From Obscurity to Oprah
A few weeks ago, I started what began as a normal day. I got up and got ready for work just as I would any other day. I'm a Behavior Detection Officer at TSA, working behind the scenes in airport security. Just before leaving my house, I noticed a message on my cell phone and checked it. Shortly thereafter, my day would be anything but normal. It was a call from TSA public affairs saying that they wanted me to fly to Chicago to tape a minute segment for the Oprah Winfrey Show. After a few moments of thinking "this must be some kind of joke," I called the office only to find out that it was very real. Six hours later, I was boarding a plane on my way to Chicago.
There were thunderstorms and traffic was horrible. We almost missed the meeting. Finally, discussions with the producers at Harpo studios made the trip worthwhile. Instead of a pre-recorded segment, they invited me to return to participate in taping the show with Oprah!
The issue of the episode: "Is America changing from the land of the free to the land of the rude?" Now granted, I am certain that we can all share some doozies - TSO's and passengers alike - but I can only speak for myself. Are we moving farther away from civility? Is rudeness the rule versus the exception? I had the opportunity to share my experiences as a uniformed transportation security and behavior detection officer. The episode will air tomorrow, Wednesday, October 15.
It was a wonderful experience that I will never forget. I hope the show sheds some light for people - it has certainly made me more aware of my actions and I hope it will do the same for others. As a result, I will try even harder to be kinder, gentler, and above all else, choose to be civil.
If you have the chance to watch the episode tomorrow - passengers and TSA officers - check back to the blog and share your thoughts. This could be an interesting dialogue to improve how we interact at the checkpoint.
Stephanie
Guest EoS Blogger
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
2:27 PM
Subscribe in a reader
121 Comments:
For those of us who don't have TV access during the day ... is there any sort of online link to the episode, where we could view it at a later time?
October 14, 2008 4:01 PM
I am looking forward to seeing it! I will be working while the show airs, but I am hoping to see the summary at least on Oprah's website. Let us know if it will be online at all if you can.
October 14, 2008 4:09 PM
Yeah Stephanie. Granted I didn't get to see this, but it's nice to see someone from my airport.
October 14, 2008 4:22 PM
I don't think America is changing from the land of the free to the land of the rude. I do think it is changing from the land of the free to the land of the suspected, untrusted, and closely monitored.
I'm tired of people being guilty until proven innocent. I'm tired of people who are critical of our government being labeled a "terrorist sympathiser." I am tired of government agencies, like the TSA, screwing up and not being held accountable.
October 14, 2008 4:28 PM
I sure hope it was Oprah's production company and not my tax dollars that paid for you to fly cross country to do this.
October 14, 2008 4:44 PM
You're rude to those who don't respect you. I honestly can't remember the last time I truly felt respected among the last 70+ times I've flown since 9/11.
October 14, 2008 4:58 PM
There are too many rude people all together. I call people out all the time even when I'm not flying. If a screener is rude, I call it like I see it and they usually back off. If somebody is being rude to a screener I speak up and tell them to pipe down and keep the line moving. In my many years of traveling, this has worked like a charm. Man up people. Don't allow people to be rude to you or others. We all can be the politeness police!!!!!!! ;)
October 14, 2008 4:59 PM
A Behavior Detection Officer at TSA, working behind the scenes in airport security? Are you kidding me?!
What kind of “behavior” are your detecting lady? I know for a fact that you have not detected me, nor I doubt anyone with any level of professionalism.
If someone wants to get something on a plane, you are not going to be the one to prevent them. I would love to know what your job was before this.
October 14, 2008 5:17 PM
Jim Huggins said... For those of us who don't have TV access during the day ... is there any sort of online link to the episode, where we could view it at a later time?
October 14, 2008 4:01 PM
___________________________________
Hey Jim... I've just been googling and the only legal Oprah clips I could find are on her official You Tube page. I know this isn't what you're looking for, but I guess there is a slight chance they could upoad a highlight from the show?
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 14, 2008 5:24 PM
Nathaniel:
You're rude to those who don't respect you. I honestly can't remember the last time I truly felt respected among the last 70+ times I've flown since 9/11.
Self loading freight, cattle, civilians, unindicted terrorists, suspects, etc. I'm tired of it as well. TSA, when you catch your first terrorist on a mission to hijack the crew let us know because as it stands right now we fliers are pretty tired of the same security theater running since the inception of TSA.
October 14, 2008 5:31 PM
Actaully to Mr Brian Henry, BDOs at the airport in Orlando did in fact detect someone carrying explosives into the airport. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/national/main3991331.shtml
Nathaniel,
That respect is a two way street. I don't know how many times I have stood in line at an airport and listened to passengers treat the TSOs poorly. Look at the insulting, billigerent comments people direct at the TSO's here on this blog.
October 14, 2008 6:33 PM
My first thought was: propaganda piece. Is she going to have an opposing view? Is she going to highlight how rude many TSA folks are to passengers? Is she going to show TSO's barking orders at people in line and herding them like cattle? Is she going to see TSA deserves the attitude it gets simply because it gives it?
Or is this going to be a one sided "we're only trying to protect you and we're so abused" fluff piece?
Some how, I think we already know the answer.
October 14, 2008 6:50 PM
Was it TSA or Oprah that paid to fly a BDO from some undisclosed airport to Chicago for the show? Having to fly someone in sure implies there are no BDOs at ORD or MDW that are articulate enough and/or polite enough to talk to Oprah. Pretty scary considering the size of ORD.
IMO the only good likely to come out of the whole thing is this:
Posted by Blogger BDO Stephanie:
After a few moments of thinking "this must be some kind of joke," I called the office only to find out that it was very real. Six hours later, I was boarding a plane on my way to Chicago.
There were thunderstorms and traffic was horrible. We almost missed the meeting.
Maybe the experience gave BDO Stephanie a small taste of the stress of flying, last-minute events, weather delays, irregular ops, and fear of missing a key meeting that make up the life of someone who travels regularly.
Maybe she should consider if such stresses might cause innocent law-abiding passengers to appear nervous or agitated at the airport the next time someone ignores her or just doesn't want to waste their time answering nosy questions from a BDO.
October 14, 2008 7:08 PM
I have a question. Why was Stephanie chosen to be on the Oprah show? Did she win some sort of contest? Is she some sort of PR BDO? Why did she have to fly to Chicago? Doesn't the TSA have BDOs at ORD who could have appeared on the show?
October 14, 2008 7:28 PM
Even more propaganda, come on Bob trying to deflect the black eyes of a screener facing multiple counts of felony grand theft? Then lets not forget the other issues that have been repeated almost on a daily basis.
So when will, the general public get there case heard. IE those that get treated rudely by the barkers, yellers, and those that threaten with DYWTFT on a daily basis by screeners.
Then why are you sending a BDO, and not a normal screener, as every BDO i have spotted has always been standing around doing nothing. Its the screeners that are responsible for 90+% of the rude behavior I see on a weekly basis.
Remember you dont get respect, you earn it, you get common courtesy - even though travelers dont get it in return and to-date at the rate its going you will never earn any respect, but you have earned a whole lot of contempt a pieces of my and many travelers minds because of the way you act and treat people
October 14, 2008 8:46 PM
Well, Stephanie, I hope you traveled outside of uniform and didn't get special treatment to see what we experience. Perhaps between irregular ops, weather, TSA, and such you'll understand the stress passengers are under. Not just from a SPOTnik perspective but from those here. Not only that, but that there are very legitimate reasons for appearing so that aren't necessarily caused to be harassed by a SPOTter.
Quote from Andy: "I don't think America is changing from the land of the free to the land of the rude. I do think it is changing from the land of the free to the land of the suspected, untrusted, and closely monitored.
I'm tired of people being guilty until proven innocent. I'm tired of people who are critical of our government being labeled a "terrorist sympathiser." I am tired of government agencies, like the TSA, screwing up and not being held accountable."
Very well said.
Robert
October 14, 2008 8:47 PM
Well, Stephanie, I hope you have a traveled with as normal passenger (i.e. no special treatment) and saw things thru our eyes.
Quote from Stephanie: "There were thunderstorms and traffic was horrible. We almost missed the meeting."
Understandable. Passengers deal with this all the time: weather, airport congestion, mechanical delays, misconnects, TSA, and so forth. Travel isn't a pleasant experience. I also hope you see that there are very legitimate reasons such as these for appearing stressed at an airport. None of which warrant harassment by a SPOTnik.
Quote from Andy: I don't think America is changing from the land of the free to the land of the rude. I do think it is changing from the land of the free to the land of the suspected, untrusted, and closely monitored.
I'm tired of people being guilty until proven innocent. I'm tired of people who are critical of our government being labeled a "terrorist sympathiser." I am tired of government agencies, like the TSA, screwing up and not being held accountable."
Very well said. :thumbs up:
Robert
October 14, 2008 8:51 PM
I have noticed a drastic shift in the attitudes of most TSOs over the last few months. My last trip through security was in ABQ, and they were all very polite.
It's also probably not a bad idea to change the image of the front-line screeners with the 'officer' title. I just hope you're diligently working to ensure that only those worthy of that title are hired and retained by the TSA. With that said, why not go full out? Start a "TSA Academy" similar to police academy or basic training; that way you can filter out those who are better off working at McDonalds or for the IRS. Implement real standards to become a TSO (beyond just a high school diploma and no felony convictions), such as 2-4 years law enforcement or military experience, and then pay those professionals a salary commensurate with what that level of experience commands in the private sector. Upon successful completion of such an academy where all but the best are eliminated, then confer the true 'officer' status and issue them guns, handcuffs, billy clubs, arrest powers, the whole enchalada. Until then, most of them will be seen as glorified rent-a-cops, regardless of the color uniform you issue them.
October 14, 2008 8:59 PM
I saw a BDO standing in the food court airside the other day, just standing there scanning the crowd. That must be a great job, you know, just standing there bored out of your mind while you pretend to be searching for 'suspicious looking people'. Could you not employ technology to do the same job? Just seems like an incredible waste of human resources and taxpayer money to have people standing around the terminal on the government's payroll apparently doing nothing.
Or, better yet, why not dress them up in BDUs and give them machine guns like they do in Europe; at least that'll scare people enough to not break the law.
October 14, 2008 9:05 PM
"I sure hope it was Oprah's production company and not my tax dollars that paid for you to fly cross country to do this. "
I doubt it was Oprah's production company. Government employees travel using a Government Travel Charge Card (GTCC) on fares negotiated by the GSA. I'm quite sure that TSA can justify the expense to the public relations budget.
October 14, 2008 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...
It's also probably not a bad idea to change the image of the front-line screeners with the 'officer' title. I just hope you're diligently working to ensure that only those worthy of that title are hired and retained by the TSA. With that said, why not go full out? Start a "TSA Academy" similar to police academy or basic training; that way you can filter out those who are better off working at McDonalds or for the IRS. Implement real standards to become a TSO (beyond just a high school diploma and no felony convictions), such as 2-4 years law enforcement or military experience, and then pay those professionals a salary commensurate with what that level of experience commands in the private sector.''
your on the right track, but i wouldnt go that far. yes we need to get better highering standards. we do have non stop testing and training, but i agree its not enough. we dont need arrest powers or weapons. we already have enough authority to allow us to do our job.
at my checkpoint today i could have gotten rid of 6 officers leaving me with only 7, and you wouldnt know a damn bit of difference except a lower payroll. this is were TSA fails. GET RIDE OF THE DEAD WEIGHT!!
these same officers who do nothing, run away from the sound of ''male assist'', are also the rude ones, the ones that get in the way, the ones that slow down the lines, and the ones who are more worried about the 4.0oz of toothpaste(ah the horror) while a butcher knife gets by them.
i know we're moving in a better direction that our passengers will soon see, but please, for the sake of the officers doing their job, and for our passengers, lets also move in the direction of quality -not quantity.
October 14, 2008 10:18 PM
Al Ames said...
My first thought was: propaganda piece. Is she going to have an opposing view? Is she going to highlight how rude many TSA folks are to passengers? Is she going to show TSO's barking orders at people in line and herding them like cattle? Is she going to see TSA deserves the attitude it gets simply because it gives it?
Or is this going to be a one sided "we're only trying to protect you and we're so abused" fluff piece?
Some how, I think we already know the answer.
============
Couldn't have said it better myself. Be prepared for Oprah's fans to start posting as well.
October 14, 2008 10:58 PM
You have spoken my words, I can only speak for myself. I don't speak for all of the officers but it will be nice to see one of the officers being shown in a positive light. Way to go Stephanie, leave the naysayers behind and move forward. A Chicago Fan
October 15, 2008 5:54 AM
Where is the message I posted yesterday????? It contained clear and scientifically-supported criticism toward behavior detection activities.
October 15, 2008 6:09 AM
There's no doubt in my mind that ordinary civility and common courtesy are in serious decline.
More frightening is a tidbit from Robert Heinlein's novel "Friday", where one of the characters noted the sign of a dying society -- the breakdown of common courtesy, because the rude folks think it's a sign of strength.
IMO this ties into the breakdown of integrity. Part of civility and courtesy is the ability to admit when you're wrong, and that takes a mixture of integrity and guts.
I'll be interested to see what's said on Oprah....
October 15, 2008 8:48 AM
Thanks, Bob, we haven't had a puppy story in a while.
I'd like you to explain to us how there was no actual or perceived ethics violation. I'd like Stephanie to publically state that she received no gifts or personal gain from this public affairs stunt.
I also completely understand that the Oprah show is under no obligation to present an opposing point of view. I hope 60 Minutes picks up where Oprah's fluff piece leaves off.
October 15, 2008 8:51 AM
Anonymous wrote:
Implement real standards to become a TSO (beyond just a high school diploma and no felony convictions), such as 2-4 years law enforcement or military experience, and then pay those professionals a salary commensurate with what that level of experience commands in the private sector.
Well, there goes my job. :(
No military experience, no law enforcement experience. Hell, hardly any experience at all, really. I started working for the TSA while I was still in college putting certifications under my belt, and doing loads of volunteer work to pad my resume in the IT field, hot on my path toward a position of my own as a paid cable monkey.
The last paying job I had before TSA was a cook at Pizza Hut. :D
Ahem.
And that goes to show you, by the way, that not all of the TSOs without military or LEO backgrounds are scraps of human refuse on power-tripping ego-inflated badge-spins. It doesn't matter what you did beforehand, every human being is capable of moderating his or her actions according to his or her own choices. If someone's treating you like a pile of crap, it's because they choose to treat you like a pile of crap, not because the sum total of their life's experiences require them to treat you like crap. Conversely, if someone treats you politely, with respect, and with common courtesy, it is because they choose to like a human being.
By the same token, having a LEO or military background does not, automatically, make someone respectful of others, either, just as not having it doesn't make someone trash. The worst treatment I've ever seen befall a passenger at the hands of a TSO, the TSO was a retired air force officer. A field-grade officer, mind, not a little Lieutenant.
Anonymous wrote:
Upon successful completion of such an academy where all but the best are eliminated, then confer the true 'officer' status and issue them guns, handcuffs, billy clubs, arrest powers, the whole enchalada.
No.
October 15, 2008 9:26 AM
"If you have the chance to watch the episode tomorrow - passengers and TSA officers - check back to the blog and share your thoughts. This could be an interesting dialogue to improve how we interact at the checkpoint."
========
There has been plenty of dialogue already, how about actually listening to what we say and making us part of the solution. Instead of treating us like we are the problem.
October 15, 2008 9:34 AM
Remember it is a two way street, there are also rude passengers. You would not want to be judged by the intoxicated passenger with their drawers falling down at the airport who thinks they should be allowed to jump everyone in line. Judge me for me not by others. I can only show respect and offer a good experience one passenger at a time. Have a great trip.
October 15, 2008 10:50 AM
Anonymous said: "Maybe the experience gave BDO Stephanie a small taste of the stress of flying, last-minute events, weather delays, irregular ops, and fear of missing a key meeting that make up the life of someone who travels regularly.
Maybe she should consider if such stresses might cause innocent law-abiding passengers to appear nervous or agitated at the airport the next time someone ignores her or just doesn't want to waste their time answering nosy questions from a BDO."
Sir or ma'am, maybe YOU should consider that you, and others that are just like you described, provide part of the problem. Stephanie goes to work to do her job and probably sees thousands of people, just like you, stressed and ready to chew out anyone that looks at them in what they think is the wrong way....all for reasons beyond anyone's control. You think you're the only one that's stressed? That's just not a good excuse for poor behavior. Not that TSOs that are rude should be excused for their behavior, but people fail to realize that there is a correlation between the actions of both passengers and TSOs. For instance, passengers approach a checkpoint with this attitude:
Travel_Medic said: "you have earned a whole lot of contempt a pieces of my and many travelers minds because of the way you act and treat people".....assuming that all TSOs are going to treat you the same way. It's all downhill from there.
MarkVII said: "Part of civility and courtesy is the ability to admit when you're wrong, and that takes a mixture of integrity and guts."
Very well said!
October 15, 2008 11:36 AM
"leave the naysayers behind and move forward. A Chicago Fan"
It's nice that an officer is being shown in a positive light, but leaving the naysayers behind is certainly not something to encourage. The "naysayers" are the ones that care about this country enough to challenge anything that is contrary to its foundation (Trollkiller, for example, on the ID issue).
Oh, and if you're a Chicago fan of the TSA you haven't been to ORD terminal 2. It's especially bad right after coming off an 16-hour international flight and dealing with CBP and especially jarring after the security experience boarding the plane was so much better.
October 15, 2008 11:36 AM
Chris said:
"I'd like you to explain to us how there was no actual or perceived ethics violation. I'd like Stephanie to publically state that she received no gifts or personal gain from this public affairs stunt."
I'll save Bob the time and effort...follow along closely:
there...was...no...actual...or...perceived...ethics...violation.
Now, I'm sure Stephanie would love nothing more than to “stuff” to you, but she doesn't because:
1) you don't deserve an explanation from her directly to you and...
2) you seriously need to look up the guidance on the acceptance of gifts from PROHIBITED SOURCES by executive branch employees. Considering that the O show is most likely not a PROHIBITED SOURCE, further study on your part appears necessary. You can start your education here:
http://www.arnoldporter.com/publications.cfm?action=view&id=483
Anyone else wanna dream up some fictitious nonsense in a thinly veiled attempt at disguising your bias and ignorant vitriol against TSA?
October 15, 2008 12:28 PM
While I realize this question was rhetorical:
"why not dress them up in BDUs and give them machine guns like they do in Europe;"
Did you feel better after 9/11 because a bunch of people were standing around tranportation centers with automatic weapons?
I sure did not!
That is not only security theatre, it is dangerous!
Do you want to be in a closed space when someone opens up with one of those?
A well trained person with a pistol would be much more effective and a heck of a lot safer.
Or, to paraphrase Bob; "what about the folks in path who have no choice where the bullets would hit if something were to happen?"
October 15, 2008 12:35 PM
"I sure hope it was Oprah's production company and not my tax dollars that paid for you to fly cross country to do this. "
I doubt it was Oprah's production company. Government employees travel using a Government Travel Charge Card (GTCC) on fares negotiated by the GSA. I'm quite sure that TSA can justify the expense to the public relations budget.
___________________________________
First off, who cares. And second I am thinking that if Oprah is having a guest fly out to the show, her company probably pays for it. If that is what she does with all of her other guest, I would think this would be the same.
Oh and who cares.
October 15, 2008 1:24 PM
Well I dunno, civility is a three way street. Theres how you act, how I act, and the situation that we are in.
Working in customer service does give one a bit of respect. Though its hard for me to contain myself at airports, I am never anything but respectful to the employees there, TSA or not. After all, they don't make the policy.
Its hard for me to contain myself and be civil, because, I do get more than a bit peeved.
Lets take a quick moment, and let us take a stroll through the airport through my eyes.
I walk in, I see long lines of people, god I hate lines. First a line to check in, then a line for security.
The only problem is, I don't see security. I see a pointless checkpoint. I see people in uniform making people take their shoes off and throw out harmless items, and frankly, I spend the entire time in line just getting more and more annoyed. Annoyed that I have to wait in this line, and even more so annoyed because.... I honestly don't believe it does one lick of good.
In fact, I spend half the time in line thinking of all items I could easily and even legally get through your checkpoint, that are plenty dangerous, way more dangerous than items that you are tossing out!
I see "Security Theater" and I seriously start to wonder "I have to pay for this theater exercise?"
Hell I see a ripe soft target for terrorists, the very line I am standing in. I have brought this very problem with the entire setup up many times, yet nobody seems to want to address it. What will you do when someone blows up a security checkpoint line and kills 150 people? Will you put a checkpoint before the checkpoint? I am serious here. Do you think I care if I die on a plane or on the ground? Do you think I care if 149 other people die in the air or on the ground? Dead is dead thanks. I wouldn't even stand in that line if I think there was any reasonable risk involved in flying.
Consider yourselves lucky that my mother and work in customer service has taught me to supress all these thoughts and be civil by the time I get to the end of the line.
Its not "security" that gets me. I am a security geek, I am all for effective security. However, when I have to now arrive hours early for my flight so you can go through some theater to make everything "look safe".... well.... it really boils my blood to think I could have slept for another couple of hours.
I would show up a day ahead of time if I really felt it would make a real difference in my chances of arriving at my destination alive. By the days end, I would be pissed at the situation, I would be annoyed that it takes so much to be safe.... but my blood wouldn't be boiling at the people who make the policies.
Instead I don't feel that way. The more I read on the subject, the less I feel that way.
Courtesy isn't just being nice to the security gaurd at the check point. It goes the other way too.... not making silly policies that waste time people's for NO BENEFIT is not very civil either.
-Steve
October 15, 2008 2:27 PM
Brian Henry said...
A Behavior Detection Officer at TSA, working behind the scenes in airport security? Are you kidding me?!
What kind of “behavior” are your detecting lady? I know for a fact that you have not detected me, nor I doubt anyone with any level of professionalism.
If someone wants to get something on a plane, you are not going to be the one to prevent them. I would love to know what your job was before this.
October 14, 2008 5:17 PM
you must be new to this site. Actually, of The 5 or 6 regulars here, they agree that the only program that does any good in the name of security is the BDO program. Its also ok that you dont understand the program at all because you have no clue what your talking about, sir. oh, and who says "lady" anymore... its probably gonna get you slapped one day.
October 15, 2008 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Nathaniel:
You're rude to those who don't respect you. I honestly can't remember the last time I truly felt respected among the last 70+ times I've flown since 9/11.
Self loading freight, cattle, civilians, unindicted terrorists, suspects, etc. I'm tired of it as well. TSA, when you catch your first terrorist on a mission to hijack the crew let us know because as it stands right now we fliers are pretty tired of the same security theater running since the inception of TSA.
October 14, 2008 5:31
Well I dont know about anyone else, but i really HOPE that TSA doesnt come across any terrorists. If all TSA does is keep terrorists away then theyre doing their jobs RIGHT?? Though you will probably say im wrong.... typical
October 15, 2008 3:57 PM
Kudos to Oprah for having a TSA Officer on the show. I missed it today because I was at work, but hopefully I will catch it tonight. As for all of the bitter people that spend there time complaining on internet message boards; ignore them. TSA is not here to win popularity contests and like celebrities, everything we do is scrutinized and people who know little about us, think they know it all. Keep protecting the American people. There hasn't been another successful attack on American aviation since the TSA's inception and that is all that matters.
October 15, 2008 4:24 PM
While Stephanie managed to leave out any mention of rude anbusive TSA employees. It seems that the issues many of us have been trying to get addressed may be changing. Take a look at this recent thread on Flyertalk, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=876372
October 15, 2008 5:59 PM
I just played back the screener's segment at the beginning of Oprah, and did detect the "poor us" mindset. Somebody walks up to the checkpoint while talking on a phone. Tacky, but I'll take someone on a cell phone over the sort of unprovoked yelling that I have experienced.
October 15, 2008 8:05 PM
Man, talk about rude...some of the comments in this thread are extremely rude. You base TSA's success on whether or not they've "caught a terrorist planning to hijack the crew". You say you're "guilty until proven innocent". The reality folks, is this isn't 1950, or even 1990, this is 2008 and its POST 9/11 security. Call it what you want, but don't be rude about it.
October 16, 2008 6:58 AM
This message was posted on the "Got Feedback" thread. The message is spot on. Somehow TSA must overcome the problems and the public responded negatively to.
My personal opinion is that new leadership will be needed to start on the path to wellness.
Anonymous said...
I think that the last couple of articles that Bob has posted points to a significant problem;
"TSA has an image problem in the eyes of the public".
I know some would not agree but I think the vast majority that participates here would agree with my statement.
If the statement is true (perceived or real) then the next questions I see are these;
Who is responsible for correcting the image problem?
The public?
TSA?
As a member of the public I see no tools that I can use to improve TSA's image. So in my opinion it is up to TSA to understand the problems and apply corrective action.
My opinion once again is that TSA is unwilling or just doesn't care what the public thinks. I really believe that this is the root of the problem.
TSA should halt rolling out any new programs until these core issues are resolved.
TSA must re-learn how to do the basics including interacting in a favorable manner with the public.
Currently. the vast majority of travelers do not think the security steps used at TSA checkpoints improve our safety.
The shoe carival and war on water are perfect examples. TSA had the puffers that were suppose to detect certain items yet retired these machines. Systems also exist that can detect problems with liquids as seen in Japan.
TSA employees do not know or apply different screening standards, such as the supervisor that confiscated gel packs used to keep breast milk cold. The stories just keep coming in from the public yet nothing visable has been done to stop this abuse.
Mistreating the elderly, the handicapped, children or anyone else for that matter just is not acceptable.
Reports of these continuing issues are a direct result of poor management and supervision. Senior management has to get out of the offices and observe what is happening at their facilities.
You TSO's may disagree with my thoughts but I suspect if you asked every traveler what they thought of these remarks most would agree.
Finally, the recent uniform changes in my opinion have added to the negative opinion of the public. Your not cops and should not try to present yourselves in that manner.
October 16, 2008 10:22 AM
anonymous wrote:
Sir or ma'am, maybe YOU should consider that you, and others that are just like you described, provide part of the problem. Stephanie goes to work to do her job and probably sees thousands of people, just like you, stressed and ready to chew out anyone that looks at them in what they think is the wrong way....all for reasons beyond anyone's control. You think you're the only one that's stressed?
I'm the person to which you addressed this text, and I completely disagree that I am part of the problem described in my original post.
The problem is that BDOs seem to have been trained that "stressed" passengers equal "suspicious" passengers, when passengers are in an environment which creates stress for reasons which you agree are completely beyond the passengers' control. Passengers' stress doesn't need to be added to by nosy BDOs poking around asking questions that are none of their business, such as where I am going, why I am going there, where I live, or where I work.
And I completely disagree that these stress factors are beyond TSA's control. TSA at the national level controls the shoes-off policy, the idiotic war on water that is not based on a practical credible threat, the haraSSSSment policy, the no-fly list, and various other serious passengers stress sources. And every single TSO at every station has control over the barking level, the power-tripping level, the use of retaliatory secondaries, and the use of the phrase "Do you want to fly today?"
I watched Stephanie on Oprah, and while I do not excuse the person who threw a bottle of cologne at her, she seemed completely ignorant of why a passenger might be annoyed at having to toss an expensive bottle of cologne to comply with an idiotic TSA rule that is based on a questionable threat, all while cargo goes unscreened and the detection rates for real threats like guns and solid explosives are dreadful.
October 16, 2008 1:52 PM
Bob,
I am starting to think you are really selectively deleting posts.
Where are my two messages (posted Monday and Wednesday) commenting on the document prepared by a consortium of scientists (from a branch of the National Academy of Scientists, no less) stating that "Two methods the federal government wants to use to find terrorists -- "data mining" and "behavior detection" -- are dubious scientifically and have "enormous potential" for infringing on law-abiding Americans' privacy"?
Google "Scientists question terrorist-hunting techniques" for the full article.
This is not an issue that can be ignored. Real Science is debunking a technique the TSA is pending our tax dollars on!
October 16, 2008 2:03 PM
Folks, while Stephanie is a BDO, this post is about passenger/TSO relations.
If you would like to discuss the BDO program, please do so at the BDO post.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 16, 2008 2:13 PM
Bob said: "Folks, while Stephanie is a BDO, this post is about passenger/TSO relations.
If you would like to discuss the BDO program, please do so at the BDO post."
Come on Bob! Much more oblique links to the subject at hand have been approved in the past, and everyone knows this is where the real discussions are happening. Just as an example, if you blocked my two prior posts because they were about behavior detection and not Oprah (as I suspect, because they still haven´t appeared), you should also have blocked all discussions on the last liquids thread which were not directly related to new technologies.
Put my posts up!
October 16, 2008 2:36 PM
Anon,
The times they are a changin'. In the very near future, I plan on posting about the comment policy. We're going to start rejecting off topic comments. If they are related to TSA and don't have a specific post they can fit into, they should go into the Got Feedback post.
The main reason your comment was rejected, is because it was the very first comment. I didn't want to start the comments off with something that was off topic.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 16, 2008 2:47 PM
"The main reason your comment was rejected, is because it was the very first comment. I didn't want to start the comments off with something that was off topic."
Sorry Bob, but that was a terrible excuse. I´ll let the other bloggers tear that one apart.
October 16, 2008 2:54 PM
Bob @ "The times they are a changin'. In the very near future, I plan on posting about the comment policy. We're going to start rejecting off topic comments. If they are related to TSA and don't have a specific post they can fit into, they should , go into the Got Feedback post.
The main reason your comment was rejected, is because it was the very first comment. I didn't want to start the comments off with something that was off topic."
#########
That sounds exactly like standard TSA "policy": Change the "rules" without giving people a chance to comply, then when people complain, announce it as a future policy as justification.
And directing criticism into a hidden thread that has been dead for 6 months is a cop out too. Your bloggers only respond to front page posts, if they respond at all.
October 16, 2008 3:06 PM
Bob said...
Anon,
The times they are a changin'. In the very near future, I plan on posting about the comment policy. We're going to start rejecting off topic comments. If they are related to TSA and don't have a specific post they can fit into, they should go into the Got Feedback post.
The main reason your comment was rejected, is because it was the very first comment. I didn't want to start the comments off with something that was off topic.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 16, 2008 2:47 PM
Great, Bob!
All that's left for you to do is not make any posts about the TSA's "screw up du jour," like the Newark thefts and O'Hare aircraft damage. As a result, comments about them in the current post become "off topic" and are deleted or exiled to the "got feedback" post.
Well done, Bob!
October 16, 2008 3:08 PM
Bob said...
Folks, while Stephanie is a BDO, this post is about passenger/TSO relations.
If you would like to discuss the BDO program, please do so at the BDO post.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 16, 2008 2:
Then why did TSA select a BDO for the program?
Or was some other selection factor at work?
Appearance?
Gender?
Public Speaking Experience?
You guys brought a BDO into the mix, not us.
October 16, 2008 3:50 PM
Andy said... All that's left for you to do is not make any posts about the TSA's "screw up du jour," like the Newark thefts and O'Hare aircraft damage. As a result, comments about them in the current post become "off topic" and are deleted or exiled to the "got feedback" post. Well done, Bob! October 16, 2008 3:08 PM
_________________________________
We've written posts regarding both of the topics you mentioned. Why not comment there?
_________________________________
Mr. Gel-pack said... That sounds exactly like standard TSA "policy": Change the "rules" without giving people a chance to comply, then when people complain, announce it as a future policy as justification. October 16, 2008 3:06PM
__________________________________
I have to disagree. This is not a new rule. It's been in our comment policy since day one. We've been really lenient on off topic comments due to the lack of topics on our blog, but we're now going to tighten things up since we have a large variety of topics your comments can fit into. We also have the Got Feedback? post for any topics that don't quite fit in.
_________________________________
Mr. Gel-pack said...And directing criticism into a hidden thread that has been dead for 6 months is a cop out too. Your bloggers only respond to front page posts, if they respond at all. October 16, 2008 3:06 PM
__________________________________
We will soon be adding RSS for comments. That way, those who subscribe will be able to get an e-mail when somebody posts in an older thread.
Got Feedback is not dead. The most recent comment was posted on the 10th of this month. Also, just because we don't post does not mean we aren't reading.
I regularly cut and paste comments and send them directly to airports/departments.
Now we're really getting off topic. :)
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
October 16, 2008 3:53 PM
TSO Tom said...
Man, talk about rude...some of the comments in this thread are extremely rude. You base TSA's success on whether or not they've "caught a terrorist planning to hijack the crew".
............................
Tom, what standard do you use to define TSA success?
October 16, 2008 3:56 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "you must be new to this site. Actually, of The 5 or 6 regulars here, they agree that the only program that does any good in the name of security is the BDO program. Its also ok that you dont understand the program at all because you have no clue what your talking about, sir. oh, and who says "lady" anymore... its probably gonna get you slapped one day."
Please don't speak for me. I certain think SPOTting is a waste.
Robert
October 16, 2008 4:46 PM
@TSO Tom: "The reality folks, is this isn't 1950, or even 1990, this is 2008 and its POST 9/11 security. Call it what you want, but don't be rude about it."
Ah yes, the "post 9/11 world" excuse. The excuse used to instill fear and allow government power grabs and infringe on our rights. All of this stuff and we're STILL NO SAFER than we were on 9/10. Just harassed a lot more and paying a lot for it.
No thanks.
Earl
October 16, 2008 4:48 PM
@Bob: "The times they are a changin'. In the very near future, I plan on posting about the comment policy. We're going to start rejecting off topic comments. If they are related to TSA and don't have a specific post they can fit into, they should go into the Got Feedback post."
Translation: we're going to bury the usual comments about questions we haven't answered off the front page so people won't look for them and not notice.
Way to go, Bob.
Earl
October 16, 2008 4:52 PM
Bob,
I really had you in higher regard than this. Trashing a post because it would not look good as the first post is not what we want this blog to become. Besides, the poster is complaining about two different posts that were not put up. What is the reason for blocking the second one?
I am now very curious as to what you feel was so important to hide from us. It was probably not any more damaging than what we have seen before, but until we see these posts, we can only use our imagination.
I am also very disappointed with you, personally. I used not to agree with all your opinions, but respected your dedication and willingness to have an open discussion. You lost my respect today.
October 16, 2008 5:13 PM
What is on and off topic, anyway, according to unwritten new blog rules? Since when does "on topic" vary with the position the post has on the thread? Please explain how these posts are on topic, per your definition:
October 14, 2008 5:17 PM
October 15, 2008 6:09 AM
October 15, 2008 9:26 AM
October 15, 2008 12:35 PM
October 15, 2008 3:54 PM
October 16, 2008 10:22 AM
October 16, 2008 2:03 PM, and all messages that one generated.
October 16, 2008 5:30 PM
I dislike the TSA as much as the rest of you but I for one will welcome the day the posts are all on topic like a real blog should be.
Some of you are like flies on crap. You whine and moan about nobody commenting and when they do you try your best to run them off?
A.
October 16, 2008 5:39 PM
Andy said... All that's left for you to do is not make any posts about the TSA's "screw up du jour," like the Newark thefts and O'Hare aircraft damage. As a result, comments about them in the current post become "off topic" and are deleted or exiled to the "got feedback" post. Well done, Bob! October 16, 2008 3:08 PM
_________________________________
We've written posts regarding both of the topics you mentioned. Why not comment there?
I'm using them as an example, Bob. While you have dedicated posts to those TSA screw ups, I really wonder if you'll decide to make a post about the next one. I wonder if you'll decide to make a post about the next screw up a week after it happens.
Are you going to promise to us, the readers, that you will post about TSA screw ups in a timely manner and allow us a chance to comment? Will you make that promise in writing, in a post perhaps?
October 16, 2008 6:23 PM
From a Blogger Bob post...
_________________________________
Mr. Gel-pack said...And directing criticism into a hidden thread that has been dead for 6 months is a cop out too. Your bloggers only respond to front page posts, if they respond at all. October 16, 2008 3:06 PM
__________________________________
We will soon be adding RSS for comments. That way, those who subscribe will be able to get an e-mail when somebody posts in an older thread.
Got Feedback is not dead. The most recent comment was posted on the 10th of this month. Also, just because we don't post does not mean we aren't reading.
Bob, my current question may be off topic for this instant topic, but IS in direct response to what you posted here: The most recent post by the public in that other topic may have been six days ago, but when was the last actual posted response by one of the official TSA bloggers made in that topic?
Thanks!
Tom (1 of 5-6)
October 16, 2008 6:25 PM
"Obscurity to Oprah"? What kind of thinking person even considers being on Oprah preferable to being obscure?
Can we get away from the FPA (Fluffy Puppy Admiring) sideshow and get back to actually improving the security of the transportation system? I still haven't heard anything back about when the TSA will be complying with the 100% cargo screening requirement dictated by 9/11 Commission.
October 16, 2008 6:47 PM
There seems to be something terribly ironic about Bob introducing the topic of an upcoming change in moderation standards because of people straying off-topic in a blog item that has nothing to do with moderation standards ...
October 16, 2008 7:29 PM
Anonymous @ October 15, 2008 12:28 PM
Hold on a second, pal. I have been in government for over 35 years and have more ethics knowledge in my pinkie than I know you have in your entire brain based on your comments.
I'm curious why you think I shouldn't be asking the TSA to answer a few simple ethics questions that they should have addressed right off the bat?
I'll simply restate the question: I would like verification from someone in an official capacity at the TSA that this employee's appearance on the Oprah Show was in compliance with government ethics rules.
October 16, 2008 7:29 PM
Blogger Bob wrote (and won't respond to my response):
I have to disagree. This is not a new rule. It's been in our comment policy since day one. We've been really lenient on off topic comments due to the lack of topics on our blog, but we're now going to tighten things up since we have a large variety of topics your comments can fit into. We also have the Got Feedback? post for any topics that don't quite fit in.
Given the TSA policy of not commenting on older blog entries, this is a really good way of ensuring that comments on subjects you don't wish to answer are never going to be answered. If you wish to make this policy honest, you will have to go back to older entries occasionally and answer the questions there.
The reason people post off comment comments is because everyone has noticed how older entries never receive responses. So if a topic, such as the constitutionality and legality of MMW scanning individuals not attempting to access the sterile areas comes up, people who want to know about it will be confined to asking questions in a blog entry that will never get answered because it's not the newest entry.
Or if it is answered, the comments will be cherry-picked to ensure that the core question is still avoided and the questioner is painted in the worst possible light. It is more likely that the policy of "it is an old entry therefore we will not answer" will be the order of the day.
October 16, 2008 8:24 PM
Please don't speak for me. I certain think SPOTting is a waste.
Robert
SPOTing is nothing more than a modern divination technique and doesn't work any better than reading chicken entrails. Sort of makes me wonder when they will try the float or sink test as a means of identifying terror suspects.
October 16, 2008 8:29 PM
Brian Henry said...
A Behavior Detection Officer at TSA, working behind the scenes in airport security? Are you kidding me?!
What kind of “behavior” are your detecting lady? I know for a fact that you have not detected me, nor I doubt anyone with any level of professionalism.
---
Brian, from the attitude you've displayed, I'm sure that if the officer was attempting to detect persons with any level of professionalism, you would have waltzed right by.
October 16, 2008 8:51 PM
Bob @ "I have to disagree. This is not a new rule. It's been in our comment policy since day one. We've been really lenient on off topic comments due to the lack of topics on our blog, but we're now going to tighten things up since we have a large variety of topics your comments can fit into. We also have the Got Feedback?"
versus:
Off-topic comments (and since we can't tell which topic a comment goes under when we moderate, we mean REALLY off topic, think plagues of locust off topic…)
If your current statement is your SOP, it really doesn't match your published policy, nor your historical enforement. I'll stand by my statement that it really does sound like standard TSA SOP: misdocumented secret rules with arbitrary enforcement.
What we can infer is that now can tell where a comment goes, if you can delete a "first post", and your standards are changing from "plagues of locusts off-topic" to something tighter.
Here's a suggestion to make the blog more positive: Now that all the old posts are not really old anymore because they are almost RSS capable, delete everything in them that doesn't support the top posts. That way you can do away with the plague of flies that hover around these posts.
October 16, 2008 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...
While Stephanie managed to leave out any mention of rude anbusive TSA employees. It seems that the issues many of us have been trying to get addressed may be changing. Take a look at this recent thread on Flyertalk, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=876372
I’m always amazed by the FlyerTalk crew. Their never-ending sense of entitlement always finds a way to twist the facts into whatever best fits their agenda. Its amazing. If you look at their posts both here and on their forum, and you happen to mention anything positive about TSA, you get bashed. This reminds me of grade school where you’d get bashed for not liking the genre of music that’s in style.
And then the comment asking if Stephanie went through the checkpoint to see what passengers endure… The normal crowd is so quick to assume that TSOs do not fly. News Flash: I was a TSO for over a year, and an “elite” flyer who competed for upgrades like the rest of you.
Anyway. I want to thank the hardworking TSOs out there. Sure, there are a few bad apples everywhere. But you’ve come such a long, long way. I really, really miss being among the TSA family.
And before it gets asked, I left TSA to finish my MS degree.
-Former TSO
October 17, 2008 1:16 AM
The times they are a changin'.
They sure are, but not for the better. That comment hit a nerve, and in consequence I have decided I will not post here anymore. This decision comes from two main observations:
1 - We have, amid all the gripes and complaints, made many good suggestions, which were never implemented. It seems to me that the only communication problems solved by this blog are getting apologies for specific inappropriate attitudes. This is not enough.
2 - We are now being censored. The TSA is not only determining what is a liquid (above all scientific knowledge), but also what is "on topic".
I will no longer waste my time and energy here. This is hopeless. I would, however, like to thank all posters who have also spent their time and effort here for the good times together, if only virtually.
October 17, 2008 6:30 AM
Bob,
Ever since you declared the 9/11 thread sacred and refused to post citizen comments about the true legacy of 9/11, which is the civil-liberties destroying monster the US Government has created at home, you have lost the credibility to ask us to post comments on the appropriate topic.
When I have tried to post my rejected comment that was perfectly on topic for that thread in one of the non-sacred threads, you have consistently censored it. Previously your definition of off-topic was issues totally unrelated to TSA because you noted that the blog software didn't even tell the moderator which thread a post was for, but now that it suits you, you have clamped down.
And now you are beginning to influence which comment shows up first in a thread to make sure it is warm and fuzzy and doesn't portray TSA in a bad light.
The 9/11 thread was the beginning of the end of open discussion on this blog, which was the one good thing about it. At first you claimed that thread was "special," but the ongoing censorship has all derived from there. Ever since then, you've made excuses for blocking citizen posts about their true feelings about TSA. Like many things with TSA, once they get on a slippery slope they just can't seem to stop.
October 17, 2008 7:55 AM
Anonymous said...
TSO Tom said...
Man, talk about rude...some of the comments in this thread are extremely rude. You base TSA's success on whether or not they've "caught a terrorist planning to hijack the crew".
............................
Tom, what standard do you use to define TSA success?
***********************************
Anon;
I don't think in terms of success or failure, I think in terms of one day at a time. I go to work, do my job, hoping for the best, but prepared for the worst. Its not about how many terrorists we've caught trying to highjack a plane its about hoping we never have to say we caught one. Its being prepared and knowing what to do if something does go down. We catch things on the checkpoint every single day! Are they part of a terrorist plot? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The important thing is, we caught it. Whether it was a gun, knife, boxcutter, or whatever. I don't think in terms of success, if I never get to say I caught a terrorist trying to highjack a plane, it won't make a damned bit of difference in how I do my job. We know we're being watched, we know that there are people trying to sneak stuff through, some of them just for the sake of being able to do it. Others for the sake of whatever their motives are. It's an inconvenience to you and the general public, but if we can keep you guessing, we can certainly keep them guessing as well. This is the way it is, and now we have to live with it.
October 17, 2008 9:28 AM
"
I’m always amazed by the FlyerTalk crew. Their never-ending sense of entitlement always finds a way to twist the facts into whatever best fits their agenda. Its amazing. If you look at their posts both here and on their forum, and you happen to mention anything positive about TSA, you get bashed. This reminds me of grade school where you’d get bashed for not liking the genre of music that’s in style."
Glad you think so highly of FlyerTalkers. Maybe you're not reading the same threads I am.
"And then the comment asking if Stephanie went through the checkpoint to see what passengers endure… The normal crowd is so quick to assume that TSOs do not fly. News Flash: I was a TSO for over a year, and an “elite” flyer who competed for upgrades like the rest of you."
Yes... but we "regular" travelers don't have the advantage of being TSA employees- SIDA badge, for instance. Security is long and painful (I wish to point to my experience connecting int'l->domestic at ORD- why do I have to go through security yet again after going through security when I left and at Customs?). One time I missed the last flight of the day to my destination because of that.
October 17, 2008 1:02 PM
Quote from a Former TSO: "I’m always amazed by the FlyerTalk crew. Their never-ending sense of entitlement always finds a way to twist the facts into whatever best fits their agenda. Its amazing. If you look at their posts both here and on their forum, and you happen to mention anything positive about TSA, you get bashed. This reminds me of grade school where you’d get bashed for not liking the genre of music that’s in style."
A few points here.
1. Did it ever occur to you that the ones that use the system the most are the ones likely to be tired of being hassled the most? If you travel only a couple times a year, the hassle will be something to be born and the show looks good. If you travel more frequently, you see that what's there is window dressing
2. While it's true that FT is hostile towards TSA, those that can actually argue in favor of TSA are a lot more well received even if their arguments are not accepted. Even the new TSO's that have shown up there are generally respected for their views and insights even if the majority disagree with them.
People that go in there and say something that's opinion without being backed up will be challenged. Folks may go in and say they think TSA does a good job, but the problem is, facts show otherwise.
3. That's a pretty broad brush you're painting of those of FT. Did you like being painted the stereotype that you were a reject burger flipper when you had a college education? No? So please don't paint all FTers that way.
4. I find it ironic that you're accusing FTers of twisting the facts to suit their needs when they do it their purposes. You just did it. TSA does it all the time. There's nothing wrong with backing up your arguments with facts. Again, the problem with TSA is a lot of the facts point against it.
Robert
October 17, 2008 1:13 PM
Another Anonymous wrote...
SPOTing is nothing more than a modern divination technique and doesn't work any better than reading chicken entrails. Sort of makes me wonder when they will try the float or sink test as a means of identifying terror suspects.
Hahahahaha. :o)
Wait!
Don't give 'em any ideas! 8^o
October 17, 2008 3:53 PM
Anon;
I don't think in terms of success or failure, I think in terms of one day at a time.
.............................
I think you answered a question that was not asked.
I asked, How do you define success for TSA. Not you as an individual but for the whole agency.
If you cannot define what success is then you cannot be successful.
October 17, 2008 4:12 PM
Let's talk about the rudeness thing as that's what Stephanie seemed to focus on in her bit.
Someone posted a picture of this sign at a Chicago Midway checkpoint.
Sign says:
"Thank you for patience as we carry out security procedures designed for your safety and required by law.
Out Transportation Security Officers also have rights. To protect their safety, threats, verbal abuse, or violence of any kind will not be tolerated.
Please give our officers the respect they deserve."
Wow. Let's look at this.
First paragraph: how many of the procedures are required by law? How many of them are arguably illegal and unconstitutional? How can we truly be safe when TSA focuses on security theater and the appearance of security but doesn't provide it (i.e. <50% detection rate)>
Second paragraph: My irony meter is pegged with the "our TSO's also have rights." TSA doesn't care about passenger rights at all. What rights are being infringed by the public? Technically, a typical person cannot infringe on a right as that requires a person to be a government actor. Additionally, with the threats and verbal abuse TSA dishes out on a regular basis, why should it NOT expect to reap what it sows? TSA needs to clean up its own yard first. Another irony is that saying such things will not be tolerated ... a bit of a threat perhaps?
Third paragraph: respect is earned, not deserved. Respect is given back when it is given. I can't help but think the new smurf uniforms were designed to try to demand the respect out of the people. TSA, if you want the public to respect your people and TSA as an organization, it needs to respect the people it serves. Threats, power trips, "do you want to fly today?" and so forth do not earn respect.
I think it's pretty telling that TSA is losing the PR war with the public if it has to post an official sign like this. If the people are getting fed up and simply giving back to TSA what it gives to the public, wouldn't the solution be to clean up TSA rather than blame the public?
Robert
October 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...
Anon;
I don't think in terms of success or failure, I think in terms of one day at a time.
.............................
I think you answered a question that was not asked.
I asked, How do you define success for TSA. Not you as an individual but for the whole agency.
If you cannot define what success is then you cannot be successful.
***********************************
I define success for my agency in terms of being able to say that no planes have dropped from the skies since 9/11/01. Its a one day at a time process, like I said. We do what we have to do on a day to day basis, knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary.
October 17, 2008 5:22 PM
Quote from TSO Tom: I define success for my agency in terms of being able to say that no planes have dropped from the skies since 9/11/01. Its a one day at a time process, like I said. We do what we have to do on a day to day basis, knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary."
Problem is that that really doesn't measure success. One could argue that someone's magic rock is keeping planes safe. Another could argue that the Intelligence Community is doing its job. It's really hard for an organization to claim success based on something NOT happening.
Look at it this way: if that metric were valid, would TSA be talking about how many knives it found, how many people with fake IDs it found, and so forth in its weekly summary? It wouldn't have to trumpet "victories" that have nothing to do with aviation security if it were easy to quantify success.
One could argue that pre-9/11 security was successful as well. Planes didn't fall out of the sky either. Security didn't lapse on 9/11 as the protocol was to comply with hijackers. TSA wouldn't have prevented a 9/11.
So does that mean that we were extremely lucky for 40 years because the previous security was incompetent, or does it just mean that things didn't happen because nothing was just happening?
The world hasn't changed much since 9/11 ... the same terrorists that have existed for years were there then and are there now. But our perception of it sure has changed, and it's changed for the worse.
Don't get me wrong ... planes not falling out of the sky is a good thing. I just don't think that that proves TSA is a success.
Robert
October 17, 2008 6:34 PM
Robert said:
Third paragraph: respect is earned, not deserved. Respect is given back when it is given. I can't help but think the new smurf uniforms were designed to try to demand the respect out of the people. TSA, if you want the public to respect your people and TSA as an organization, it needs to respect the people it serves. Threats, power trips, "do you want to fly today?" and so forth do not earn respect.
***********************************
Robert;
lets talk about the "smurf uniforms" as you call them. In the short time since I've started wearing the new uniform, on average, at least 20 people a day comment to me on how they like the new look. These are people who come through my checkpoint, get a smile and good morning, and give one in return, along with a compliment. Not only that Robert, but the majority of the passengers that I have screened have told me they are "glad" we are doing what we're doing. Now I know that there are problems within TSA, I've faced some of those problems myself, and fight for change from the inside as well. But, the majority of the public that I see doesn't need to be asked if they want to fly that day, nor do they present me with a problem regarding the screening process. In fact, 90 percent of the public I see on a daily basis is cooperative with the process, and happy with what we are doing. So i guess you are a part of the ten percent that is unhappy with what we do. I guess we can't please everyone, huh?
October 17, 2008 7:43 PM
TSO Tom said...
I define success for my agency in terms of being able to say that no planes have dropped from the skies since 9/11/01. Its a one day at a time process, like I said. We do what we have to do on a day to day basis, knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary.
......................
"knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary."
In other words do what is needed regardless of the cost, the law, or the constitution to continue the TSA Theater.
No wonder that TSA is held in such low regard by most.
October 17, 2008 10:09 PM
What's good for Kip Hawley is good for the first-class pax.
--
Robert Johnson said...
Let's talk about the rudeness thing as that's what Stephanie seemed to focus on in her bit.
First paragraph: how many of the procedures are required by law? How many of them are arguably illegal and unconstitutional? How can we truly be safe when TSA focuses on security theater and the appearance of security but doesn't provide it (i.e. <50% detection rate)>
--
The safety of aviation in the U.S. is required by law. Do I actually have to go to Findlaw and get you a citation, or can we agree on that?
The major "arguably unconstitutional" procedure that the thread hijackers here harp on the most is TDC. The issue you guys seem to have is that it's not explicitly permitted under the administrative law governing TSA. TSA's takeover from airport operators of the TDC function moved faster than modifications to applicable law. Were you complaining when contractors hired by local airport operators were performing the same function, or is TSA just an easier target for you?
As far the LGA issue goes, unless you aren't given the option to take prohibited liquids back out of the checkpoint - and you know that TSA SOPs mandate that you be given that option - there's no seizure, and no violation of your rights. You have the right to take your property back out, or leave it. You do not have the right to an unlimited happy outcome.
On the detection rate, which detections are we talking about? I'm sure you're aware that many of the tests TSA self-administers go beyond TSA training and are designed specifically to test vulnerabilities in the system; in short, they aren't designed for the officer to catch a realistic threat. That said, does TSA training need to improve? Absolutely. Does it need to focus less on the frivolous "customer service" nonsense, and more on detecting advanced IEDs? Of course and absolutely. No argument from anyone there, including from Kip Hawley.
--
Second paragraph: My irony meter is pegged with the "our TSO's also have rights." TSA doesn't care about passenger rights at all. What rights are being infringed by the public? Technically, a typical person cannot infringe on a right as that requires a person to be a government actor. Additionally, with the threats and verbal abuse TSA dishes out on a regular basis, why should it NOT expect to reap what it sows? TSA needs to clean up its own yard first. Another irony is that saying such things will not be tolerated ... a bit of a threat perhaps?
--
That TSA doesn't care about your rights is a lie, and you know it's a lie. You have the right to relinquish prohibited items, or keep them - as long as you don't bring them along with you where they aren't allowed to go. You have the right to be treated with respect during the screening process - private screenings, to see your property while your person is being screened, to be screened in a sanitary manner, to make formal complaints against officers who do not follow those procedures. Again, you do not have the right not to be screened, or to disrupt screening and prevent others from being screened and proceeding to their planes, or to take your property where it is prohibited from going.
Officers have the right not to be physically assaulted and battered as they perform their duties; not to be interfered with as they perform their duties; not to be slandered about the performance of their official duties. And no, violating those norms will not and should not be tolerated. I;ll go out on a limb and wildly guess that in your rampant narcissism, you'll energetically disagree.
I've read your various comments over the last few months. OK, everyone gets it: you hate TSA. What would it take for TSA to "clean up its house" in your eyes? Guys like Jim Huggins, Abelard, even every now and then Trollkiller have a constructive suggestion or two. Do you have any? Do you have anything but venom, old whine and old grudges?
--
Third paragraph: respect is earned, not deserved. Respect is given back when it is given. I can't help but think the new smurf uniforms were designed to try to demand the respect out of the people. TSA, if you want the public to respect your people and TSA as an organization, it needs to respect the people it serves. Threats, power trips, "do you want to fly today?" and so forth do not earn respect.
I think it's pretty telling that TSA is losing the PR war with the public if it has to post an official sign like this. If the people are getting fed up and simply giving back to TSA what it gives to the public, wouldn't the solution be to clean up TSA rather than blame the public?
--
OK, so what you're saying is that you'd like respect, without having to offer some in return?
TSA has a long way to go in consistently giving the public both the security and the courtesy that are TSA's mission. Is it making positive steps in those directions? It's giving all-hands intensive customer-courtesy training, upgrading its equipment, and working to change its culture. THat goes beyond the blue uniforms you snidely dismiss. Is the transformation going to happen overnight? Of course not. You know that, but it's easier to throw spitballs than be part of a solution.
October 18, 2008 2:08 AM
I asked, How do you define success for TSA.
-----------------------------------
Its easy for TSA to measure success.
This just happened two days ago
New York Airport
TSA has been charged by congress to find bombs, guns, and knifes. Seem to be doing a good job to me. IMO
October 18, 2008 2:37 PM
I don't know what airports all of you are going to or traveling through, but I never ever ever have any problems taveling. TSA has always been very friendly to me and my family. It is far far better then pre 9/11, I will say that. Keep doing what you are doing TSA. I feel safe flying knowing you are there.
October 18, 2008 2:56 PM
I'm so tired of reading the whining coming from you people. You act as if you are entitled to have your ring kissed while you vent your spleen on the TSOs. Sure the process is tiresome and no one feels good about being suspect. The truth of the matter is everyone is a suspect. We don't live in a world where everyone is trusted simply on looks alone. Granny, little Billy, the soccer mom from down the street...they're all suspect. Dorothea Puente, a grandmotherly woman, killed her tenants. She looked like a nice lady. Susan Smith drowned her two little boys...she looked like the soccer mom next door. You are always hearing about some kid killing another kid or some quiet man going to a bell tower to pick off a few passers-by. That's the world we live in. Read the news and you'll find that crazy people and terrorists come in every sex, shape, size and description and no amount of proclaiming "I'm not a terrorist" can change that fact. I personally feel better that TSA looks for bombs in shoes (see Richard Reid), in liquids and makes sure that people who act "funny" at least get screened a little better than what the x-ray and walk through metal detector can do alone. If that doesn't make you feel better then perhaps you should take the train or there's always Greyhound. As for the thefts by TSOs I hate the idea that someone in the public trust could steal from us but I don't paint all the TSOs with the same brush. As for the rudeness, I've seen it on both sides and usually totally unprovoked by the TSO. One trip I actually saw a passenger manhandle a TSO for asking to see a boarding pass. Like any job there are people with varying degrees of civility, politeness and professionalism, TSA is no different. If all you see is rudeness from the TSOs then perhaps your problem is not one of rude TSOs but of your perception. Someone once said, "if you expect the worst you are very likely to get it."
October 19, 2008 2:16 AM
nice info tso tom
things arent the way the were before.
October 19, 2008 4:20 AM
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
October 19, 2008 9:53 AM
I don't understand. First everyone complains about the lack of security. Then TSA beefs up security. Then everyone compares the immense travel system in the U.S. to the miniscule one in Israel, saying how it's better there. Then when BDOs are visible in airports in the States, people complain about them "standing around and doing nothing." As a young agency, TSA is a work in progress. People are fallible, but have some faith that people want to do what is right. It's more than a job at TSA. It's a mission.
October 20, 2008 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...
I don't understand. First everyone complains about the lack of security. Then TSA beefs up security. Then everyone compares the immense travel system in the U.S. to the miniscule one in Israel, saying how it's better there. Then when BDOs are visible in airports in the States, people complain about them "standing around and doing nothing." As a young agency, TSA is a work in progress. People are fallible, but have some faith that people want to do what is right. It's more than a job at TSA. It's a mission.
October 20, 2008 10:10 AM
...............................
I have seen the remark that TSA is a young agency many times here.
So the question that follows has to be answered, How many years are allowed before TSA is expected to perform it's duties properly?
Six years seems like enough time for me!
October 20, 2008 12:27 PM
So the question that follows has to be answered, How many years are allowed before TSA is expected to perform it's duties properly?
My guess is that it is a "new agency" until the first pension checks roll out... so give it another 15-20 years.
October 20, 2008 1:54 PM
Dunstan said...
My guess is that it is a "new agency" until the first pension checks roll out... so give it another 15-20 years.
While I agree with your assessment at some point I hope they find another excuse for poor performance.
This one is getting a tad old!
October 20, 2008 2:29 PM
"TSA has been charged by congress to find bombs, guns, and knifes. Seem to be doing a good job to me. IMO"
Only if you ignore all the other tests TSA regularly fails.
October 20, 2008 5:20 PM
If we're to discuss TSO-passenger relations, I think the discussion needs to open with the recognition of the balance of power. A TSO who encounters a nasty passenger gets nothing more than annoyed. A passenger who encounters a nasty TSO can be hassled, delayed, detained, or even arrested. Clearly, then, it's far more important for TSOs to behave in a disciplined and reasonable fashion, yes?
October 20, 2008 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...
TSO Tom said...
I define success for my agency in terms of being able to say that no planes have dropped from the skies since 9/11/01. Its a one day at a time process, like I said. We do what we have to do on a day to day basis, knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary.
......................
"knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary."
In other words do what is needed regardless of the cost, the law, or the constitution to continue the TSA Theater.
No wonder that TSA is held in such low regard by most.
October 17, 2008 10:09 PM
***********************************
You see guys, that's what I love about this blog. Open dialogue, intended to create meaningful change is twisted into something hateful and non productive. Absolutely beautiful! Anon, first of all, I said we do what we have to do to make sure nothing dangerous gets on those planes, I said nothing about regard to law or whatever the cost. I would ask that you not put words in my mouth. As I stated on this thread, I know full well from experience, the problems that TSA faces as an agency. I won't get into some of them here, as they are internal and should be handled as such. I'm working for change from within, whether we'll see it or not is a different story. But please do not paint me as the enemy or the bad guy.....I'm for the most part....ON YOUR SIDE.
October 20, 2008 9:20 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "The safety of aviation in the U.S. is required by law. Do I actually have to go to Findlaw and get you a citation, or can we agree on that?"
You're arguing a point I didn't make. I wasn't saying that TSA didn't have a mandate to screen. I said that a lot of the methods used were of questionable legality. Big difference.
"The major "arguably unconstitutional" procedure that the thread hijackers here harp on the most is TDC. The issue you guys seem to have is that it's not explicitly permitted under the administrative law governing TSA. TSA's takeover from airport operators of the TDC function moved faster than modifications to applicable law. Were you complaining when contractors hired by local airport operators were performing the same function, or is TSA just an easier target for you?"
There are two separate issues with the TDC.
1. TSA should not be tasked with protecting the airlines revenue. The whole point is revenue protection. While I generally detest the whole ID thing as ID does not equal security, this was more of an annoyance than anything else. Previously, I could decline the ID check and just take an SSSS and be done with it. Sometimes, it was quicker to do so in long lines. :)
2. Refusing to show ID and submitting to TSA's interrogation results in a denial of travel. This wasn't an issue until recently when again, no ID resulted in an SSSS. Take it and be done. While a hassle, it was an option. TSA has done away with that and has unilaterally decided that was no longer good enough and would deny travel based on that, despite the fact that the person was willing to submit to a screening. I have an issue with that as it infringes on rights such as due process, freedom of association and freedom of movement.
It's not just that. You have people put on the NFL for secret reasons with no real means of redress. Filling out the TRIP form is no guarantee that anything will be done, and DHS has already stated that Robert Johnson will never get off the list despite many people having this common name. Administrative fines are contestable only in a Coast Guard court instead of federal court which already slants things in DHS's favor. Sorry, going to a court run by DHS is not due process when DHS issues the fine. The list goes on.
"As far the LGA issue goes, unless you aren't given the option to take prohibited liquids back out of the checkpoint - and you know that TSA SOPs mandate that you be given that option - there's no seizure, and no violation of your rights. You have the right to take your property back out, or leave it. You do not have the right to an unlimited happy outcome."
You assume that I'm arguing for an unlimited happy outcome. I'm not. There have been many posters in this blog who have had items taken that were not on the prohibited items list. Just look at Mr. Gel pak. Just look at the guy with the homemade battery pack that TSA ended up apologizing for. These aren't uncommon occurences.
Think of it this way for a passenger. Passenger brings a legal item thru. TSO decides to prohibit them and gives them the "choices." Passenger is faced with choosing to call the TSO on it, get extra screening, threated with "do you want to fly today" or more and will likely still end up losing the item or just "surrender" the item. As far as the passenger is concerned, it's like the choice another poster gave earlier: a mugger gives a person the choice of giving him his wallet or getting shot. Either way he loses his wallet. It's not a real choice.
Of course, none of this should be an issue as the liquid threat really isn't grounded in reality. Aside from scientists debunking this, TSA's own treatment of LGA's shows that it even doesn't take this threat seriously.
"On the detection rate, which detections are we talking about? I'm sure you're aware that many of the tests TSA self-administers go beyond TSA training and are designed specifically to test vulnerabilities in the system; in short, they aren't designed for the officer to catch a realistic threat. That said, does TSA training need to improve? Absolutely. Does it need to focus less on the frivolous "customer service" nonsense, and more on detecting advanced IEDs? Of course and absolutely. No argument from anyone there, including from Kip Hawley."
I'm talking about government red team tests. TSA has repeatedly failed these. I've never seen Kip own up to these. In fact, one time when he was called to the carpet to Congress about the abysmal failure rates, he said it was good the screeners were failing because the tests were hard. The problem is that TSA rarely admits it's wrong and when it does, it's because it's been shamed into it.
"That TSA doesn't care about your rights is a lie, and you know it's a lie."
It's not a lie when TSA has repeatedly shown it doesn't have a regard for people's rights.
"You have the right to relinquish prohibited items, or keep them - as long as you don't bring them along with you where they aren't allowed to go."
Unless a TSO says an otherwise permitted item is all of the sudden prohibited. Look at Mr. Gelpak.
"You have the right to be treated with respect during the screening process - private screenings, to see your property while your person is being screened, to be screened in a sanitary manner, to make formal complaints against officers who do not follow those procedures."
Having the right to receiving something and receiving something are two different things unfortunately.
"Again, you do not have the right not to be screened, or to disrupt screening and prevent others from being screened and proceeding to their planes, or to take your property where it is prohibited from going."
You're arguing a point I didn't make. I never said otherwise.
"Officers have the right not to be physically assaulted and battered as they perform their duties; not to be interfered with as they perform their duties; not to be slandered about the performance of their official duties. And no, violating those norms will not and should not be tolerated."
I never said they shouldn't be. However, if TSA is going to cry about the rights of their screeners, they also need to respect the rights of the passengers as well.
"I;ll go out on a limb and wildly guess that in your rampant narcissism, you'll energetically disagree."
Nice ad hominem and straw man. Takes a lot away from your argument.
"I've read your various comments over the last few months. OK, everyone gets it: you hate TSA. What would it take for TSA to "clean up its house" in your eyes? Guys like Jim Huggins, Abelard, even every now and then Trollkiller have a constructive suggestion or two. Do you have any? Do you have anything but venom, old whine and old grudges?"
If you've only been here for a few months, you'd see I've posted a lot of constructive things as well. I've been here since the beginning of the blog. I was hopeful of TSA's aspirations for encouraging dialogue and change. They seemed to be turning a corner. Unfortunately, I don't think TSA's really interested in soliciting the public for solutions or generating dialog. There's very little official dialog here from the bloggers. A lot of posts seemed to be more for PR and propaganda than encouraging dialogue.
What would it take for TSA to clean up its house? Hold rogue TSO's acocuntable. Follow up on complaints with REAL responses ... not boilerplate responses that show complaints haven't been read. Leadership not blindly siding with rogue screeners when a passenger complains about treatment. Not subjecting people to virtual strip searches. Eliminating screening of fantasy threats. Providing the dialog that we were promised on here. The list goes on.
If other nations can provide quick, efficient, and thorough screening at major international hubs and do so in a polite manner (Seoul and Tokyo are particularly good at this), then TSA can too. However, TSA needs to be willing to learn from other nations' security plans not fall victim to the "not invented here" mentality (such as Kip saying liquid screening technology doesn't exist yet when it clearly has in Japan for years).
TSA has a lot wrong with it. TSA can fix a lot of these things with not a whole lot of effort. However, many of the resources are focuses on the wrong things. TSA didn't need new uniforms ... they need new technology ... new x-rays. How many x-rays could the new uniforms and badges have bought?
"OK, so what you're saying is that you'd like respect, without having to offer some in return?"
No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that passengers to be treated and respected as people and not as cattle to be shuffled thru. They have the right not to be yelled at (the checkpoints have been quieter ... this is a good thing).
You know, you honestly have no idea how I go thru the checkpoint. You'd never know me from anyone else in the crowd, aside from the T-shirt I wear. I go thru and try to get thru with as little hassle as possible. Yes, I know that may surprise you. I don't go in looking for trouble ... if I can get thru a checkpoint without saying a word to a TSO, it's a good thing. However, if a TSO tries to pull a power trip on me, I'm not going to back down either.
"TSA has a long way to go in consistently giving the public both the security and the courtesy that are TSA's mission. Is it making positive steps in those directions? It's giving all-hands intensive customer-courtesy training, upgrading its equipment, and working to change its culture. THat goes beyond the blue uniforms you snidely dismiss. Is the transformation going to happen overnight? Of course not. You know that, but it's easier to throw spitballs than be part of a solution."
If you're a TSO, are some of the comments like the last few lines part of the professionalism we're promised?
No one from TSA has answered this question: just what were the new cop uniforms and badges supposed to convey? Is it just coincidence that they're looking like cops with badges that say officer on them, or is it trying to send a message? If trying to send a message, what message?
Just how long does TSA need to fix these things? I hear the excuse that "TSA's a young agency" but geez, it's been around for over 6 years now.
Tom Daschel told us you can't professionalize until you federalize. When are we going to see the professionalization?
I can be part of the solution. I've tried. TSA has to be willing to listen to feedback though and take it seriously. I've heard TSA say a lot of things that sound good on here, but until it puts its money where it's mouth is, they're just empty words.
Robert
October 21, 2008 1:56 AM
"As far the LGA issue goes, unless you aren't given the option to take prohibited liquids back out of the checkpoint - and you know that TSA SOPs mandate that you be given that option - there's no seizure, and no violation of your rights. You have the right to take your property back out, or leave it. You do not have the right to an unlimited happy outcome."
Except that in transit off an international flight I don't get the option to take it back out because I'm somewhere completely unfamiliar with a tight-ish connection to make after coming out of CBP. Let me move from Customs to the next gate without a TSA checkpoint and I'll concede the existence of this choice.
October 21, 2008 10:47 AM
TSO Tom said...
Anonymous said...
TSO Tom said...
I define success for my agency in terms of being able to say that no planes have dropped from the skies since 9/11/01. Its a one day at a time process, like I said. We do what we have to do on a day to day basis, knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary.
......................
"knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary."
In other words do what is needed regardless of the cost, the law, or the constitution to continue the TSA Theater.
No wonder that TSA is held in such low regard by most.
October 17, 2008 10:09 PM
***********************************
You see guys, that's what I love about this blog. Open dialogue, intended to create meaningful change is twisted into something hateful and non productive. Absolutely beautiful! Anon, first of all, I said we do what we have to do to make sure nothing dangerous gets on those planes, I said nothing about regard to law or whatever the cost. I would ask that you not put words in my mouth. As I stated on this thread, I know full well from experience, the problems that TSA faces as an agency. I won't get into some of them here, as they are internal and should be handled as such. I'm working for change from within, whether we'll see it or not is a different story. But please do not paint me as the enemy or the bad guy.....I'm for the most part....ON YOUR SIDE.
October 20, 2008 9:20 PM
So I can only post things that you agree with, otherwise it's hateful and non-productive. Is that it? Freedom is a one way street in your world it seems.
I quoted you exactly, and how I interpet your words are not up to you! You said your prepared to actions as necessary. Your words, not mine. You did not place limits on your actions.
You say, "I'm for the most part....ON YOUR SIDE."
You work for TSA so you cannot possibly be on my side!
October 21, 2008 11:47 AM
There has been no public data on red team test on the new equipment employed for "security evolution." So your arguements on red team failures is a old data point.
With that said...
When is TSA going to make public the red team test percentage on the new checkpoint?
October 21, 2008 3:25 PM
There has been no public data on red team test on the new equipment employed for "security evolution." So your arguements on red team failures is a old data point.
With that said...
When is TSA going to make public the red team test percentage on the new checkpoint?
They learned their collective lessons and will not release that information because of it being a political hot potato that keeps being thrown back in the face of DHS management.
October 21, 2008 4:46 PM
@Anonymous: "There has been no public data on red team test on the new equipment employed for "security evolution." So your arguements on red team failures is a old data point.
With that said...
When is TSA going to make public the red team test percentage on the new checkpoint?"
The old data is still valid unless the vast majority of check points are converted to new systems. Many of which I travel thru aren't.
October 21, 2008 4:57 PM
Robert,
I had the long response to your comments. The points you raised in response to me are, frankly, a lot more thoughtful than your earlier comments. I've said it already, and I'll say it again: TSA has a long way to go before delivering on its promises. I think most of us - pax or TSA - would like to see that progress happen faster. Yes, your frustration is understandable. If you can recognize when positive progress is made - even if it is slow and incremental - I think there's room for agreement on some things.
October 21, 2008 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...
TSO Tom said...
Anonymous said...
TSO Tom said...
I define success for my agency in terms of being able to say that no planes have dropped from the skies since 9/11/01. Its a one day at a time process, like I said. We do what we have to do on a day to day basis, knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary.
......................
"knowing full well that we are prepared to take action as necessary."
In other words do what is needed regardless of the cost, the law, or the constitution to continue the TSA Theater.
No wonder that TSA is held in such low regard by most.
October 17, 2008 10:09 PM
***********************************
You see guys, that's what I love about this blog. Open dialogue, intended to create meaningful change is twisted into something hateful and non productive. Absolutely beautiful! Anon, first of all, I said we do what we have to do to make sure nothing dangerous gets on those planes, I said nothing about regard to law or whatever the cost. I would ask that you not put words in my mouth. As I stated on this thread, I know full well from experience, the problems that TSA faces as an agency. I won't get into some of them here, as they are internal and should be handled as such. I'm working for change from within, whether we'll see it or not is a different story. But please do not paint me as the enemy or the bad guy.....I'm for the most part....ON YOUR SIDE.
October 20, 2008 9:20 PM
So I can only post things that you agree with, otherwise it's hateful and non-productive. Is that it? Freedom is a one way street in your world it seems.
I quoted you exactly, and how I interpet your words are not up to you! You said your prepared to actions as necessary. Your words, not mine. You did not place limits on your actions.
You say, "I'm for the most part....ON YOUR SIDE."
You work for TSA so you cannot possibly be on my side!
October 21, 2008 11:47 AM
***********************************
The problem anon, is not that I don't agree with you, that's a moot point. The problem is that no matter what anybody says, if its positive, if its constructive you will disagree with it. That makes it a pointless conversation. You're not contributing meaningful dialogue, you are set on one opinion and nothing will change that....you hate TSA, period. Therefore, nothing I say or anybody else for that matter will ever be good enough for you. So be it, I'm done wasting my time, have a nice life anon.
October 21, 2008 7:05 PM
The old data is still valid unless the vast majority of check points are converted to new systems. Many of which I travel thru aren't.
True. Good point but reading the latest blog (the 100 body scanners) I think they are all converting (slowly.. i'm thinking budget related delays). I just want to know the data to see if this new equipment is worth our tax dollars.
October 21, 2008 8:21 PM
Here's an interesting news report on an interaction at a checkpoint:
http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/31366239.html
This seems like a violation of this portion of the TSA web site http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1370.shtm#0, where it says "Security Officers will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace".
One question comes to mind -- how does having a person put weight on each foot individually contribute to security? Is this some attempt to see if the person really needs the device in question? Is this part of an SOP, or some local improvisation? This strikes me as an attempt to conduct some sort of medical evaluation of the passenger's claimed limitations. I will be interested to see if / how this is dealt with on this blog.
I'm going to use this as a jumping off point for a broader question -- does the TSA look at its rules from the standpoint of "how does this rule contribute to security"? For example, I never did see the security benefit in the old prohibition on nail clippers and eyeglass repair kits. Apparently, the eyeglass repair kit prohibition was the logical extreme of the "no tools" and "nothing with sharp edges" rules in effect at the time.
While this may have made sense in a bureaucratic sort of way, it made no sense to me relative to actual security. As I have pointed out before, what bad things can a person do with these items, anyway? Take someone's glasses apart and mess up their manicure? Yet, these rules stayed on the books for some time before finally being done away with.
Taken down to the level of the day to day work at the checkpoint, does the TSA evaluate "how do our actions contribute to security"? For example, someone please explain to me how a recording that continually chants out the threat level de jour adds to security. To me, it's just more background noise, because what is the real world difference between a "yellow" day or an "orange" day?
This same concept could be applied to interactions with individual passengers. Why do something if it doesn't improve security, which comes back to my earlier question -- what is the point of having someone put weight on each foot? It just doesn't make sense to me.
October 21, 2008 11:23 PM
Robert,
I dashed off a short answer to you this afternoon (not on the G's dime), and afterward I realized that it probably struck a more patronizing note than I'd intended. So, if you don't mind ...
I didn't mean to patronize when I said your response was a lot more thoughtful than the other comments I've seen from you. I agree with lot more of what you said today than I can disagree with. And for the record, because you asked and I don't think I answered: yes, I have been a TSO at a major airport for nearly two years. I spent a lot of that time as a training instructor, in which probably my most personally rewarding task was to help train officers to better identify IEDs and other "real" threats. For me, that is what our mission is and needs to be: stop guns, stop bombs, and stop nuts from getting access to aircraft. Everything else is fluff and frosting. However, I also have an extensive customer-service background - for Nordstrom, for a business serving Fortune 100 manufacturers in an executive/strategic capacity, and as a businessowner - and although I don't buy into some flimsy notion of "customer service" as our highest priority, I believe passengers have a very reasonable expectation (perhaps not rising to a right, but an expectation) to be treated with dignity and respect. Although I don't 100% succeed in that, that's the standard I strive for, and to instill in new officers. I can't control a massive initiative like Checkpoint Evolution, but I can control what happens within my own reach.
We agree that when TSA or any other gov't agency does not follow due process and enforce its own policies both for the public and for its own people, that agency does not serve you well. When officers don't follow their own SOPs and behave arbitrarily based on the passenger's attitudes, that weakens the agency and the mission, not strengthens it. I don't know if your story re: the no-fly list is hypothetical, or if you've been contending with that, but when people are denied the privilege of air travel based on sloppy criteria and not given due process, security is weakened, not strengthened. We can't effectively do our jobs without buy-in from the traveling public. Sloppy targeting hurts the mission, and it violates your rights. If that's what happened to you, I understand your frustration and I'm sorry for it. If it's a hypothetical, I understand your outrage and I share it. You did a better job today of helping me empathize. FWIW, someone in TSA "gets it" on that issue.
To all of your responses to my "what would it take?" question,I agree. I was almost physically ill when I read about the baggage TSO at EWR last week. But then, it's also unexpected because our FSD takes integrity issues very seriously. We had an officer fired last month for taking a relinquished can of soda. THe people running our Eyes in the Sky have zero tolerance. If I could be Kip for a day, every airport would be run that way. When thefts are not followed up on and vigorously investigated and prosecuted, again - it weakens the public's trust and therefore weakens our ability to execute the mission.
You deserve answers here and elsewhere when legit complaints or constructive criticisms are raised. I'm not sure why you haven't gotten that here. "We're not going to implement that, but we listened" is better than dead air. Ditto "I don't know, and I'll find out." Again, if that's been your experience (and I'm erring on your side for this one), I understand your frustration, and I wish you were getting better answers. Or any at all.
The only reason we exist is to stop bombs, guns, and nuts from getting onto airplanes. We need to do better. As someone who's played a small role in making that better, it's happening, although slowly. I see it at my airport and in our training programs, although understandably, I can't provide details. (One note on the Red Team tests. I got hit with one very early in my time here. Those tests usually exceed the average level of a TSO's training and proficiency, and even the SOP; in short, they're designed more to probe weaknesses in the system than to "pass/fail" TSOs. Again, I couldn't provide details even if Bob let me, but I know this first-hand because I've been through one and I've worked the training mission. THey do help us train.)
I don't know if any of this is helpful to the discussion. I guess what I'm trying to say, in a lot more detail than earlier, is that I have a lot better understanding of your real and justifiable frustration. Please accept my apologies for the assumptions and snarks, and believe that some of us do take the mission - and your rights - seriously. Coming from that direction - and working hard at it - it can be very hard not to be defensive against criticisms that do not initially appear based in fact. Again, I hope we can find some common ground here.
October 21, 2008 11:58 PM
Except that in transit off an international flight I don't get the option to take it back out because I'm somewhere completely unfamiliar with a tight-ish connection to make after coming out of CBP. Let me move from Customs to the next gate without a TSA checkpoint and I'll concede the existence of this choice.
--
Yangj08,
That's less a TSA issue than an airport-configuration issue. Some airports have connectivity between various terminals, gates, etc. after you get through the checkpoints. TSA 1) has to treat every LGA that LEAVES a checkpoint as an unscreened item, because it can be tampered with, and 2) has to make do with whatever space the airport operator gives it. Do you think there might be a way to solve this problem?
October 22, 2008 12:07 AM
To the anonomous poster who said he/she understood why someone would want to through a bottle of cologne at a screener because the rule is idiotic (nevermind that it has been well known for 2+ years and your fault for not checking your luggage) and cargo is not screened, your wrong. Cargo is screened. If you were referring to checked baggage not being screened, you are also wrong. It's all screened.
October 22, 2008 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...
Robert,
I dashed off a short answer to you this afternoon (not on the G's dime), and afterward I realized that it probably struck a more patronizing note than I'd intended. So, if you don't mind ...
For me, that is what our mission is and needs to be: stop guns, stop bombs, and stop nuts from getting access to aircraft.
I don't know if your story re: the no-fly list is hypothetical, or if you've been contending with that, but when people are denied the privilege of air travel based on sloppy criteria and not given due process, security is weakened, not strengthened.
I'm not Robert but have a couple of comments.
When you say keep "nuts" of airplanes do you mean a person with a mental illness who wishes to travel? That is how it sounds to me.
Can you state a threat that could result in the airplane being used as a weapon or crashed by this person who would have no other items to use to accomplish this task?
Are you practicing medicine at your checkpoint? If so they put people like you in jail for such acts!
Secondly you refer to the "privilage" of air travel.
The govenment has no right to restrict anyones movements unless they are being held for an infraction of the law. The airline, as a private company, can refuse carriage if they wish but the government has no part of that contract.
Seems like some little old document covers this quiet well!
Perhaps you and the rest of TSA should take a couple of minutes and read it.
Reading your comments scares the bejesus out of me because you are so willing to surrender your rights and attempt to have me surrender mine!
October 22, 2008 3:41 PM
I believe passengers have a very reasonable expectation (perhaps not rising to a right, but an expectation) to be treated with dignity and respect.
I think we passengers have the right to be treated with civility and courtesy, which probably correlates with your words "dignity and respect".
It doesn't matter what your position is, it's not a license to be rude. It's not a license to humiliate others. It's not a license to yell, and it's not a license to threaten for no good reason.
Many of us have complained of being treated like criminals at the checkpoint, and that is a direct result of the "I'm a TSO, can do as I want, and there's nothing you can do about it" mentality that we've encountered.
Ann Landers said that the greatest test of character is how you treat the people who can't hit back.
Good words to live by, IMHO, regardless of your station in life...
October 22, 2008 7:33 PM
When you say keep "nuts" of airplanes do you mean a person with a mental illness who wishes to travel? That is how it sounds to me.
--
I was condensing. No, I'm not referring to mental illnesses in general; I've actually suffered from severe anxiety/bipolar issues, so I could easily be classified as such. I'm referring to persons who exhibit signs of mental disorders that might cause a disruption on an aircraft that could injure passengers or aircrew(esp. psychopathic behaviors, which as far as I'm concerned, describes most or all people who want to commit terror by killing large numbers of innocents.) Would I make that determination? No, if I see a passenger displaying behaviors I'm uncomfortable with in that sense, I'll call a supervisor, the supervisor will call a LEO, and the LEO will make that determination. You are correct.
---
Can you state a threat that could result in the airplane being used as a weapon or crashed by this person who would have no other items to use to accomplish this task?
--
A violent individual could improvise to cause a lot of injuries and chaos on an airplane. Taking over or crashing the plane is the worst case scenario, but our job is to prevent any threat to the well-being of the planes and pax, not just the worst ones.
---
Are you practicing medicine at your checkpoint? If so they put people like you in jail for such acts!
--
Answered above.
---
Secondly you refer to the "privilage" of air travel.
The govenment has no right to restrict anyones movements unless they are being held for an infraction of the law. The airline, as a private company, can refuse carriage if they wish but the government has no part of that contract.
--
Your right to travel within the U.S. does not specify the right to a specific means or speed of conveyance. To use another example, you have the right to buy a car, but being able to drive it is a privilege subject to rules. Similarly, flying is subject to rules and restrictions - both from the federal government, like the no-fly list (which we agree is a very imperfect database) and basic security and safety rules (which we agree can and should be better clarified and articulated, although some are obvious; i.e., if you purposefully attempt to get a gun or IED components on the plane, your privilege will probably be revoked.) The inability to fly doesn't rule out rental cars, private cars, Greyhound bus, bicycle, or the thumb and the Shoe Leather Express. Maybe that clarifies.
---
Seems like some little old document covers this quiet well!
Perhaps you and the rest of TSA should take a couple of minutes and read it.
--
I have. Have you?
October 22, 2008 8:11 PM
Seems like some little old document covers this quiet well!
Perhaps you and the rest of TSA should take a couple of minutes and read it.
--
I have. Have you?
.................................
Yes, I have. The problem seems to be that if you read it like you say you have then you failed to comprehend what your read.
October 23, 2008 11:47 AM
Not sure if the system accepted this when I posted it. So if it did, please disregard this one.
For those saying DHS/TSA doesn't ignore Congress, here's one example from a bipartisan committee:
TSA Continues to Ignore Congress and GAO
Air Cargo Still Vulnerable
A Quote from Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-MS:
"Chairman Thompson the following statement regarding the findings:
“Ignoring a mandate from Congress and recommendations from the GAO on this critical security issue borders on the criminal, said Thompson. This Administration has left a gaping hole in our aviation security on which any terrorist can capitalize. This report further reinforces Congress’s intent in HR 1 to screen all air-cargo on passenger aircraft. It is critical that the Department of Homeland Security comply with all of the GAO’s recommendations. The flying public deserves no less.”"
Didn't take long to find with a Google search.
Robert
October 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Robert Johnson quoted:
A Quote from Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-MS:
"Chairman Thompson the following statement regarding the findings:
“Ignoring a mandate from Congress and recommendations from the GAO on this critical security issue borders on the criminal, said Thompson.
I read in a recent newspaper blog that Rep Thompson is on the short list of possible Homeland Security Secretary nominees in the probable Obama Administration.
Chertoff and Kippie will have retreated to Fox News or a right-wing think tank and will be long gone before be darkens the hallways of DHS HQ.
For the rest of you from all the SESs down to the lowest screener, he's about to become your worst nightmare. You might get a big of a momentary reprieve, because he hates FEMA more than the TSA.
We, The People, can only hope...
By the way, Bob, I'm still waiting for the answer to my ethics question.
October 24, 2008 11:22 AM
Here is the time line for air cargo.
50% of air cargo screened by Feb 2009
100% by Aug 2010
The issue Rep. Thomas is bring up is the implementation of air cargo screening. He is not happy that TSA is heading towards a shipping company doing self screening before the cargo reaches the airport. Rep. Thomas wants the cargo screened just like checked baggage at the airport by TSA personel.
In short, TSA is not ignoring the law congress passed. TSA is ignoring the congressional opions on how they should comply with the law. All congress has to do is ammend the law and poof. TSA will comply with the law like it has this entire time.
This is not a good example of TSA being a rouge agnecy and such a example does not exist.
from one of the six who post
October 24, 2008 3:18 PM
For the link I posted earlier where I Quoted Rep. Bennie Thompson, it looks like I messed up the HTML.
Here's the actual link.
TSA Continues to Ignore Congress and GAO
Don't want you all thinking I'm making it up or got off some crackpot site (unless you think Congress is full of crackpots. :D).
Robert
October 24, 2008 11:08 PM
Sadly Americans have no idea what you want. You complained and cried for a change to be made after 9/11 and TSA was the answer. Also you didnt want an agency to look menacing and too asthetically overbearing you people decided not to have them issued weapons. Its crazy how most people on here complain about TSA and how uneducated they are, or how rude they are, or how they heard you all in like cattle. Did you ever think that maybe americans ask for it? You want to get where you want to go, fast, safely, and efficiently. TSA at some airports can affectively screen over 90,000 passengers a day. and they do it whle (for the most part) not violating any civil rights, or causing any holdups. Americans are children thathave to be told what they want because they will complain either way. They also have no idea of what is good for them. I am an American and I am a Federal employee and i know because i see it everyday. So keep complaining America and our government will continue to spoon feed you till you are old enough to take care of yourselves.
October 26, 2008 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...
To the anonomous poster who said he/she understood why someone would want to through a bottle of cologne at a screener because the rule is idiotic (nevermind that it has been well known for 2+ years and your fault for not checking your luggage) and cargo is not screened, your wrong. Cargo is screened. If you were referring to checked baggage not being screened, you are also wrong. It's all screened.
October 22, 2008 11:41 AM
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''
You apparently missed the news release marking that some cargo on narrow body aircraft is screened.
Cargo is not all screened.
If you work for TSA, which it appears you do, you should be sure of what your saying before spouting your mouth off.
October 26, 2008 3:15 PM
Anon wrote "Its crazy how most people on here complain about TSA and how uneducated they are, or how rude they are, or how they heard you all in like cattle. Did you ever think that maybe americans ask for it?"
Please explain to me how simply approaching the checkpoint constitutes asking for rude treatment. Also, even if having to spoon feed folks a bit is annoying, it's not an excuse for being rude.
October 27, 2008 2:50 PM
Great idea to have screeners dressed in BDUs and carrying machine-guns!!!! Maybe it would get your attention and get you out of your own little world and into the world where certain people hate you for no reason at all and are trying to kill you!!!!! It certainly works in my yard!!!!!!
October 30, 2008 5:12 PM
I havent read through all the posts yet but i wanted to comment smt.
First off, half of you are complaining of TSA's rudness while you are the ones that are being smt more than rude right now with you comments..
Im a European and probably dont know how exactly things work up there and if TSA is indeed THAT rude but i have to say this..If there was another 9/11 like event, everyone would blame TSA as well, for not doing their job. You would accuse them for not being as strict as they should and why not deploying strict policies even if they would be on public's expense and incovenience. You would say that it wouldnt matter whether people would feel comfortable or not while being screened etc , you would say that what matters is the result and that is, preventing the disaster from taking place.
So now that some policies are in place and since TSA seem to do its work , you AGAIN find reasons to complain.
How would you be ideally satisfied? Nothing is perfect in this word, we shouldnt be that strict with people. Im sure they do their best.
And as far as thtowing away cologne and other liquids just before boarding..im asking you...since you KNOW what's the policy, since you are aware of the so RUDE and STRICT policy that is in place, why do you go screening carriyng your cologne?
Cant understand you people..is europe that different from u??
November 17, 2008 9:31 AM
I think it's a little silly that I can't bring my eyeglass repair kit with me on the plane but that if I want to check my baggage- it will cost me a lot of money. What is becoming of America??
I, whole-heartedly, believe that the US is turning into the land of the rude. While I understand that TSA agents aren't supposed to be nice- there is no reason for them to yell at people. They should learn from the Israelis.
March 4, 2009 7:41 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home