jim Huggins previous post, I may have misunderstood what was being said in that particular post, but it still has developed into a bad rumor. In response to your other point, I agree somewhat. If a passenger voluntarily agrees to a more invasive and (quicker) method of clearing a sensitive area, technically we could b/c permission has been given. But the passenger still has to be taken to private screening area (we cant go flashing the public, right?) along with their belongings and would still have to be fully screened from the start. So permission is a moot point. Hope this clarifies things.
In response to this comment posted by George about TSO's: So I can only assume that they're all stupid bullies until proved otherwise.
So either you agree that passengers should be treated the same way by TSO's (guilty until proven innocent) or you are a hipocrite. Most on here agree that it is wrong for TSO's to treat passengers that way (and I agree it is too) but then you go and say something like that. If TSA and the traveling public want to start working together instead of against each other, then we ALL need to make the efforts to treat each other respectfully.
Here to help
SDF TSO
February 20, 2009 5:54 PM
@SDF TSO: In response to this comment posted by George about TSO's: So I can only assume that they're all stupid bullies until proved otherwise. So either you agree that passengers should be treated the same way by TSO's (guilty until proven innocent) or you are a hipocrite. Most on here agree that it is wrong for TSO's to treat passengers that way (and I agree it is too) but then you go and say something like that.
I most certainly do agree that it is wrong for TSOs to treat passengers that way. But my statement reflects the fact that TSOs do treat passengers that way. Certainly not all TSOs, but enough of them to give me valid reason to expect that kind of treatment when I get to a checkpoint. I have already explained why.
And even when I am pleasantly surprised at receiving respectful treatment, the fact is that the entire approach to mass airport screening is indeed based on the assumption that everyone is guilty until the expert screening process either proves them innocent or provides the TSA with another press release crowing about their latest Grest Success in finding drugs or cash.
That's not hypocritical at all. The important difference, of course, is that if a TSO is a stupid bully who does something wrong to me, there is nothing I can do about it. They have the authority to do whatever they want, including confiscating my property for violating some rule that I don't know, can't know, and must not know lest the Enemy also know it. Conversely, if I fail to show the TSO the correct meek submissive demeanor, and treat them with unquestioning respect and obedience, they have absolute authority to impose sanctions ranging from the unnecessary confiscation of my solid deodorant to "rendition" to Syria for outsourced torture. And no redress is available for any of it. Does that inherent imbalance allow any kind of mutual respect?
If TSA and the traveling public want to start working together instead of against each other, then we ALL need to make the efforts to treat each other respectfully.
Absolutely true. But that won't be possible as long as the TSA is run by people who have contempt for both the traveling public and the rule of law, and who believe that accountability is incompatible with security. As long as the TSA continues to insist that passengers must not know what rules they're subject to being punished for violating, mutual respect is not possible. And in the absence of mutual respect, effective security is not possible either.
February 20, 2009 7:17 PM
Ok George I want to blog a little more.
Perhaps, but the real point is that the published rules about liquid containers say nothing about any requirement for manufacturer's labels. My sunscreen is available only in four-ounce bottles, so it is apparently impossible to comply with this (unpublished) requirement. I put it in a one-ounce bottle in the Freedom Baggie specifically to comply with the rules that were available to the public. But as I found out at the checkpoint, despite my careful effort to comply with the officially published rules I nonetheless was punished for violating an unpublished rule that I could not possibly have known about. Or was I perhaps punished for having "chosen" a TSO who failed to "use their best judgement in clearing liquids as such"? But I can't know that in advance either.
George, there is not an "unwritten rule" about unlabeled containers. It is something that we just do because obviously something like that needs a closer look. It is the human element in TSA taking advantage to a situation. There is not a rule for everything that will happen at a checkpoint. We, as I have said before, are not robots. I do not know the size of the bottle so I can not say what is right or wrong. What I can say is that unlabeled containers with liquid in them will be held to higher scrutiny if they appear to be oversized. You were not "punished" I hope. We are not out to get you. If you feel that way then I am sorry.
In practice, we're all "taking a chance" when it comes to clearing anything through security. When the actual rules that apply at any particular checkpoint at any particular time are unpublished and unknowable, a TSO is empowered to confiscate anything.
I have been reading about all of this list of rules everyone wants lately. I am new to the blog so I am trying to catch up. I have read some before I started posting.(Had to prepare myself for the public responses and make time for commenting) In my view, there really are not many rules. This list people are seeking will not be a list of rule but will be like you see all the time, helpful hints and tips to go through security. A TSO can not confiscate anything. Also a TSO can not just say something is prohibited because he "thinks so". There better be some reasoning to back his views up. Most of the time more than one head is in the huddle if you will see my analogy.
So what would have happened to me if I committed further insubordination by asking for a supervisor?
You could atleast asked for a higher officials opinion which would be a lead or a supervisor. The key here is not to be angry with the TSO. I do not like when people act like crazy people in a checkpoint. It will influence a decision. Just as if you are not cooperative with a LEO for something it will influence the judge's decision. The point I am making is atleast you could get another opinion. Even from another officer could help you know that the call being made is more reasonable.
Why does that make me think that if I actually tried to "settle them right there" I'd end up getting strip-searched and/or placed on the list to receive secondary screening every time I fly?
That list does not work like that. We again are not out to get you. I find humor into your replies. *smirk*
I can not post replies in a timely manner. I will try to keep up though.
February 20, 2009 7:41 PM
LTSO-With-Answers writes:
Also a TSO can not just say something is prohibited because he "thinks so".
Sorry ... TSA's published documents disagree with you:
"Transportation security officers (TSOs) may determine that an item not on the prohibited items chart
is prohibited. In addition, the TSO may also determine that
an item on the permitted chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the security checkpoint."
In short: If the TSO thinks an item is dangerous, (s)he can prohibit it --- just because (s)he "thinks so".
See, this is why some of us here are clamoring for a definitive set of rules. When TSA employees make statements that directly contradict what few TSA documents we can find, we don't know who to believe.
KellyMae81 writes:
If TSA and the traveling public want to start working together instead of against each other, then we ALL need to make the efforts to treat each other respectfully.
With all due respect, I wish TSA would drop the "let's all work together" public relations line. To say that TSOs and passengers should "work together" implies that TSOs and passengers both have equal power in the relationship. And that's simply not the case. If a TSO and a passenger have a dispute over whether or not a given item is prohibited, the TSO wins, period.
And this power differential is intentional. Otherwise, why would TSA insist that its employees wear a uniform and a badge, which give every impression that the employee bears authority that others do not have?
When power is differentially distributed, responsibility for the relationship is similarly distributed. It's unfair to imply that TSOs and passengers have to contribute equally to the relationship, when the TSOs hold most (if not all) of the power.
February 21, 2009 1:14 AM
In short: If the TSO thinks an item is dangerous, (s)he can prohibit it --- just because (s)he "thinks so".
See, this is why some of us here are clamoring for a definitive set of rules. When TSA employees make statements that directly contradict what few TSA documents we can find, we don't know who to believe.
Jim Huggins, please read where I said most of the time more heads are in the huddle. It is usually a joint effort than just a single person making the call that a homemade battery is prohibited(an example). There will never be a list that is precise on all prohibited items. Clearly things are invented, artfully concealed to be used as weapons, and well homemade. The all inclusive list of prohibited items you seek will never be created.
February 21, 2009 9:42 AM
TSA is like most other large bureaucracies- there is no adult in charge, so you are at the mercy of screeners getting paid $12 an hour and expected to follow ambiguous and often ludicrous rules. I think most of them try to do a good job- unfortunately there are a few who are 'wanna-be' cops and make you suffer for their inability to get a real law enforcement job- like the one who threw away my perfume because it was in a 3.5 ounce container and it had to be 3.4 ounces (even though it was less than half full) or the one who screamed at me to lay my bag 'flat side down' and when I replied that the bag was square and it didn't have a 'flat side' his little fat face got very red and he reminded me that I could be arrested for what I just said..TSA has made flying so miserable that I now fly less than 10k miles year as opposed to the 100k plus from a few years ago.
February 21, 2009 12:24 PM
ms_snark typed...
like the one who threw away my perfume because it was in a 3.5 ounce container and it had to be 3.4 ounces (even though it was less than half full)
Ok so you were out of compliance. The policy is 3.4 NOT 3.5. If they let 3.5 oz containers go all the time they might as well change the policy to 3.5 oz. You have to draw the line somewhere so I don't think you have much of an argument here. I'm sure there is some super secret reason why liquids are still prohibited if only half full and clearly under the limit. Me just using my brain could say a chemical was already mixed in the amount of that container leaving enough space for another chemical to put in the same container causing a chemical reaction. Only problem is it is very unlikely to happen because you need lab settings for that but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
or the one who screamed at me to lay my bag 'flat side down' and when I replied that the bag was square and it didn't have a 'flat side' his little fat face got very red and he reminded me that I could be arrested for what I just said..
That officer should of been booted out of the door for saying something like that. TSA screeners should NEVER talk about arrest because they don't know what they are talking about.
-James
February 23, 2009 9:49 AM
LTSO With Answers writes:
Most of the time more heads are in the huddle. It is usually a joint effort than just a single person making the call that a homemade battery is prohibited(an example)..
First, there's a big difference between "most of the time"/"usually" and "always". There are plenty of reports throughout the blog of TSOs who have made these decisions individually, without any right of appeal. If the TSO says it doesn't go, it's done.
Not that group work does any better, of course. Why couldn't (at least) three TSA employees resolve the DVD battery incident, where the passenger was denied the item even after it was determined not to be a threat? Why couldn't six TSA employees, all gathered together, figure out how to handle nipple-gate without causing a national incident?
There will never be a list that is precise on all prohibited items. Clearly things are invented, artfully concealed to be used as weapons, and well homemade. The all inclusive list of prohibited items you seek will never be created.
Then, with all due respect, the TSA should stop asking passengers to "know the rules". If TSA isn't willing to tell passengers the rules, or even the means by why TSOs are going to determine what the rules are, then you're going to create situations where well-meaning, law-abiding citizens will be deprived of their property, without any knowledge of the reason why. And that creates conflict.
Look, I'm a reasonably competent person. If TSA tells me that certain items I might want to carry with me are going to cause me problems at the checkpoint because they resemble explosives, I can take that into account when I pack my bag. (Unless I'm greatly mistaken, that's behind the TSA SimplyFly campaign.)
But TSA doesn't really think of me as a partner in the process. It sees me, and every other passenger who approaches the checkpoint, as a potential threat to aviation. Maybe that's the way it has to be. But if so ... then let's be honest about it, and quit trying to cover over it with glossy brochures and catchy slogans.
February 23, 2009 10:48 AM
James quoted ms_snark:
"like the one who threw away my perfume because it was in a 3.5 ounce container and it had to be 3.4 ounces (even though it was less than half full)"
James then wrote:
"Ok so you were out of compliance. The policy is 3.4 NOT 3.5. If they let 3.5 oz containers go all the time they might as well change the policy to 3.5 oz."
James, your statement was ambiguous. Although I cannot know your policy because you refuse to show it to me, I would guess that your policy is neither "3.4" nor "3.5". I would guess that it is something involving the words "3.4 fluid ounces of liquid" or "any amount of liquid contained in a vessel whose volume is no more than 3.5 fluid ounces."
Could you please clarify? The woman says she had about 1.7 fluid ounces of liquid in a half-full container that was labeled to indicate that it once contained 3.5 fluid ounces. Were she to walk through your checkpoint with her 1.7 fluid ounces of perfume in a glass bottle in a clear, plastic, 1-quart, resealable bag, would she be violation of your rules, or not?
If so, please direct us to the authoritative source of that rule -- the one which she could have used in order to ensure her compliance with your rule and thus to avoid being hassled by her government. If she did something wrong, it's very likely that she did so because you refused to tell her ahead of time that it was wrong. We're not talking about a trip to the local pool, here. When she (apparently?) violated your rule, she was given the choice of either having her property seized or having her freedom of movement restricted.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
February 23, 2009 11:40 AM
James wrote "That officer should of been booted out of the door for saying something like that. TSA screeners should NEVER talk about arrest because they don't know what they are talking about."
What 'should' happen is very different from what actually happens at TSA.
February 23, 2009 12:06 PM
@LTSO with Answers: What I can say is that unlabeled containers with liquid in them will be held to higher scrutiny if they appear to be oversized..... A TSO can not confiscate anything. Also a TSO can not just say something is prohibited because he "thinks so". There better be some reasoning to back his views up. Most of the time more than one head is in the huddle if you will see my analogy.
In both of the situation I described, there was only one head in the huddle. It was one TSO who made the immediate decision to confiscate. With the one-ounce bottle of sunscreen in the Freedom Baggie, the TSO just pointed to the bottle and told me it was prohibited because it wasn't in a manufacturer's labeled container. When I started tell her it was a one-ounce bottle, she said "You'll take that out now if you want to fly today." No scrutiny, no reasoning, no checking of its actual size. She made it very clear that an Official Rule was in effect that that containers in the Freedom Baggie must be in manufacturer's labeled containers without regard to their size. And she punished me for violating that rule by insisting that I "voluntarily abandon" the prohibited item.
And by the way, the public report from the GAO's 2007 audit of the TSA specifically noted one TSO who confiscated an unlabeled shampoo bottle, even though there was no rule requiring bottles to be labeled. Of course, that TSO didn't find the bomb-making materials the undercover auditor was carrying. None of them did. Perhaps they were too busy looking for unlabeled shampoo bottles?
You were not "punished" I hope. We are not out to get you. If you feel that way then I am sorry.
You may not consider confiscation (or a request to "voluntarily abandon" an item if I want to fly today) as "punishment." But I think most anyone else would. I violated a rule-- never mind that it's a rule I couldn't know about-- and I thus have to forfeit the prohibited item. That's punishment by any definition.
No, I don't think you're "out to get me." But you (i.e., the TSA) are causing me needed inconvenience and expense by enforcing a "rule" that I could not know about. Or, if TSOs are merely supposed to give greater "scrutiny" to unlabeled bottles because of the difficulty of determining their size, this TSO either wasn't doing her job or was hassling me because it's easier than doing what she was supposed to do. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
The point I am making is atleast you could get another opinion. Even from another officer could help you know that the call being made is more reasonable.
And when the TSO cuts off my insolent challenge to her Authority (i.e., attempting to explain that the bottle is one ounce) with "You'll take that out now if you want to fly today," do you really think my next step should be to further challenge her Authority by asking for another officer or a supervisor? In theory, I should have that right because the TSO respects both me and the procedures. In practice, I'm afraid to assert that right because the TSO has made it clear that I've already stepped out of line, and I don't know what the procedures are anyway.
That list does not work like that. We again are not out to get you. I find humor into your replies. *smirk*
I have no idea how the watch lists work because the people who maintain them insist that they have to be shouded in secrecy so the Enemy can's undermine their effectiveness. What I do know is that the lists are enormous, there is no accountability for how names get on the list, and once you're on the list (rightly or wrongly) it means more hassles for life. The entire approach to Homeland Security is based on making the public fearful and intimidated. So why should you be surprised (and criticize me no less) if I'm fearful and intimidated? It's exactly what your bosses want, and it is effective!
As for the "humor," I now have little doubt that you take great pleasure in laughing and smirking at the foolishness and stupidity of all those disrespectful members of traveling public you have to deal with on your job. As with everything else the TSA does, your attempts to be helpful are merely making the problem worse. And you wonder why we have no respect for you and your agency.
It is usually a joint effort than just a single person making the call that a homemade battery is prohibited(an example).
As I said, in both of my instances of unjustified confiscation, there was only a single person making the call. And in both cases, the call was made quickly, mindlessly, and robotically, without even an attempt to examine the items more closely. And when I tried to explain, they saw it as a challenge to the Authority and demanded that I surrender the item if I wanted to fly. Again, what you describe sounds good in theory, and may even be standard practice. But based on what I experience, there's a major gap between theory and the way it's (sometimes?) implemented at checkpoints. And since it's all shrouded in secrecy, there's no way for any of us to know whether they're violating any rules or procedures. Which is the whole point.
The key here is not to be angry with the TSO. I do not like when people act like crazy people in a checkpoint. It will influence a decision.
I was not angry. I was not crazy. I calmly stated my belief that I was following the rules as I understood them. But those TSOs apparently saw that as insolence, insubordination, or an inappropriate challenge to their Authority, which probably influenced their decision. The last thing you want to do under such circumstances is to ask for another officer or supervisor. The lesson is to be meek, submissive, and respectful of their Authority to confiscate anything they want just because they feel like it. They may not officially have that Authority, but in practice they act as if they do. I have good reason to be "angry with the TSO." But there's nothing else I can do about it. I'm sure you find that very humorous.
February 23, 2009 12:10 PM
James- I know that I 'was out of compliance' but my point is that most of the rules are just idiotic, they are placebos thrown at the public to make them feel safe. Removing shoes, 3.5 ounce bottle is dangerous, but 3.4 isn't? taking a laptop out of it's case; those are just plain silly the problem is that most citizens don't question it so the govt gets away with alot of nonsense to give an illusion of security- because they know they don't have a clue as to how to prevent another 911.
February 23, 2009 12:27 PM
Secretary Napolitano Issues Bold Efficiency Review Initiative...
TSA is top heavy...
efficiency should start in administration offices..
deputies, assitant deputies,deputy assistants, assistants to assitants,etc
...hey why not have a 3 hour meeting to see what you can do with your time..catered of course.
February 24, 2009 9:02 AM
@ms_snark: Removing shoes, 3.5 ounce bottle is dangerous, but 3.4 isn't? taking a laptop out of it's case....
Actually, a number of the rules that apply at checkpoints aren't intended to directly protect aviation. They exist strictly to make the TSO's job easier and to speed the flow of passengers through the checkpoints. That's why you have to take the laptop out of the case, liquids have to be in Freedom Baggies, and a 3.5-ounce container is Prohibited even it contains half an ounce of liquid. From that perspective, those rules make sense even though they seem arbitrary and cause a lot of inconvenience and confusion. And they're pretty clearly defined for those who take the time to know them and follow them. The TSA is under competing pressures to protect aviation and not unduly delay passengers, so it's understandable that they would have rules and procedures that help them speed up the screening process (even if they expose passengers to the risk of theft or damage to their property-- that's not the TSA's concern anyway).
The real problem is when TSOs impose additional "rules" that aren't published, and consequently confiscate innocuous items for violating those "rules." Although I can't know the actual reason behind those "rules" (Kip would probably have spewed forth some official double-talk about how the local TSA authorities are always responding to the very latest classified "robust intelligence"), I suspect that much of it is individual TSOs trying to make their own job easier, at the passenger's expense. It's easier just to automatically confiscate all unlabeled bottles in Freedom Baggies rather than wasting all that time "scrutinizing" them as they're theoretically supposed to do. And it's easier to just confiscate all solid deodorant if it's not in a Freedom Baggie than to waste all that time determining if it's actually a solid or a "gel."
When the rules are vague or secret, there's no process for appealing a TSO's decision, and even the published rules give TSOs unlimited discretion to confiscate anything they decide is "dangerous," they have every incentive to do things the quick and easy way rather than the right way. And if the passenger protests, it's quicker and easier to bully them into submission rather than shutting down the line to call in a supervisor. (And how do you argue with a supervisor anyway when the procedures they're supposed to be following are secret, and even the published rules give TSOs unlimited discretion to decide that something is "dangerous"?)
Obviously not all TSOs work that way, but the TSA's culture of unaccountability and the pressure to reduce cycle time surely encourages some of them to behave that way. Again, all it takes is a few who do behave that way to make passengers very angry, and to give the entire TSA a bad reputation. TSOs like "LTSO with Answers" can tell us all about how the TSA is theoretically supposed to work, and then smirk and sneer at our ignorance of their secrets. But in practice, many passengers can cite many examples of theory being entirely at odds with what they experience at checkpoints.
I'll respectfully disagree with the smirking LTSO with Answers. We should get very angry at the TSA for allowing (and probably encouraging) the obvious disconnect between their well-spun sweet talk and what happens to us at checkpoints. And we can hope that the new Secretary and TSA Administrator are more responsive (and effective) than their predecessors.
February 24, 2009 11:25 AM
But TSA doesn't really think of me as a partner in the process. It sees me, and every other passenger who approaches the checkpoint, as a potential threat to aviation. Maybe that's the way it has to be. But if so ... then let's be honest about it, and quit trying to cover over it with glossy brochures and catchy slogans.
Jim Huggins the only reason why the security process feels like everyone is treated like a criminal is because there is no face to terrorism. That is the best reason I can think of. Because of that reason everyone(even the elderly) have to go through the same security measures to be cleared through. I think we are honest about it. There is no harm in asking a question at the airport. There are some things we can not tell you but there are also many things that we can tell you. The slogans by the way are to help people try to remember a procedure.
February 24, 2009 5:36 PM
Phil said...
Could you please clarify? The woman says she had about 1.7 fluid ounces of liquid in a half-full container that was labeled to indicate that it once contained 3.5 fluid ounces. Were she to walk through your checkpoint with her 1.7 fluid ounces of perfume in a glass bottle in a clear, plastic, 1-quart, resealable bag, would she be violation of your rules, or not?
Well I can't really clarify I just know as much as you. I do not work for TSA. The fact I was making is there is a rule and if you try to squeeze by you would still be out of compliance. So yes I think if TSA wanted to hassle someone because they didn't have one measly bottle in a zip loc bag they would be able to. Obviously the rule is 3.? ounces in a zip loc bag that is quart size. Does it make them look like idiots when they are that strict to a rule? I think it does, but they are still within reason to stop you to tell you how it should be done I guess.
-James
February 24, 2009 5:43 PM
And when the TSO cuts off my insolent challenge to her Authority (i.e., attempting to explain that the bottle is one ounce) with "You'll take that out now if you want to fly today," do you really think my next step should be to further challenge her Authority by asking for another officer or a supervisor? In theory, I should have that right because the TSO respects both me and the procedures. In practice, I'm afraid to assert that right because the TSO has made it clear that I've already stepped out of line, and I don't know what the procedures are anyway.
It is tough to know which road to go down sometimes. A TSO like this just has bad interpersonal skills. Bad customer service. Saying "or else you can't fly" is very negative and no one wants to hear that.
As for the "humor," I now have little doubt that you take great pleasure in laughing and smirking at the foolishness and stupidity of all those disrespectful members of traveling public you have to deal with on your job. As with everything else the TSA does, your attempts to be helpful are merely making the problem worse. And you wonder why we have no respect for you and your agency.
False. I do try to help people. Some people really are not open to hearing another view or opionion about something and they try to close up any conversation about an issue. Nothing is one sided but many people I do deal with in my job think that one sided way and will never understand a reasoning for something. I think it is like that mostly because there is very little a passenger can do to "prove" to me that they are correct in an argument involving a procedure or that an item is clear. A passenger is already in the mindset that he is cleared before he even goes through security because he knows that he is not dangerous.
As I said, in both of my instances of unjustified confiscation, there was only a single person making the call. And in both cases, the call was made quickly, mindlessly, and robotically, without even an attempt to examine the items more closely. And when I tried to explain, they saw it as a challenge to the Authority and demanded that I surrender the item if I wanted to fly. Again, what you describe sounds good in theory, and may even be standard practice. But based on what I experience, there's a major gap between theory and the way it's (sometimes?) implemented at checkpoints. And since it's all shrouded in secrecy, there's no way for any of us to know whether they're violating any rules or procedures. Which is the whole point.
Okay I need to try to say it in a different way. Situations are different. The "huddle" approach is for an item more like the homemade battery. Something like a container of liquid that is unlabeled will usually be cleared by just the officer depending on the situation. What you see as a passenger is probably a quick check and a mindless decision when as an officer we deal with these kinds of issues many times and can make a fairly quick determination. I know it seems like I am defending the scenario that you mentioned. I am not defending it. I can not speak about that sunscreen issues only because I do not have hard facts about it. I can only speak of what I usually do and hope I can try to get through with the public on clearing some things up. We as TSA and you as the public will see things from different ends on any issue.
I was not angry. I was not crazy. I calmly stated my belief that I was following the rules as I understood them. But those TSOs apparently saw that as insolence, insubordination, or an inappropriate challenge to their Authority, which probably influenced their decision. The last thing you want to do under such circumstances is to ask for another officer or supervisor. The lesson is to be meek, submissive, and respectful of their Authority to confiscate anything they want just because they feel like it. They may not officially have that Authority, but in practice they act as if they do. I have good reason to be "angry with the TSO." But there's nothing else I can do about it. I'm sure you find that very humorous.
I do not find it humorous. It really hurts me to know that there are many widespread officers that treat passengers like they are above them. It is a speed bump I really know that it is. It is a hard problems to overcome. The only way to fix things like this is good leadership and mentoring for officers so these problems do not arise.
February 24, 2009 6:02 PM
And we can hope that the new Secretary and TSA Administrator are more responsive (and effective) than their predecessors.
I just want to say something because I thought of it. There will be changes to TSA with this new administration in place, but it will not be solely the new administration making changes. There was already ideas in place to make security what it should of been when first rolled out by the TSA. What is making this better over the next few years will be the technology that we are going to be using. The new AT X-rays and the changes in procedures that those will give will be enough of a change just from that one piece of technology for everyone to think that the new administration changed TSA. TSA was planning this before new leadership was put into place.
February 24, 2009 6:09 PM
re: Anonymous said...
ms_snark typed...
like the one who threw away my perfume because it was in a 3.5 ounce container and it had to be 3.4 ounces (even though it was less than half full)
Ok so you were out of compliance. The policy is 3.4 NOT 3.5.
...................................
Are you really sure that 3.4oz is the current policy?
Would TSA lie to the public?
The official TSA Website states 3.0oz of liquids. Signage in airports states 3.0oz and audio messages in airports state 3.0oz as does the TSA Contact Center.
Surely you would not call your TSA Bosses liars would you?
So if they are providing correct information to the public by these several means then 3.4oz cannot possibly be the correct policy.
The only other option is that TSA is telling the public lies.
February 24, 2009 7:59 PM
For that matter, what do you personally do when you see a colleague behaving badly? Do you report it to your superiors? Do your superiors encourage reporting bad behavior, or are you afraid of losing your job? Are the answers to those questions SSI?
February 25, 2009 12:41 PM
@ LTSO with Answers: A TSO like this just has bad interpersonal skills. Bad customer service. Saying "or else you can't fly" is very negative and no one wants to hear that.
Here we go again with the giant disconnect between theory and practice. You're absolutely correct in your assessment of those TSOs. But the fact that they remain at checkpoints dishing out "bad customer service" can only suggest that the TSA's leadership doesn't actually care about "bad interpersonal skills," and does nothing to either discourage them or improve their skills. For all I know, the people in Washington might actually equate bullying with Effective Security. And, as we've consistently seen, when the "bad interpersonal skills" lead to a confrontation that merits attention in the press, the TSA's leadership invariably stands behind the TSO.
And it makes me laugh when I hear someone at the TSA talk about "customer service." Security screening unavoidably has to be based on the assumption that everyone who passes through the checkpoint is a terrorist (or is carrying drugs, cash, or unlabeled sunscreen) until the screening process has conclusively established that they aren't carrying anything prohibited. In other words, "guilty until proved innocent." If you're going to have mass screening, there is no other way to do it. You can sugar-coat and spin it any way you want, but the fact is that we're not "customers" but "potential terrorists," at least until we've cleared the checkpoint (possibly without some of our property). That's the TSA's mission, after all.
False. I do try to help people. Some people really are not open to hearing another view or opionion about something and they try to close up any conversation about an issue.
Without having ever met you, I can only assume that you indeed do try to help people. But obviously the TSOs who needlessly confiscated my sunscreen and deodorant were "not open to hearing another view or opinion," and they very effectively closed up the conversation by demanding that I "voluntarily abandon" those items. What can I realistically do in that situation?
I think it is like that mostly because there is very little a passenger can do to "prove" to me that they are correct in an argument involving a procedure or that an item is clear.
Bingo! The TSO is always right. The passenger is always wrong. Meekly and respectfully forfeit the item, or turn around and forfeit the trip. It's a lose-lose situation, especially when it's an item that to anyone other than that TSO at that moment is no threat to aviation and is clearly permitted according to all the "official" information available to the passenger. Some passengers in this situation, God bless them, may just shrug, smile, make themselves a cheery little note to stop at the store to buy a replacement when they get to their destination, and forget about it. They may even be glad and grateful that the TSA is obviously so careful and thorough about keeping them safe. But others just get angry at what is clearly an arbitrary and pointless hassle.
A passenger is already in the mindset that he is cleared before he even goes through security because he knows that he is not dangerous.
And that mindset may well be justified if the passenger took the time to study the published rules and to follow them to the best of his ability. A passenger who does this, but upon reaching the checkpoint is given the choice of forfeiting his property or forfeiting his trip, may have good reason to be upset. Especially since, as you note, there is nothing he can do about it because the TSO is always right. Short of spending a lot of money to FedEx our belongings, there's really no way to be certain that any item will be permitted by a particular TSO. It becomes a crapshoot, with strong emphasis on the first syllable. Can you perhaps now understand why I have a negative opinion of the TSA?
We as TSA and you as the public will see things from different ends on any issue.
Yes, that's very clear. And that's why any sweet words about "customer service" and "partnership" are inherently meaningless. In practice, the TSO wields the stick. The passenger either meekly submits and unquestioningly obeys or turns around and goes home. The truly sad thing is that while I can clearly see how the TSA causes passengers incalculable cost and inconvenience, I can't see how it provides anything like effective security. Every published report of GAO and DOT undercover audits that I've seen consistently suggests that it's not effective.
It really hurts me to know that there are many widespread officers that treat passengers like they are above them. It is a speed bump I really know that it is. It is a hard problems to overcome. The only way to fix things like this is good leadership and mentoring for officers so these problems do not arise.
Yes, it hurts you both literally and figuratively. Taking you at your word that you're a highly professional TSO who respects passengers and tries to help them, your colleagues with the "bad interpersonal skills" are harming both you and your agency. Because of what I've experienced, if I'm lucky enough to get you as the TSO who screens me, I will have reason to assume that you'll treat me just like the bullies. I will have no idea what you'll decide is "dangerous" or what unknown "rule" you'll punish me for violating. And I'll be maximally stressed as I try to put on a meek, submissive, and obedient demeanor that the bullies have taught me to assume, even though I'm seething inside. And on top of that, I have to worry about some BDO who sees my conflicted resentment as an "alarm."
That's more than a mere "speed bump." It's inexcusable, and a good reason to be angry. Certainly "good leadership and mentoring" is more likely to solve the problem than anything else. Unfortunately, it seems that there is a lack of both at that TSA. Even assuming the new leadership wants to improve things and takes affirmative steps, it will take time to work its way down the bureaucracy and "correct" all the bullies who give the agency a bad name. Until then, the only thing passengers can do is to avoid flying. But too often that's just not possible.
February 26, 2009 12:24 AM
LTSO With Answers writes:
The only reason why the security process feels like everyone is treated like a criminal is because there is no face to terrorism. That is the best reason I can think of. Because of that reason everyone(even the elderly) have to go through the same security measures to be cleared through. I think we are honest about it.
Yes, and no.
I think there's a tone in much of TSA's press releases and public communications that tries to portray passengers and TSOs as "equals" in the screening process. For example, here's a quote from Kip Hawley:
TSA's highly trained security officers are there to help you reach your destination safely. By coming prepared to the checkpoint, travelers can improve their own experience and get through the screening process securely and efficiently.
There's an implicit promise in statements like this: if you just "come prepared to the checkpoint", you'll get through without difficulties. But as we've seen many times, "coming prepared" to the checkpoint is no guarantee of smooth sailing. And when TSA creates this expectation, but then violates it because of some unpublished rule, or because a TSO fails to follow the published or unpublished rules, passengers become understandably upset. And, as TSA admits itself, creating a calmer checkpoint experience is in everyone's best interest.
I think TSA would be better served by shifting its tone in its public communications slightly. Something like this:
"In order to ensure everyone's safety, we have to search every passenger and their belongings for items which could be used to harm other people or property. We acknowledge that this process is intrusive, inconvenient, and uncomfortable. We pledge to conduct this process as efficiently and professionally as possible.
"We ask that you be aware of the most common permitted and prohibited items posted on our website, and pack your carry-ons neatly so that we can quickly determine that you aren't carrying any prohibited items. However, we still may have to refuse you access to some of your personal items if we judge that they could be used as a weapon. We realize this is uncomfortable, and we appreciate your understanding."
See the difference in tone?
[Yes, I'm a dreamer ...]
February 27, 2009 9:19 AM
twic what a joke
March 2, 2009 6:55 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home