Behavior Detection Officers Lead to Arrest in Orlando
(UPDATE 04/02/2008: Read the updated story. )You might have seen on the news or the web today that Behavior Detection Officers at Orlando International Airport spotted a passenger in the airport lobby, well before the screening checkpoint, who was behaving suspiciously. Because of the passenger's highly irregular behavior, the officers ensured he was under surveillance as he moved through the airport, and requested that his checked bags immediately be searched.
As a result of the bag search, a variety of suspicious items were found. (Since the FBI is leading the investigation, we're not saying exactly what these items are although there is speculation in the press and on the web). The individual was taken into custody by Orlando Police and the FBI is now questioning him. If you’ve been watching the news, you’ve probably seen the bomb squad removing the passenger's clothing curbside to ensure he did not pose a threat.
Since the passenger was stopped before he could get to the checkpoint, checkpoint operations were not affected and flights continued to take off and land. A perimeter was established in Terminal A while the bomb squad did their work.
This is an excellent example of the layers of security in action throughout the airport. This is also a good example of using specially trained Behavior Detection Officers to look for people with hostile intent as well as the items they intend to use. It's a further testament that the behavior detection program works (yes, I'm partial...).
For the official TSA statement, click here.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
9:51 PM
Subscribe in a reader
148 Comments:
The guy was bouncing up and down. He was also tilting to the left and right. They found a threaded pipe with end caps. They also found a bunch of ball bearings. It was pretty noticible since other passengers saw the guy and said that the guys actions creeped them out.
I will give this one to the BDO for doing their job and heading off a possible bombing attempt. Now if the guy just had the components and no explosives then they most likely will take his goodies away before sending him on his way. Google this for more information.
April 1, 2008 9:59 PM
Quotes from the CNN story:
"'He looked rather crazy,' a passenger told CNN affiliate WKMG. "He was rocking left and right and up and down."
Behavior identification officers like the one who noticed the suspect are plain-clothes officers trained to spot suspicious behavior at airports, Kair said.
'When people are doing things that are deceptive, they exhibit behaviors that are involuntary," he said. "Our officers are very well trained to identify these behaviors.'"
Bob, I wouldn't give the BDO's much credit on this one as he was doing "crazy" things, which almost anyone is able to recognize.
I would like to see what the "suspicious" items are before I would trumpet such a story. If history is any prior indication, this will prove to be much ado about nothing.
April 1, 2008 10:02 PM
You deserve to take pride in this one. TSA did their job in a way that is hard to find fault with. Keep it up, infuse this good stuff back into the TSA culture. Whatever this guy's problem was, you defused it.
Hopefully this will put a smile on your faces for a few days.
April 1, 2008 10:28 PM
Passengers waiting to board flights at Orlando International Airport Tuesday said they noticed Brown acting suspiciously before agents moved in.
"He looked rather crazy," a passenger said. "He was rocking left and right and up and down. He looked a little wacko."
The above was reported in the press. So your highly trained BDO's noticed these subtle behaviors?
Sounds like the most casual observer would have noticed that something was not right.
Never a good idea to pat your own back!
April 1, 2008 10:39 PM
weather or not the BDO's deserve the credit. it is obvious there was a threat at this airport. a serious one.
the ''security theatre'' as many like to call it, might actuall be for a reason.
passengers think this is all a joke, and they become complacent. good thing the TSA doesnt
April 1, 2008 10:59 PM
Thanks to ALL who were involved in stopping whatever this turns out to be. There was vigilance and a threat was stopped, no matter how major or minor.
God forbid anyone would say something good about the TSA BDO's. But I will, THANKS again.
D. Price
Nebraska
April 1, 2008 11:27 PM
So where is the blog posting about the evacuation in BDL over tin foil?
http://www.wfsb.com/news/15759899/detail.html
April 1, 2008 11:47 PM
passengers think this is all a joke, and they become complacent. good thing the TSA doesnt
Absolutely no one things that all airport security is a joke. Note that no one objects to walking through a metal detector, or having one's carry-on bags X-rayed. What we object to are pointless procedures based on impossible-to-carry-out threats, like the stupid liquids ban designed to thwart imaginary liquid explosives that do not exist, or mandatory shoe screening the costs of which far outstrip the benefits, or interminable ID checks that will not stop anyone at all from getting through security.
April 2, 2008 12:41 AM
Did he have nipple rings?
April 2, 2008 1:05 AM
Anonymous said...
Bob, I wouldn't give the BDO's much credit on this one as he was doing "crazy" things, which almost anyone is able to recognize.
You haven't visited Orlando before have you? A week at Disney is enough to make anyone bounce around.
April 2, 2008 1:23 AM
Yes, he was doing crazy things but how many times do you walk past someone and say I am not getting involved. According to some bloggers everyone is innocent, we should of just asked him if he meant harm and took his word on it. Sorry you can't have it both ways, some may think oh this is as just a little thing but it is one of those little things that is going to harm us. Good job in Orlando and I hope that all TSO's remain vigilant through criticism and scrutinity.
April 2, 2008 5:13 AM
Quote "Bob, I wouldn't give the BDO's much credit on this one as he was doing "crazy" things, which almost anyone is able to recognize."
Fact is, ALMOST ANYONE didn't report this guy, the BDOs did. As someone else said, How many times have you walked past a crazy person and said "I'm not going to get involved." They did.
Would you rather they weren't there yesterday?
April 2, 2008 8:05 AM
"According to some bloggers everyone is innocent, we should of just asked him if he meant harm and took his word on it."
Please provide a link to back this statement up, or retract it and apologize for lying.
April 2, 2008 8:06 AM
What a shock that the usual cadre of blind "I hate TSA for (insert daily gripe here)" posters fail to recognize success when they see it. Just as the more enlightened posters have noted, no one...no one but the BDO(s) reported this guy's behavior that led to the detention and ultimate discovery of bomb making materials. You can complain about rude TSOs, liquid restrictions that you can't seem to understand, jump up and down about your perception of eroded civil liberties based in fact less lp.org talking points until you're blue in the face for all I care. I see results and applaud TSA for doing what it does every day.
April 2, 2008 8:55 AM
Since when is acting or looking weird a crime in this country? Or probably cause to being to searched? I'm not convinced that acting shifty is enough. How about X-Rays and detection equipment that works? How about screeners that are professional and do their jobs? How about a consideration of our rights and privacy? If the TSA did all of these things, Osama Bin Laden should be able to fly anywhere in the country, it wouldn't matter because it would be safe. We should be able to travel anonymously without worrying that our personality quirks are going to get us strip searched on the curb.
And to those of you who would say that the world is different and the founding fathers would be ok with all of this, don't forget they had FOREIGN TROOPS quartered in their cities, sometimes taking over their homes!
April 2, 2008 9:21 AM
"According to some bloggers everyone is innocent, we should of just asked him if he meant harm and took his word on it."
"Please provide a link to back this statement up, or retract it and apologize for lying."
Oh come on....now someone is getting all indignant...which is ridiculous when we have read a gazillion times on this blog that TSA is nothing but "security theater"; that liquids, gels and shoe bombs are not a threat; and that TSA should be abolished.
You can't have it both ways. If you take reasoning like "security theater" and "TSA is a farce and should be abolished" to its logical conclusion then there is no threat, i.e. no one is trying or capable of doing us harm, i.e. everyone is innocent.
If everyone is not innocent, please enlighten us all and tell us what the real threats are and how we should protect against them?
April 2, 2008 9:22 AM
Good job guys. People can say whatever negative judgements they want, but in my opinion you did your job correctly. Hats off to everyone involved.
April 2, 2008 9:51 AM
Anonymous @ April 2, 2008 8:55 AM said:
"What a shock that the usual cadre of blind "I hate TSA for (insert daily gripe here)" posters fail to recognize success when they see it. Just as the more enlightened posters have noted, no one...no one but the BDO(s) reported this guy's behavior that led to the detention and ultimate discovery of bomb making materials. You can complain about rude TSOs, liquid restrictions that you can't seem to understand, jump up and down about your perception of eroded civil liberties based in fact less lp.org talking points until you're blue in the face for all I care. I see results and applaud TSA for doing what it does every day."
OK, I will...
I equate this "big catch" as cops stopping a guy for speeding who drives 60 in a school zone right past a cop along the side of the road using his radar gun.
Ya' know? I have at least one of every one of his "bomb-making" items right now in my garage/workshop. (I'll bet you probably have them as well.) I guess we should turn ourselves in right away...
Don't flatter yourselves, TSA.
April 2, 2008 10:20 AM
Tentatively I'll say "Good job" guys. It's a shame that what people get arrested for isn't a matter of public record, but hopefully the facts will come to light. I'd say "good catch" but it doesn't sound like the BDOs really had a difficult job there.
I still disagree with the use of BDOs on general principal. It's way too 1984. There is far too much potential for abuse and as we've seen, TSA isn't really strong on common sense and appropriate responses to situations. (Though it does sound like the BDO(s) in question had good working eyes and brains)
At least no one was tasered to death.
April 2, 2008 10:32 AM
Several of the articles on the incident imply that the pipes, end-caps, BBs, and "unknown liquid" were in the guy's *CHECKED* luggage.
None of these items are prohibited in checked luggage. (or really in carry-on either, except liquids due to the silly war-on-water, which is based on an underlying threat that has been debunked as a hoax.) And if they were in his CHECKED luggage, which he had already checked in, it's clear he wasn't planning to assemble them into a bomb for his flight.
Did he have any explosives? If so, you know TSA would come out at tout this. And "bomb-making" "reading materials" is pretty vague; suspicious but not illegal.
Look, the guy was acting crazy. It's probably a good idea he was stopped. But while there's a lot of mentally disturbed people out there I'd just as soon avoid interaction with, in a supposedly-free country you for the most part have to let them be.
April 2, 2008 10:47 AM
Even I one of the many loud voices on this blog who is generally among the first to point out nearly everything that TSA does wrong has to say that in this one instance the TSA got it right. So in the spirit of fairness, let's see what the TSA did right for once:
1. The BDOs observed this person's behavior that seemed odd. They simply kept him under surveillance. I did not read anywhere, however, that they hassled him in any way. They permitted him to go about his business.
2. After the person checked baggage the TSA searched the bags and found items that gave them pause. The TSA informed the appropriate authorities who then approached the person and using what appears to be proper police procedure found reason to detain the person further.
This is an example of how the system is supposed to work. Well done.
It is toward this type of effort that the TSA ought to be directing its efforts rather than focusing its efforts on regulating whether a jar of face cream is 3 or 3.5 oz or forcing the disabled out of their wheelchairs to walk through the checkpoints and other such nonsense as we continually read about on this forum. With more of this kind of non-invasive and actually constitutional behavioral observation (if you're in a public place police action based on your public behavior is constitutional -- long standing precedent); coupled with some of the smart ideas that others have brought up (i.e. the secure ties and time check ids for the TSA baggage checkers that others have suggested when they look at bags) the TSA actually does stand a chance at improvement.
April 2, 2008 10:47 AM
A. How about X-Rays and detection equipment that works?
B. How about screeners that are professional and do their jobs?
C. How about a consideration of our rights and privacy?
D. If the TSA did all of these things, Osama Bin Laden should be able to fly anywhere in the country, it wouldn't matter because it would be safe."
I had to label these to address each point. I will say up front that we absolutely need A, B & C.
On A., well, let me just go pull some new technology out of my…ear! Seriously, does it even exist?
On B, it seems TSA screeners need a better understanding that they work for the taxpayer. They have an important job to do-- it's a thankless job, dealing with stressed out travelers/the public every day; it probably doesn’t pay well enough; and they take it very seriously and are under a lot of pressure to perform. That’s a bad combination that seems to result in too many TSOs that are on some kind of power trip. They need a good lesson in humility and customer service. “If you want to fly today” should not be part of their vocabulary. How about forbidding them from saying that and replacing it with: “We need to clear every alarm; so we can ensure everyone’s safety.”
On C., of course, this is America, we have rights and need privacy. But, from what I can tell – if TSA has moves too much in the direction of protecting personal space, bad stuff could get through the checkpoint. Or, in the case of the nipple piercing, they are forced into an untenable situation -- having the woman take them out so they wouldn’t have to look at her breasts. It’s a hard line to walk.
In my view, C has absolutely NOTHING to do with D.
April 2, 2008 10:47 AM
Can you say if the items were an actual weapon, explosive device, prohibited item, something non-threatening but potentially illegal like drug paraphenalia, or something merely "suspicious"?
My company makes 25mm and 40mm bullets (not live cartridges) for tanks and helicopters, and I've had to fly with them for sales and engineering meetings. Are these suspicious weapon components?
April 2, 2008 10:48 AM
To Anonymous who said, "Since when is acting or looking weird a crime in this country?"
First of all the behavior detection program isn't based off how someone "looks" as you stated above, it is based around the behaviors that a person exhibits. Second "acting weird" isn't a crime. This person in Orlando was not arrested just because of the behaviors that he was exhibiting. BDO's identify POTENTIALLY dangerous passengers that might be a risk to aviation and notifies the appropriate law enforcement officials.
"Or probably cause to being to searched? I'm not convinced that acting shifty is enough."
When a passenger submits to screening be either placing bags on the conveyor belt at a checkpoint, walking through a metal detector at a checkpoint, or handing your checked bags to either a ticket agent or TSA officer, your person or property can now be searched for any reason, there is no probable cause needed, just so you are aware!
“We should be able to travel anonymously without worrying that our personality quirks are going to get us strip searched on the curb."
Thanks for the laugh this early in the morning, I needed it. Travel anonymously, why? What is it that you have to hide? And Please do not believe that someone’s “personality quirks” would get them or you strip searched on the curb.
Go back to the blog about BDO officers or visit the TSA website to read about the program and how it works because you are seriously misinformed. The BDO program gets a lot of criticism, but one thing that nobody can argue is that IT WORKS!
To the TSA/BDO crew down in Orlando, good job!! I love seeing the program I believe in so much be implemented exactly the way it’s supposed to, and in doing so providing that addition layer of protection to the public, and critics alike! GREAT GREAT JOB!!!
April 2, 2008 11:30 AM
Below is what they found according to this USA Today article.
"FBI officials tell the Associated Press that a search of Brown's luggage turned up "two galvanized pipes, end caps, two small containers containing BB's, batteries, two containers with an unknown liquid, laptop, and bomb-making literature."
April 2, 2008 11:38 AM
Behavior Detection Officers... Thought Police... tomato, tomahto...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
And LOL @gunner...
April 2, 2008 12:25 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"the ''security theatre'' as many like to call it, might actuall be for a reason."
This person seems to misunderstand the term security theater. It is commonly used to describe security countermeasures that make people feel secure but provide little or no improvement to security.
April 2, 2008 1:08 PM
Anonymous said Bob, I wouldn't give the BDO's much credit on this one as he was doing "crazy" things, which almost anyone is able to recognize.
You have got to be kidding me?
This was crunch time and security paid off when it mattered most. Fact is "almost anyone" didn't notify the police...the TSA Officer did, and they performed superbly.
I recently saw a heart wrenching testimonial from the news posted on YouTube about a former airline worker, who while working on September 11, 2001 recognized suspicious behavior from two of the hijackers who boarded his flight. He didn't question them, their behavior, or notify a supervisor or police, even though the little voice inside told him something just wasn't right about them. He said when he saw the plane hit the tower it was at that precise moment it all fell into place.
Too late.
I really feel for that guy because that is a horrible burden to have to deal with.
Should have.
Would have.
Could have.
Not today.
Jay
April 2, 2008 1:31 PM
Hats off to the BDOs at Orlando Int'l. They did their job, and handled the situation accordingly.
This is indication that the system TSA is utilizing DOES work, no matter how small or large the situation may be. As for old and outdated equipment, that situation should be improving in the near future.
April 2, 2008 1:50 PM
The liquid is now no longer "unknown." The Orlando NBC affiliate reports it was nitromethane. You can read about that substance on wikipedia if you're unfamiliar with it. It's racing fuel, which it burns, rather than exploding. One has to tinker with it quite a bit (extreme adiabatic compression; addition of ammonium nitrate) to turn it into an explosive.
So this seems to be an example of the TSA:
(a) detecting someone that even Helen Keller could figure out was acting goofy,
(b) had no intention of taking out the airplane,
(c) had no capability to take out the airplane, given what he had, and
(d) might have been planning something naughty at some later time in Jamaica by assembling what he had (he'd need one additional element, not found in his suitcase to bring it off).
Now stopping (d) is, by any measure, a good thing. The thing is, is law enforcement really a duty we want the TSA to have? I mean if you're happy about them using their BDOs to detect a guy who might have been thinking about doing something bad at some later time, that had nothing to do with transportation (the T in TSA), then why not extend that logic?
Why not just have police set up random checkpoints for cars and pedestrians? Make each person show their ID, check them for outstanding warrants or BOLOs, and have a look through their possessions.
If you're uncomfortable with that scenario (and you should be), then what the TSA did shouldn't necessarily be considered an "accomplishment." It didn't advance the security of any mode of transportation, for sure.
April 2, 2008 1:51 PM
People, please stop posting anonymously so I can point to your post!
Someone wrote:
Absolutely no one thin[k]s that all airport security is a joke. Note that no one objects to walking through a metal detector, or having one's carry-on bags X-rayed. What we object to are pointless procedures based on impossible-to-carry-out threats, like the stupid liquids ban designed to thwart imaginary liquid explosives that do not exist, or mandatory shoe screening the costs of which far outstrip the benefits, or interminable ID checks that will not stop anyone at all from getting through security.
Exactly! I think your BDO's are a good idea, and I don't mind them at all. You have every right to observe me. I think your liquid ban, checking ID, and taking off shoes policies are stupid.
Also, I can't begin to tell you how violated I feel already by the back-scatter scanners. They are far different than walking through a metal detector. In the video you have about it, the guide says there is no one to save, print, or capture the image on the screen (that shows people's genitals). Except maybe a camera! Like the one in my phone, or the one recording him say those words with the screen image in the background!
April 2, 2008 2:31 PM
I write grants for a living. If I write a grant for $100,000 for our organization and that grant is awarded, I don't get my efforts praised and splashed all over our organization's website.
Neither should the TSA's BDOs - they did the job they were hired to do. End of story, in fact no story.
April 2, 2008 3:55 PM
First, congratulations! If this deranged man with a dodgy assemblage in his checked bag was indeed a threat to aviation, the TSA has scored a genuine success that's well worth crowing about. Even if it turns out he wasn't a threat, the BDO performed well, and entirely within the TSA's mission to protect aviation. Either way, it qualifies as a bona fide success for a BDO, far more than the false positive catches of drugs, fake IDs, and fraudulent military jackets you've previously touted as "successes."
Now that you've had your parade, it's time to rain on it. It's worth noting that the stupid rules about shoes, liquids, and piercings capriciously "interpreted" at checkpoints contributed nothing to this success. Nor were any passengers yelled at, bullied, or humiliated. Rather, the BDO spotted some very suspicious behavior and took appropriate action. But given that the behavior was apparently egregiously suspicious, did the special training of BDOs really make a difference? Would it have been as much of a success if it had been a bored passenger who called police and contained the threat rather than a BDO?
The other relevant question is how many false positives have BDOs "detected" for each "success" like this one? I define a "false positive" as someone who is either innocent, or else who possesses some kind of contraband that does not actually threaten aviation. If the number of false positives is low, I will begin to be convinced that BDOs provide useful and effective protection for aviation. Conversely, if the number of false positives is high, I can only conclude that any protection BDOs provide is a matter of dumb luck. If you flag enough "suspicious" people for additional screening, you're bound to stumble on something, eventually. Since the TSA will never answer this important question (other than "it's SSI, so you'll have to trust us"), we Taxpaying Passengers have no way of determining whether this "success" mean anything, or whether it's worth the price we're paying for it.
Both the TSA and the administration it's part of have a shameful lengthy history of well-timed announcements of "successes" in the War on Terror that ultimately fizzled. So I'm inclined to view this "success" skeptically. But for the sake of the country, I'd really like to be convinced that it means something.
April 2, 2008 4:26 PM
So this seems to be an example of the TSA:
(a) detecting someone that even Helen Keller could figure out was acting goofy,
I think that's been addressed above.
(b) had no intention of taking out the airplane,
Are you certain of this? You may very well be right, but at this stage it is too early to know for sure. Maybe it really was just to blow up tree stumps, but let's wait for all the facts before we say for sure one way or the other.
(c) had no capability to take out the airplane, given what he had, and
Perhaps he didn't, but if you recall, it is believed that China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 was brought down by a passenger who set a fire with gasoline, killing all aboard. On a personal note, when I was stationed in Korea a man used a couple of milk cartons full of flamable liquid to set a fire in the subway station not far from me that killed almost 200 people. I wouldn't discount the possibility just yet that he had the capability, even if the intent wasn't there.
(d) might have been planning something naughty at some later time in Jamaica by assembling what he had (he'd need one additional element, not found in his suitcase to bring it off)....had nothing to do with transportation (the T in TSA),
I think your analogy is somewhat flawed. TSA didn't go out onto the street and stop this guy in the road or force him to use the airport. If he is in fact guilty of nothing more than poor judgement, well, that's why we have a justice system independant of the executive to decide these things.
Chance
April 2, 2008 4:55 PM
Perhaps he didn't, but if you recall, it is believed that China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 was brought down by a passenger who set a fire with gasoline, killing all aboard. On a personal note, when I was stationed in Korea a man used a couple of milk cartons full of flamable liquid to set a fire in the subway station not far from me that killed almost 200 people. I wouldn't discount the possibility just yet that he had the capability, even if the intent wasn't there.
I think your analogy is somewhat flawed. TSA didn't go out onto the street and stop this guy in the road or force him to use the airport.
Chance
What do those two incidents have in common that the current one doesn't? The perpetrators in the two had the flammable liquids on them when they committed their acts. Here the liquid was contained in the passenger's checked luggage -- it was already separated from him. How does he have the capability to cause an explosion in this situation? And we are all capable of illegal actions, but we don't have the intent to act on them.
Was the BDO layer really necessary here? Why wouldn't the CTX have detected a flammable liquid?
I can take your analogy further to say that an LEO can stop me as I pull out of my driveway to do a search on my person since I wasn't forced to go outside my home. Slippery slope.
April 2, 2008 5:25 PM
The stuff was in his checked luggage. No access while traveling through to his destination.
Blah Blah Blah.
Ultimately, a guy who was possibly mentally ill, had some stuff that, except for flamability, posed no danger to the airplane.
Nice stop, not a big catch. If a real cop had found the guy sitting under a bridge it would barely make a news-story. The police department certainly wouldn't trumpet the event as proof that they should exist.
April 2, 2008 5:36 PM
"TSA didn't go out onto the street and stop this guy in the road or force him to use the airport. If he is in fact guilty of nothing more than poor judgement, well, that's why we have a justice system independant of the executive to decide these things.
Chance"
The executive and judicial branches have a very cozy relationship these days. Bit of a shake up recently, but still not enough to get to the rot.
April 2, 2008 6:35 PM
Millions delayed.
Hundreds of thousands humiliated.
Thousands abused.
Thousands deliberately made to miss their flights for no good reason.
Dozens deprived of their personal arms for no good reason.
One caught.
The greatest stupidity is that if I tried to go through naked, _I_ would get in trouble.
April 2, 2008 6:37 PM
There was no plot. There was no one in danger. Why is this even a press release?
To MSP BDO, you ask what we have to hide. We don't have to _hide_ anything. That's what the 4th amendment is for - to keep the government from looking without probable cause. You're not supposed to look. Our persons, houses, papers, and effects, are sacrosanct. Period.
April 2, 2008 6:44 PM
Anonymous said...
The guy was bouncing up and down. He was also tilting to the left and right. They found a threaded pipe with end caps. They also found a bunch of ball bearings. It was pretty noticible since other passengers saw the guy and said that the guys actions creeped them out.
I will give this one to the BDO for doing their job and heading off a possible bombing attempt. Now if the guy just had the components and no explosives then they most likely will take his goodies away before sending him on his way. Google this for more information.
April 1, 2008 9:59 PM
This guy was actually ARRESTED by the FBI and questioned. He stated that he was taking the items back to his home to show friends how to build IED's like he had seen in Iraq! Nay sayers where are you now? You wanted proof that TSA could or had thwarted a possible bombing attack you got your proof. Now lay off of us please.
April 2, 2008 6:47 PM
The only credit the TSA gets is that a passenger told someone there was a guy acting weird and someone in the TSA did something. Congrats. You guys listened to someone about something. They do not get credit for IDing the guy or using their somewhat-trained BDOs. The TSA does get credit for acting more like a human and less like a wall.
April 2, 2008 6:53 PM
Re: " It didn't advance the security of any mode of transportation, for sure."
You've obviously never seen how fast a plane's pressurized oxygen rich environment. If the "unknown liquids" in the luggage was indeed nitromethane, as CNN is reporting, (it may have been worse) the last thing you want on a flight is a volatile flammable liquid in a BREAKABLE container to be released anywhere on the plane.
Mind you, nitromethane by itself is also considered an explosive but one that is oxygen-poor, yet considered more energetic than TNT. Again a plane is an oxygen rich environment.
Mixing this with other chemicals makes it an even more serious threat to commercial aviation.
Still think liquids aren't a threat?
April 2, 2008 7:27 PM
I don't believe for one minute that only 37 comments have been posted to this thread.
Come one, TSA, where are the rest of the comments that you are refusing to post - I KNOW they are out there.
April 2, 2008 7:29 PM
Re: "I can take your analogy further to say that an LEO can stop me as I pull out of my driveway to do a search on my person since I wasn't forced to go outside my home. Slippery slope."
LEOs are bound by the Fourth Amendment and require probable cause. Searches at airports are considered adminisrative searches and require only initial implied consent (i.e., submitting bags for screening, walking through the metal detector).
April 2, 2008 7:38 PM
so just to reiterate a couple points that have been brought up...
1)The guy was obviously nuts.
Yes your BDO's noticed this guy, but so did random passengers. The only difference is (as someone pointed out) that your BDO's did something about it. Well that leads me on to point 2.
2)This is your job.
You don't deserve special recognition for doing your job well. This viewpoint/methodlogy is creeping like a virus through our society and your not helping;. People deserve credit when they go above and beyond.
3)Thanks for the laugh this early in the morning, I needed it. Travel anonymously, why? What is it that you have to hide?
This statement made me want to cry. Beyond the simple answer of "Have you ever read the constitution?" I could bring up another response...what does the TSA?
April 2, 2008 7:49 PM
The fact that the TSA won't tell us everything tips me off to the fact that there is nothing more to tell. Since nothing that was supposed to go in carry-on luggage was dangerous for carry-on luggage (as described by the TSA) then I'm inclined to think this is what happened.
"Oh crap, the previous blog entry is now filled with comments about questions we're ignoring. Let's come up with a story showing how good we're doing. We don't have one but maybe we can hype this one up by saying there was actual danger but the FBI won't let us tell you what it is."
So, back to 3-1-1, please admit you know that you are wrong.
So, back to piercings, pleas admit that you know you did wrong.
April 2, 2008 8:05 PM
Bob, I wouldn't give the BDO's much credit on this one as he was doing "crazy" things, which almost anyone is able to recognize.
If he was acting so crazy, and anyone was able to recognize the threat, where were the hundreds of calls to police? Where were the reports to airport officials or security personnel? Why was it only this one BDO?
I hope that he wasn't acting as "crazy" as everyone said, because the only alternative is that people don't care enough to report it.
Why is the praise for finding liquid explosives (even in a check in) considered undeserved praise, but asking people to remove their shoes or bring only small bottles of water to the airport deserved criticism.
We are well past the point where the liquid ban is new. Don't bring them in your carryon and they won't take them away!
Good job TSA. I know you hear it less than you should but thank you for all you do!
April 2, 2008 8:09 PM
Come on folks, you can slam TSA and say anyone could have noticed it but the reality is maybe they did but they didn't follow up on their thoughts. That's the difference, some stay on the side lines and other act!! Good score for the BDO!
April 2, 2008 9:05 PM
Okay, I'm tired of all this bitching and moaning. You ask for results, you get results and you still bitch! STOP IT ALREADY! "The TSA BDO's did what they were hired to do, end of story. In fact, No story!"? What the heck are your talking about man? Here's a scenario for ya big guy, lets say the BDO program was not in place, and several people saw this guy "acting crazy" as its put, but no one said anything. Lets say he gets on this plane, and has an actual bomb in his CARRY ON bag as well as what he has in his checked bags, lets say, that what he has in his carry on is so minute that it can't be detected by current technology (YES THIS STUFF DOES EXIST) but combined with what he has in his checked bag, could take out an airport, bank or other structure on the opposite end of his flight. But NO ONE says anything about his strange behavior...now what? He gets to his destination, blows up an airport, Federal faciility or other structure....day care center? How about a women's health clinic if he's an anti abortion nut? Does any of that count? Here's what the BDO program and the people who peform that job did, they stopped a potential nut case from carrying out what he may have planned. Now that's the end of the story for one more nut case and a job well done for TSA and the BDO's. This blog is really getting on my nerves because some of you people just don't seem to want to give credit where its due.
April 2, 2008 10:05 PM
Previously posted...
Perhaps he didn't, but if you recall, it is believed that China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 was brought down by a passenger who set a fire with gasoline, killing all aboard. On a personal note, when I was stationed in Korea a man used a couple of milk cartons full of flamable liquid to set a fire in the subway station not far from me that killed almost 200 people. I wouldn't discount the possibility just yet that he had the capability, even if the intent wasn't there.
I think your analogy is somewhat flawed. TSA didn't go out onto the street and stop this guy in the road or force him to use the airport.
Chance
What do those two incidents have in common that the current one doesn't? The perpetrators in the two had the flammable liquids on them when they committed their acts. Here the liquid was contained in the passenger's checked luggage -- it was already separated from him. How does he have the capability to cause an explosion in this situation? And we are all capable of illegal actions, but we don't have the intent to act on them.
Was the BDO layer really necessary here? Why wouldn't the CTX have detected a flammable liquid?
Reply...
Hence the liquid ban. Imagine someone filling 4 16 oz shampoo bottles with gasoline and lighting them aboard a plane. Taking thier hairspray and using it as a blow torch.
X-ray machines can't detect flammable or dangerous liquids. Nothing goes off in a x-ray machine. Anything found was found by the TSO's good eye. On a x-ray dangerous liquids look the same as regular liquids. So they only way to tell the difference between a shampoo bottle full of gasoline and a shampoo bottle full of shampoo would be to test it. And to test every single bottle that comes through the checkpoint is insane. So to avoid the situation all together, just ban all liquids.
Futhermore, the machines in checked baggage are programmed to pick up certain depths of items that could possible contain a threat. All those liquids which alarm those machines are tested.
April 2, 2008 11:32 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Travel anonymously, why? What is it that you have to hide?"
No traveling by commercial air without first identifying myself to TSA agents? What is it about my name that could help that agent determine whether or not I am attempting to carry something dangerous onto my flight?
Requiring us to present our papers to a government agent who will determine based on our identities whether or not we may travel would be equivalent to requiring us to request permission to travel. (Note: There is still no requirement that passengers on domestic flights identify themselves to TSA agents.) As long as I am not carrying anything dangerous, the United States government should get out of the way and leave whether or not I'll be flying up to me and the airline with whom I have contracted to transport me to my destination.
Paraphrasing words of The Identity Project: No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
Over 900,000 names are now on the United States' so-called "terrorist watch list". Presumably, the people named on that list have neither done wrong nor attempted to do wrong, or else they would be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced by a judge to punishment for their wrongdoing. If someone's name is placed on the list, there is no way for him to find out why it was placed there and there is no process for appealing the decision to place it there. Placement on the list is an administrative punishment dealt anonymously.
April 3, 2008 12:20 AM
Hey guys, can we stop being cynical for a moment and commend them for doing a good job for once. At least this was an example of good ol' fashioned logic based policing and not arbitrarily dumb rules.
TSA did a good job today. These are baby steps, but at least baby steps in the right direction. Hopefully this is not just a one time thing...
Law Enforcement needs every hand they can get, and these BDOs were able to stop a potencially dangerous individual that could have been the successful Richard Reid.
You guys do a million and one things wrong, but not this, keep up the good work, and hopefully one day we won't hate your guts.
April 3, 2008 3:20 AM
Oh and let me just comment that the job the TSOs do, with the stress they have and the responsibilities they have to potentially prevent another 9/11, I think they deserve more than 12 bucks an hour, and 15 if they have been there for 6 years...
Come on, honestly, how would YOU feel?
April 3, 2008 3:29 AM
OK, I'll buy the whole "The BDO's did what they were hired to do, end of story" because it's true, that's their job. I don't think TSA is trying to say these guys went ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY or anything like that, they're just trying to say, hey, guess what, it looks like behavior detection works.
We can't rely on the passengers to report every "wacky" person at the airport. Even if this guy looked suspicious to the untrained eye, it doesn't mean it would have been reported by regular Joe. In fact, it wasn't. It was reported by the people hired to do that job. TSA is just trying to justify the BDO program.
I'll take the other bloggers at their word (I didn't research it) that the liquid he brought was "flammable" but not "explosive," but that isn't really the point right now. What SOME of you don't seem to understand is that a "guilty" person is going to act "suspicious" whether he has a pipe bomb or a bong pipe(to borrow a joke from an earlier post) if he's nervous about being caught.
BDO's don't know if he's acting guilty because of something as innocuous as trying to smuggle his $100 cologne into his carry-on (why do people do this, I DON'T KNOW, but they do) or if he's acting guilty because he has a bomb strapped to his chest. They just know he's acting guilty. So I don't care if this guy was jumping up and down and tilting left and right because he forgot to put his toothpaste in the ziplock bag. The point is, he was acting suspicious, and it didn't go unnoticed. To me, that's a success for the BDO's.
April 3, 2008 4:40 AM
First comment: please don't lead us to believe there are ONLY 38 comments on this story. Why are you holding back?
Second comment comes from
MSNBC:
"Authorities in Idaho say they aren’t sure of the true identity of a Transportation Security Administration officer charged with attempting to kidnap a 10-year-old boy because they found personal identification documents — including Social Security numbers — for five separate individuals in his possession.
KTVB-TV, NBC’s Boise affiliate, reported that the TSA officer was charged with second-degree kidnapping Tuesday under the name of Robert Joe Harrison Jr. Fifth District Magistrate Ted Israel set bail at $500,000.
The station said the man known as Harrison has worked as a TSA officer at the Friedman Memorial Airport in Hailey since November 2005. It said he has been suspended without pay pending investigation of the kidnapping charges."
April 3, 2008 7:06 AM
Chance said:
Are you certain of this? You may very well be right, but at this stage it is too early to know for sure.
Based on the reporting, he had pipes, endcaps, a container of BBs, flammable liquid, and batteries. The reports say nothing about these items having been assembled into a pipe bomb, make no mention of timed or remote detonators. And if it had been an actual device, it would be most likely that bomb squad would have detonated it rather than dragging it off.
So yes, I'm sure. I'll give you $100 if it turns out this was a device set to take out the plane.
China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 was brought down by a passenger who set a fire with gasoline, killing all aboard.
The flammable liquid was in his checked--not carryon--bag, so the situations are completely different. His flammable liquid was in no danger of igniting the passenger cabin.
TSA didn't go out onto the street and stop this guy in the road or force him to use the airport.
This is disingenuous. He was going to Jamaica. It's not like you can drive there. He could fly or take a boat. Flying is cheaper.
This was perhaps a win for law enforcement, insofar as goofy acting people don't need to be carting around pipe bomb materials with them. But I (as a taxpayer) don't pay the TSA to stop weird people from building pipebombs in their spare time. I pay them to keep my planes safe, and it still isn't clear to me that these actions kept a plane safe.
This calls back to the argument folks were having on here weeks ago about TSA trumpeting drug detection as a "win." I don't want you acting as de facto law enforcement agents. That's Big Brotherish.
April 3, 2008 8:19 AM
Some of my previous posts could be defined as, "I hate TSA for (insert daily gripe here)" but I think they got this one right. If what has been reported turns out to be true this isn't some innocent bystander off the street railroaded by our "War on Water" (I love that quote and I'll have to steal it, hehe). I see some grumbling on here about whether or not he intended to cause this flight harm. It does not matter in the slightest what his intent was. If by accident I had a firearm in my luggage my intent is not the issue. That I attempted to bring it onto an aircraft is the issue. I live in Arizona where it is perfectly legal to walk down the sidewalk with a holstered firearm if I wanted to. If I then walk into a business with fine print at the entry that firearms are not allowed it does not matter what my intent is either. In both examples I would cease to be a law abiding citizen and legal action in various forms can begin against me. Now if a store clerk sees me with a holstered firearm in their store and calls the Police they are not acting as law enforcement. The Police arriving on scene are acting as law enforcement. I understand some of the complaints here that TSA should not be acting as law enforcement. It needs to be understood that they're not acting as law enforcement though, they're letting the Police handle that. That's what a good security officer (SO in TSO) does. Unfortunately for TSA there is one bit of bad news here that is hard to ignore. This guy was so obvious that private security in place before 9/11 or airline ticket counter agents probably would have noticed him too leading to the same result.
April 3, 2008 8:30 AM
Wow -- After all the intrigue, handcuffs & shackles, endless interviews and self-congratulations, the only thing this guy might be charged with is "transporting an incendiary material" -- a SAFETY (not security) restriction that has been in place going back to practically the Wright Brothers.
He's got what looks like a very no-BS public defender who didn't talk to the press after the arraignment. Oh yeah -- the government told the judge they need "more time" to build a case against the guy. If the PD is smart, he would back the TSA into a corner and require release of their sacred SSI during discovery and the trial itself, if there ever is a trial. This is probably a "career case" for the PD and I hope he becomes Chertoff's and Kippie's worst nightmare.
Thank God the Constitution still applies everywhere else except at an airport.
April 3, 2008 9:18 AM
It just boggles my mind how all you experts can sit back and tell us that this guy was no threat because he didn't have an explosive on his person.
First, though I don't think passengers would ever let it happen again, the planes on 9/11 were taken over with box cutters and FAKE bombs.
Second, hmmm...let's think...McVeigh and Nichols; Atta and al Shehri (et al); and Amanta Nagayeva and S. Dzhebirkhanova. What do these terrorists all have in common? THEY WORKED IN PAIRS (or groups)!
Maybe he didn't in this case, but what if he had an accomplice or two somewhere trying to sneak in parts B, C & D?
Use your brains people, and give TSA some credit when credit is due.
April 3, 2008 9:25 AM
From what I can tell, the components were not assembled in the checked bag. They likely would also have been picked up by the checked bag screening machines. So it's great that the BDOs found it, but it doesn't seem like it was a threat in the first place.
April 3, 2008 9:37 AM
Anonymous at 7:27 pm said:
Still think liquids aren't a threat?
Yes. This liquid would have burned, not exploded. Airplanes aren't "oxygen rich" environments, as they just scoop in air from outside but don't adjust the components. In fact, for reasons that don't concern us here, the gas mix at altitude is such that there's a bit less oxygen than normal.
Alcohol burns too. I'm not sure if it's allowed in carryons or not, but I could probably get nearly a quart in individual 3.4-oz bottles labeled "shampoo." I'm not terribly worried about flammable liquids on a plane. Especially not when they're packed in someone's checked luggage and stuffed in the unpressurized hold.
April 3, 2008 9:53 AM
What I find funny is that people complain TSA never caught anybody with the way they do things (which isn't true even before this incident)but now that they caught someone who was seriously dangerous(it's not ok to have dangerous, flammable, bomb making materials on a plane even in checked baggage)
and people are still complaining, saying it's not a big deal.
I bet if TSA caught Osama, the public would still say "Oh, they just got lucky." Shame on you for not noticing a job well done. Just goes to show, you can't make everyone happy.
April 3, 2008 10:19 AM
"Thanks to the quick actions of the Orlando TSA behavior detection team, the Orlando Police Department, the Orange County Bomb Squad and the FBI, this situation had a happy, safe ending; all without closing a single checkpoint or delaying more than Brown's flight." -- from "the updated story"
Versus:
"The search took place during the busy spring-break vacation season, with many visitors departing town after attending WrestleMania 24 on Sunday. Orlando police sealed off a 300-foot perimeter near the check-in counters at Terminal A for more than two hours while bomb-squad technicians searched the suspect and his backpack at curbside. Several airlines, including Air Canada, WestJet, Air Jamaica and Virgin Atlantic, had flights delayed." -- Orlando Sentinel
Who are you going to believe?
April 3, 2008 10:33 AM
Slightly OT... this guy was a veteran who has been in Iraq. Seems like he was probably off his medication.
http://www.wftv.com/news/15775496/detail.html
April 3, 2008 10:37 AM
Anonymous @ 10:19 am:
I bet if TSA caught Osama, the public would still say "Oh, they just got lucky."
Strawman much?
No, everyone would count that as a win. The problem isn't that TSA hasn't caught Osama yet, but that their attitude towards their accomplishments is like the Special Olympics: we're supposed to give them awards for just trying.
The hate toward TSA comes from the fact that they're accomplishing the terrorists' goals for them. I'm afraid to fly, not because I'm worried some radical fundamentalist (whatever that's supposed to mean) is going to blow my plane up with some magical binary liquid explosive, but because I'm worried about being set on by a jackbooted thug. I'm worried about some overenthusiastic screener grabbing my junk while he's giving me a patdown; I'm scared of having my stuff pawed over and possibly broken; I'm worried I'll miss my flight while I wait in line for people to satisfy the TSA's shoe fetish; I'm mad at having to buy a drink at outlandishly inflated prices in the secure zone rather than bring my own beverage; I'm scared of some thug asking me if "I want to fly today," when I don't step to fast enough; I'm scared of warrantless, unwarranted search of my possessions and personal papers.
In short, I'm more afraid of my government--not just of an executive that believes the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to it, but to the TSA--than the "bad guys." People should not be afraid of their government; government should be afraid of its people.
April 3, 2008 10:48 AM
how do we know he wasnt testing the system? sure, the components wernt assembled. but what if he got through with them, then next time they were assembled.
remember last year when they found those blocks of cheese with components that resembled IED's? replace the cheese with an explosive which has the same consistancy. we know they were doing a dry run.
it could have been the same deal. who really knows what this guys intentions were.
April 3, 2008 11:02 AM
it's just a matter of time before the TSA bans ALL electronic devices, for fear they've been MODIFIED.
Check out this gem: Teen turns camera into Taser-like device
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_re_us/camera_taser_1
April 3, 2008 11:11 AM
anonymous 11:02:
replace the cheese with an explosive which has the same consistancy. we know they were doing a dry run.
No, no they weren't. Even the TSA later admitted as much. It was a guy from Milwaukee with cheese and a phone charger in his bag. Imagine! Someone coming from Wisconsin with a bag full of cheese! (I once stuffed 30 lbs of brick cheese--Widmers brand--in a suitcase leaving Madison, and got hardly a raised eyebrow.)
April 3, 2008 11:53 AM
Anonymous said: “To MSP BDO, you ask what we have to hide. We don't have to _hide_ anything. That's what the 4th amendment is for - to keep the government from looking without probable cause. You're not supposed to look. Our persons, houses, papers, and effects, are sacrosanct. Period.”
There was a comment made by another anonymous above that already answered this but since you called me out in your comment I felt I should reply to you. Implied consent is all that is needed to perform an administrative search of your person or property at the airport. Your persons, houses, papers, and effects are sacrosanct; but can be searched for any reason if you submit to screening at an airport checkpoint or ticket counter. Period.
ibored said “3)Thanks for the laugh this early in the morning, I needed it. Travel anonymously, why? What is it that you have to hide?
This statement made me want to cry. Beyond the simple answer of "Have you ever read the constitution?" I could bring up another response...what does the TSA?”
I’m sorry I made you cry, those were not my intentions. I was simply trying to defend the program that I believe in so much. And to clarify I wasn’t laughing about people wanting to travel anonymously, I was laughing at the idea that someone would think their “personality quirks” would get them stripped searched I should have been more clear. The point about traveling anonymously that I was trying to make is why is it such a big deal to show your identification? So for 2 seconds a Travel Document Checker looks at your ID and matches it to the name on your boarding pass, I do not see the violation of your 4th Amendment rights? But bottom line like Phil pointed out in a comment above you are not “required” to present ID if traveling domestically, so travel anonymously if you wish.
April 3, 2008 11:53 AM
." Shame on you for not noticing a job well done. Just goes to show, you can't make everyone happy.
April 3, 2008 10:19 AM
And we should clap for an agency that takes over month to make a statement about "Nipple Rings"?
I think not!
April 3, 2008 1:33 PM
Felt compelled to post this as a reminder to all of us. I hope my children don't have to ever think back and say, "There was once a nation called the United States, known as the land of the free"
Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
April 3, 2008 2:27 PM
To the poster who said the following;
You've obviously never seen how fast a plane's pressurized oxygen rich environment.
I think you were going to say something along the lines of how fast this enviroment would burn.
Problem with your statement is an aircraft at altitude is not an oxygen enriched enviroment. Cabin altitude will be 6,000 feet or higher when the aircraft is at cruising altitude. So ther is less oxygen than at sea level.
April 3, 2008 2:45 PM
Here's what I'd like to know:
If screening of checked baggage checks for nitrate residue, then how in the heck was this guy's baggage passed?
You caught him before he got to the security checkpoint. Good for you. But you still didn't catch his checked baggage until his behavior tipped you off.
BTW, as a person with a movement disorder (only one facet of my several disabilities) I tend to bounce and weave while walking, and to rock or jiggle my legs while sitting. Can your BDOs tell the difference, or should I look forward to being harassed?
April 3, 2008 2:47 PM
If a "catch" like this is newsworthy, one way to read it is that actual threats to aviation are extremely rare. And also that they're detected by people with their eyes open rather than by screeners who foist stupid rules about liquids and shoes on the people they bully.
Rather than justifying the TSA's effectiveness, this "success" tends to undermine the rationale for all the rigmarole the TSA puts us through. If the occasional questionable threat is all they have to show for the hassle, expense, wasted time, and even humiliation they impose on millions of passengers, I can only question whether our tax dollars (and our time) are being spent effectively. Regrettably, the word "security" in the TSA's name makes it immune from any cost-benefit scrutiny.
April 3, 2008 2:54 PM
I don't understand how some of you people think TSA just pats people down and searches them for no reason.
An earlier post stated, "I'm more afraid of my government--not just of an executive that believes the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to it, but to the TSA--than the 'bad guys.'"
Nobody is going to grab your "junk," as you put it, while they're giving you a pat down, so you can stop being afraid now. When I goto the doctor(for a physical), they make me strip to my undies and put on some ridiculous piece of paper that resembles a bath robe... But I don't hear people complaining about it. Why? Because the doctor is performing a job necessary for your health. So it is for TSO's who need to pat you down. You think I want to touch every part of your body? Not really. But it's the only way to ensure this guy who's lighting up the metal detector doesn't have a glock strapped between his legs or datasheet explosives underneath his shirt.
Personally, I would be more afraid if TSA DIDN'T search anyone's bags or give anyone a pat down. I also happen to think fear of a pat down or bag search is more of a self esteem issue, but whatever.
April 3, 2008 3:01 PM
BDO's don't know if he's acting guilty because of something as innocuous as trying to smuggle his $100 cologne into his carry-on (why do people do this, I DON'T KNOW, but they do)
Perhaps the cologne smuggler had the inexcusable desire to ensure that the costly cologne arrived safely? Between airline cost-cutting and TSA screening that facilitates pilferage, there is no assurance at all that an item of any value packed in checked luggage will arrive at the destination, intact or otherwise. Note that the selfish cologne smuggler would definitely be guilty of violating the TSA's stupid arbitrary restrictions on liquids. But he would not be an actual threat to aviation.
Of course, any traveler today who is too lazy to go down to the friendly FedEx office and spend the few bucks it now takes to ensure safe and secure delivery of their property deserves to forfeit that property. They have a choice of surrendering to the TSO who is heroically protecting aviation by enforcing the liquid fetish (assuming, of course, that the TSO actually finds it!), or losing it to the insecure checked baggage system. Now remind me again how this "new normal" makes avaiation safer?
April 3, 2008 3:10 PM
I can't help but notice that it took the TSA bloggers only a few hours to post their commendable interception of the pipe bomb components in checked baggage. However, the basic subject under discussion on this blog is checkpoint security procedures and problems, not so much checked baggage screening, except for the theft part. Why, after over sixty days, cannot TSA give straight official answers to our repeated questions regarding shoes, liquids, small knives and ID checks? If you don't intend to answer those questions, then please say so and stop wasting (more of) our time.
April 3, 2008 5:15 PM
Anonymous said... Bob, I wouldn't give the BDO's much credit on this one as he was doing "crazy" things, which almost anyone is able to recognize. April 1, 2008 10:02 PM
While Kevin Brown was reported to be behaving strangely, nobody was doing anything about it. I was criticized for posting it, but this is the reason I posted the video of former United Airlines ticket agent Mike Tuohey. He had a gut feeling the 9/11 hijackers were up to something, but there was no training in place at the time to do anything about it. Now we have the BDOs.
Anonymous said... Fact is, ALMOST ANYONE didn't report this guy, the BDOs did. As someone else said, How many times have you walked past a crazy person and said "I'm not going to get involved." They did. Would you rather they weren't there yesterday?
April 2, 2008 8:05 AM
Quoted for emphasis… See my above comment on Mike Tuohey.
Ben Arnold said... Ya' know? I have at least one of every one of his "bomb-making" items right now in my garage/workshop. (I'll bet you probably have them as well.) I guess we should turn ourselves in right away...Don't flatter yourselves, TSA.
April 2, 2008 10:20 AM
Ben, I don’t understand your logic. There is a big difference between your garage and your luggage. It’s one thing to have to have the components in your garage mixed in with all of your other usual garage type items, but even our worse critic has to agree there is no reason to have the exact components in your luggage along with instructions.
Anonymous said... At least no one was tasered to death. April 2, 2008 10:32 AM
Don’t tase me, bro!
winstonsmith said... Even I one of the many loud voices on this blog who is generally among the first to point out nearly everything that TSA does wrong has to say that in this one instance the TSA got it right. So in the spirit of fairness, let's see what the TSA did right for once: April 2, 2008 10:47 AM
Thank you.
Marshall's SO said... I write grants for a living. If I write a grant for $100,000 for our organization and that grant is awarded, I don't get my efforts praised and splashed all over our organization's website. Neither should the TSA's BDOs - they did the job they were hired to do. End of story, in fact no story. April 2, 2008 3:55 PM
Every Federal Agency and major corporation has some type of Public Affairs office. Are you trying to tell me that nobody else sends out press releases or updates their web pages/blogs after their successes?
The next time you write a major grant, come over here and tell us all about it. We’ll praise you for it. :)
Anonymous said... Nice stop, not a big catch. If a real cop had found the guy sitting under a bridge it would barely make a news-story. The police department certainly wouldn't trumpet the event as proof that they should exist. April 2, 2008 5:36 PM
Let’s see, what would the biggest affect on our nation and the economy? A guy blowing up a pipe bomb under a bridge, or a guy taking down an airliner?
Bob Robertson said... Millions delayed. Hundreds of thousands humiliated. Thousands abused. Thousands deliberately made to miss their flights for no good reason. Dozens deprived of their personal arms for no good reason. One caught. April 2, 2008 6:37 PM
Millions arrived safely at their destinations.
Sandra said... I don't believe for one minute that only 37 comments have been posted to this thread. Come one, TSA, where are the rest of the comments that you are refusing to post - I KNOW they are out there.April 2, 2008 7:29 PM
I guess you’ll have to trust us?
I appreciate all of the comments and Kudos. Being a BDO myself, I can tell you this program is the future of airport security. It works, and it's an excellent additional layer to our other layers of security. We are new at this and are having some great successes. Imagine how much this program will improve as we continue to train and gain valuable experience in the field.
Great job team Orlando!
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 3, 2008 5:23 PM
Bob said:
"Every Federal Agency and major corporation has some type of Public Affairs office. Are you trying to tell me that nobody else sends out press releases or updates their web pages/blogs after their successes?"
Yes, Bob, we do send out press releases. However, we do not pat ourselves on the back in those press releases. We focus entirely on the donor's generosity in granting us funds.
In private, we congratulate each other, but never in public. That would be in very poor taste.
April 3, 2008 5:57 PM
Bob said:
"I guess you’ll have to trust us?"
NEVER
Interesting that comments often appear more than 24 hours after they were reported and are inserted in chronological order, which means they can be missed by those who just pick up reading from where they left off.
April 3, 2008 6:22 PM
The point about traveling anonymously that I was trying to make is why is it such a big deal to show your identification? So for 2 seconds a Travel Document Checker looks at your ID and matches it to the name on your boarding pass, I do not see the violation of your 4th Amendment rights? But bottom line like Phil pointed out in a comment above you are not “required” to present ID if traveling domestically, so travel anonymously if you wish.
The point of the rights is that I shouldn't be punished for using them, or viewed with suspicion for using them. What you seem to miss is that either way we are searched. If we chose to identify ourselves, we are simply searched without physical contact from a TSO.
As for the arguement that the BDO's were the 'only ones who said something' Well congratulations your theater has worked. You have convinced the flying public that they don't need to look out for their own safety, the government will do it for them...
Prediction of Next month's blog post:
TSO shows up for work.
April 3, 2008 6:34 PM
Marshall's SO said...
Bob said:
"Every Federal Agency and major corporation has some type of Public Affairs office. Are you trying to tell me that nobody else sends out press releases or updates their web pages/blogs after their successes?"
Yes, Bob, we do send out press releases. However, we do not pat ourselves on the back in those press releases. We focus entirely on the donor's generosity in granting us funds.
In private, we congratulate each other, but never in public. That would be in very poor taste.
April 3, 2008 5:57 PM
Marshall the difference here is that TSA is giving results where results were asked for. Since the first day this blog went up, the question has repeatedly been asked, "name one instance where you stopped a probable bomb threat" and TSA has been dogged by that question OVER AND OVER again, now that one instance is given, and "oh don't pat yourselves on the back its in very poor taste" Give me a freaking break, you can't have it both ways! Face it some people just can't handle the fact that the program works. Oh well that's life isn't it? Deal with it, stop dogging TSA on the work that no one else stepped up to do, and let them do the job they were put in there to do. Give credit where its due!
April 3, 2008 7:51 PM
Marshall's SO said...
Bob said:
"Every Federal Agency and major corporation has some type of Public Affairs office. Are you trying to tell me that nobody else sends out press releases or updates their web pages/blogs after their successes?"
Yes, Bob, we do send out press releases. However, we do not pat ourselves on the back in those press releases. We focus entirely on the donor's generosity in granting us funds.
In private, we congratulate each other, but never in public. That would be in very poor taste.
Are you jealous that your grant writing doesn’t make the news?
I’ll tell you what the next time your grant writing makes the local station go to “Breaking News”, you can write a press release and we promise not to make fun of you.
April 4, 2008 12:59 AM
Anonymous said:
Marshall the difference here is that TSA is giving results where results were asked for. Since the first day this blog went up, the question has repeatedly been asked, "name one instance where you stopped a probable bomb threat" and TSA has been dogged by that question OVER AND OVER again, now that one instance is given, and "oh don't pat yourselves on the back its in very poor taste" Give me a freaking break, you can't have it both ways! Face it some people just can't handle the fact that the program works. Oh well that's life isn't it? Deal with it, stop dogging TSA on the work that no one else stepped up to do, and let them do the job they were put in there to do. Give credit where its due!
Exactly. Winston Smith (arguably our harshest critic), to his credit, acknowledged that this was an example of the TSA system working the right way.
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
April 4, 2008 9:41 AM
Bob replied to my Anonymous post "Nice stop, not a big catch. If a real cop had found the guy sitting under a bridge it would barely make a news-story. The police department certainly wouldn't trumpet the event as proof that they should exist. April 2, 2008 5:36 PM" by saying
"Let’s see, what would the biggest affect on our nation and the economy? A guy blowing up a pipe bomb under a bridge, or a guy taking down an airliner?"
Airliner. Too bad the guy in this story apparently had no intention of anything close to this.
Here's a question for you. Which has the greater negative impact on our nation and the economy. An Agency run by thoughtful, professional and competent leadership which actively evaluates performance, outcome objectives and respects civil rights, or an agency known for inconsistency, secrecy, invasive procedures, marginal effectiveness, mission drift, abusive employees and a general distain for citizens of the country which it supposedly is protecting and a flair for self promotion?
April 4, 2008 9:53 AM
Neil, the person who was caught was not a terrorist who was planning on bringing down a plane. He was a disturbed individual, very obviously acting in a strange manner, who checked his baggage containing certain materials which were not assembled into a bomb. His behavior was outside the norm, to say the least. This was not a "probable bomb threat."
This was NOT a news-making "catch."
Come back to us when your BDOs have detected someone acting in a more normal fashion who has, on his person, an actual bomb and who was intending to do harm in the skies.
If you can do that, then you can strut a bit.
P.S. I am not Marshall; I am Marshall's SO.
And no, I am certainly not jealous, Trollkiller, of any PR. I do my job and I do my job well and don't expect any special recognition for doing so.
April 4, 2008 10:28 AM
P.S. I am not Marshall; I am Marshall's SO.
I stand corrected, Marshall's SO. You still can't have it both ways! You say he didn't have an assembled bomb, but the fact remains the materials were there. Could have been a decoy for what his true intentions were, he could have been working in conjunction with a 2nd or 3rd party to bring down the plane, or commit some other type of atrocity on the opposite end of his flight. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
April 4, 2008 12:27 PM
Yes Neil to your saying :
Exactly. Winston Smith (arguably our harshest critic), to his credit, acknowledged that this was an example of the TSA system working the right way.
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
In one of my first comments on this blog back before your first post about BDOs I actually suggested something like the BDO program and suggested that you model it after what the people in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and anywhere else where there are large gambling operations do as they monitor gambling floors. I suggested it because behavioral observation works. It works far better than most anything you have out there at the checkpoints and it could actually provide some incremental benefit without compromising civil rights or inconveniencing anyone.
In point of fact, there are long standing precedents in US law that what a person does in public that can be observed in public is fair game on which to base probable cause to act on the part of security and police forces. There are very good reasons for this. So long as the reasons for this individual having been singled out were not discriminatory (i.e. he was of a particular race, he appeared not to be of a particular religion, he was obviously gay or whatever -- I'm giving the TSA the benefit of the doubt on this one) then so long as the police tell him that he was observed to have been doing such and so and they use proper police procedure and respect his rights against self incrimination, etc. then no harm no foul. If the police do not, then it is a matter between the individual and the policing agencies. Those questions go far beyond the scope of this blog.
Do understand Neil, I am still a harsh critic of the TSA. I think the organization as a whole is poorly run and it should be either disbanded and re-tooled from the ground up or completely privatized. I think its management is beyond sub-par. Its budgetary oversight is a disaster. Its ability to attract and retain the best and brightest in its extraordinarily ill-defined mission is abysmal. Its misplaced focus on checkpoint security and the one in a million shot threat posed by phantom threats from phantom plots that have been debunked over and over again is one of the things that makes the TSA one of the least credible agencies in the eyes of the public. I have huge problems with the TSA's ability to violate the constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th -- we can argue about the 4th if you like given the courts' stand on administrative searches) with relative impugnity. So on balance, while you got this one thing right, there is still so very much wrong with the TSA that I'm not prepared to cut any more slack than the agency or its management deserves.
But yes, I will give you this one score. And if the TSA manages to do something else right, I'll be among the first to acknowledge that as well.
April 4, 2008 2:28 PM
And Neil, if I might add to what Marshall's so said:
Come back to us when your BDOs have detected someone acting in a more normal fashion who has, on his person, an actual bomb and who was intending to do harm in the skies.
If you can do that, then you can strut a bit.
Just because I do actually support the BDO component of what TSA does does not mean that I think the TSA has any reason to think that it actually stopped a threat to aviation on this particular day. This guy was a nut to be sure, but he wasn't going to bring the plane down. He might have annoyed passengers (or entertained them -- difficult to tell the difference sometimes?) but he was no threat to that flight.
This is just another case where the TSA managed to catch someone doing something else quite by accident, it just happened to be one of its more useful tools that caught it.
April 4, 2008 2:36 PM
Marshall's SO...do you actually have a job? You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this blog so if you are employed, your company/organization is not getting it's money's worth.
April 4, 2008 3:31 PM
Good job BDOs, and this dude should have been inspected like he was. BDOs do give us something that we didn't have on 9/11 someone trained to act on suspicious behavior, someone that might listen to a ticket agent. Add another arrest to your tally .
However, the problem with all detection systems, TSA's included, is the tradeoffs between detecting things and making false alarms. If Kevin Brown was a little less wacky, would the nitromethane and bomb components have flown? BDOs are not so much a layer of security, as a stumbling block that 2,000,000 passengers per day manage to negotiate. Your 514 arrests in 7 months is about 3 arrests per day.
If BDOs pick out the squirreliest 0.05% of the passengers every day, that's 997 false alarms per day, or a 99.7% false alarm rate. Which goes up dramatically if you were to alert on the squirreliest 0.1% or 1.0% of the passengers. If Kevin was cooler than even 1% of his fellow travellers, his nitromethane might have have flown.
This particular catch didn't thwart a terrorist plot. Maybe Kevin Brown just tested the system for some as-yet unknown terrorists, but this wasn't an actual attempt to explode a plane--they would actually have assemble the bomb to do that. Again, it is nice that your BDOs did the job and caught the guy, but it doesn't look like evidence that we're safe.
Do you test every vodka bottle that flies for its explosive properties? Why haven't we heard about the many arrests that the checked baggage screeners are responsible for? PR?
April 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Just because this was an unassembled explosive, does not make this any less a threat to the aircraft. For me those that say otherwise are completely nuts. I would not want Nitromethane under my seat in any form or fashion. You know why?
CAUSE IT CAN CATCH FIRE! I don't care how it will, if will, may not at all, BUT it can. And being sky I don't want to take that chance. Thanks OIA BDO's!
April 4, 2008 5:29 PM
Someone wrote: "mandatory shoe screening the costs of which far outstrip the benefits".
Remember that the shoe bomber MADE it to the plane with his bomb! I suppose if he brought the plane down, it WOULD be worth the benifit?
April 4, 2008 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...
Someone wrote: "mandatory shoe screening the costs of which far outstrip the benefits".
Remember that the shoe bomber MADE it to the plane with his bomb! I suppose if he brought the plane down, it WOULD be worth the benifit?
April 4, 2008 9:30 PM
This is EXACTLY the point! For those who say that nitromethane doesn't explode, it burns, I say this: Take this stuff, put it into a galvanized pipe, fit the end caps on, place the model rocket engine inside, attach the batteries, along with the bb's (shrapnel)and the alarm clock, and you have a working pipe bomb idiots! When you put a substance that burns into a closed space and ignite it, it EXPLODES! Why you say? Because the resulting pressure from the burning LIQUID?! has NOWHERE to go until it BURSTS the container that is holding it. Now surely you'll argue, "well it wasn't assembled!" Makes no difference whatsoever idiot! Why you ask? I'll tell you why, perhaps he wasn't intending to bring down a plane, but with what he had, he surely had BAD intentions and that in and of itself is reason enough for his arrest, and SO, the BDO program DOES work doesn't it? So whoo whoo to the BDO's who caught this guy, and Whoo Whoo to TSA for implementing this program. Keep up the great work guys!
April 4, 2008 10:31 PM
I think someone who plans an attack over an extended period is probably not going to show any of the signs "behavior detection officers" would be looking for.
No matter what, attacks are going to be carried out, and successfully. There's this thing called mutual escalation. If you escalate security, criminals escalate their tactics. And this just goes on and on--until successful attacks are being covered up by a corporate controlled press as "accidents". And a few obvious loonies get picked up by the "thought police" and detained, and this gets publicized as a great victory against terrorism.
Such BS.
April 5, 2008 12:08 PM
If the BDO didn't react then who would have? I don't recall hearing about any other passenger or airport employee attempting to notify the local authorities of a possible situation. You can't just stand there and accept the fact that it is someone else's job to report a possible issue. Come on folks take a stand for yourself and everyone around you and STOP already with the bashing of this government agency that is trying to keep you safe and sound.
April 5, 2008 12:27 PM
And no, I am certainly not jealous, Trollkiller, of any PR. I do my job and I do my job well and don't expect any special recognition for doing so.
So tell me because I have not seen it in any reports, did the BDO go scooting around OIA giving high fives or doing a "cock of the walk" strut?
I don't think the BDO was looking or even wanting the publicity.
Law enforcement at all levels use their wins in PR campaigns, that is just the nature of the beast. How many times do you see a police chief standing in front of a bunch of drugs, weapons or cash, telling you what a fantastic job their officers did?
This was a news worthy catch. This nut job had a BOMB. I know you say "but it was in his checked luggage", let me explain the set up at OIA.
The ticket counters are along the wall. After you check in you have to take your luggage to the TSA station on the opposite wall. A distance of 30-40 feet.
According to the TSA statement, this guy wandered around for a while after checking in at the counter before giving his luggage to the TSO.
According to the Orange County Bomb Squad officer's affidavit, the bomb in the suit case could be assembled in 15 to 20 seconds.
The way OIA is set up this man could have easily ducked into a bathroom, assembled the bomb and either left it in a public area to explode after he left, or detonated it in a suicide bid.
Personally I think the BDO spooked him before he could carry out his plan. Reasoning behind this is the way the airport is set up. There is no reason to wander around after getting the airline tag put on your luggage. I think this nut job saw someone watching his every move and decided to abort his plan and check in his luggage.
If his plan was just to take the bomb parts to Jamaica he would have simply turned and walked over to the TSO station dropped his bags off and went to his plane. He would not have wandered around with luggage in hand.
For those unfamiliar with the phrase "cock of the walk" I placed the definition below. I don't want this post to get deleted like the one where I used a three letter slang word for urinate.
Cock of the walk:
a chief or master; the hero of the hour;
one who has overcrowed, or got the better of, rivals or
competitors.
April 5, 2008 2:29 PM
Anonymous said:
Someone wrote: "mandatory shoe screening the costs of which far outstrip the benefits".
Remember that the shoe bomber MADE it to the plane with his bomb! I suppose if he brought the plane down, it WOULD be worth the benifit?
And anyone can place the same amount of explosives on their person without detection because the TSA for over five years has yet to implement effective and efficient screening for explosives.
X-rays do not detect explosives, only different densities. So shoe scans (and the issues caused with persons walking around in socks and bare feet) are not nearly as effective as the TSA would lead one to believe. Since Reid there hasn't been another attempt.
April 5, 2008 3:58 PM
David Caruso of the AP wrote yesterday:
"In the four years since the program [BDO] was launched, the TSA has yet to encounter any would-be suicide bombers. The most common catches have been people carrying fake IDs.
Of the more than 104,000 air travelers who were plucked out of security lines and subjected to a more intense level of screening because of something suspicious in their demeanor, fewer than 700 were ultimately arrested, officials said.
Many more — about 9,300 — revealed something during the screening process that caused the TSA to call in law enforcement for a more thorough investigation.
About half of those passengers weren't suspected of any particular crime, but behaved suspiciously enough that screeners thought police should be called anyway. More than half of the other referrals involved people carrying fraudulent documents, the TSA said. A small percentage involved drugs, contraband currency, immigration violations, or discoveries that a passenger was wanted by police."
So we have all of this intrusion in which way less than 1% led to arrests. I don't think that percentage is any better than what would be a random sample of the populace. And how many were related to airplane security? Perhaps we have one.
That dog don't hunt.
April 5, 2008 4:07 PM
X-rays do not detect explosives, only different densities. So shoe scans (and the issues caused with persons walking around in socks and bare feet) are not nearly as effective as the TSA would lead one to believe. Since Reid there hasn't been another attempt.
Perhaps no publicly apparent attempt, but there HAVE been instances where individuals have come through the checkpoints with tampered shoes. Just because it doesn't make the news, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
April 6, 2008 5:09 AM
great job done by all involved in this situation!
April 6, 2008 7:06 AM
Anonymous said:
"Marshall's SO...do you actually have a job? You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this blog so if you are employed, your company/organization is not getting it's money's worth."
It's nice to work from home.......my employer doesn't care if I write at 7 a.m., 7 p.m., 1 a.m......just as long as I get the job done.
Jealous?
April 6, 2008 8:41 AM
Its funny.. TSA.. damned if they do, damned if they don't...
The public bloggers here are just not happy about anything.. complain, complain, complain.. everything is TSA's fault.. everyone should not have to deal with security.. there are no real threats.. why must we deal with TSA.. TSA does it all wrong.. trash them start over.. get some real people in there..
What the heck is wrong with you people?? and if its so wrong, get a job with TSA and help change things.. oh wait, you probably can't... May you have some previous felonies on your record?? So sorry!!
April 6, 2008 10:13 AM
TSA does not have to answer to any of you.. but I find it real funny that each of you continue to say things like..
"Show me were this is a threat.."
"I want to see where they had this or that."
"When is such and such a threat"
It does not sound like most of you have any idea about security..
April 6, 2008 10:15 AM
"TSA does not have to answer to any of you.. "
Oh? Are TSA salaries no longer paid with tax dollars?
April 7, 2008 1:22 AM
Anonymous said...
TSA does not have to answer to any of you.. but I find it real funny that each of you continue to say things like..
Yes we do. TSA a is a government agency and we DO have to answer to the public. Now I disagree with many, if not most, of the questions made here, but the public has the right to hold us accountable for our actions. The criticisms we recieve help us find the weak spots in our armor. We can the use that information to improve how we work.
- Midwest STSO
April 7, 2008 7:31 AM
Now I disagree with many, if not most, of the questions made here, but the public has the right to hold us accountable for our actions.
Do you disagree with the questions or with the comments? We still are a democracy and we still can ask questions of our government without fearing for our lives.
April 7, 2008 9:08 AM
Heck! All a terrorist has to do to avoid being harrased by BDOs is to simply ware a Middle Eastern or Arab attire. The PC stance of the TSA wouldn’t dare to ask him or her any question. This is the world we live in today…unfortunately.
April 7, 2008 10:25 AM
Just because it doesn't make the news, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
You bet it does. The TSA is so desperate for good publicity that this actually was splashed around in a "look how good we are" release. It's also the best they've come up with.
If they had any good news you bet they'd use it for positive propaganda. (Chance, propaganda is not a bad word and propaganda can even be true.) This is the best they've come up with, and while the individual is under arrest, it was entirely unrelated to actual aviation issues.
Their arrests are all for documents, drugs, large sums of money, and not for attempted terrorism.
April 7, 2008 4:46 PM
Can someone please explain why flightcrews with CPAPs are having them checked? I am a pilot with a Part 121 air carrier and I have to have a CPAP with me(required by FAA Aeromedical). If I am cleared to pilot a jet carrying people and be trusted to carry them safely, I would think that the Federal Government would allow us to go through security without having to open the CPAP case. Someplaces are better than others but checking my CPAP for explosives kinda blows away the theory that we have been background checked. If any pilot wanted to do something, there would be very little to stop him. You have to trust us to do our jobs; otherwise, aviation would be dead after 9/11. It doesn't make any sense to let us board an aircraft but you are going to check my CPAP for explosives? The CPAP is with me 24/7. It doesn't go out of my sight. One size fits all doesn't work.
April 8, 2008 2:35 PM
anonymous said:
Perhaps no publicly apparent attempt, but there HAVE been instances where individuals have come through the checkpoints with tampered shoes. Just because it doesn't make the news, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
You mean like the Hawaii incident where the TSA promoted the "big catch" when finding a box cutter in the heel of a shoe. Turns out the cobbler that repaired the shoe had accidentally left it in. Even worse, the shoe had gone through a checkpoint earlier without the boxcutter being discovered.
Or the gentlemen in Houston that the TSA stopped because he had "modified" his shoes, which in fact were just worn out. TSA promoted that one as well and the gentlemen lost his job in the aftermath as he was not able to get to his location timely. The TSO's were given commendations for doing the wrong thing. The HPD officer was subjected to grief for doing the right thing. Even the FBI found it to be much ado about nothing.
So given the TSA track record, I would say it is much more likely than not that the TSA would promote tampering instances given the two shoe instances that I am aware of, which turned out to be wrong.
Just let me know how many convictions besides Richard Reid there have been related to tampered shoes and airline security. Give you a hint, the number is less than one.
April 8, 2008 4:50 PM
Orlando city officials want TSA to clean up its act.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-tsa0808apr08,0,6178194.story
April 9, 2008 7:54 PM
Marshall's SO said...
"I write grants for a living. If I write a grant for $100,000 for our organization and that grant is awarded, I don't get my efforts praised and splashed all over our organization's website. Neither should the TSA's BDOs - they did the job they were hired to do. End of story, in fact no story." April 2, 2008 3:55 PM
I replied...
You write grants for a living? Are they government grants? Is that were my hard earned tax dollars go? I want 'em back.:)
Marshall's SO said...
"It's nice to work from home.......my employer doesn't care if I write at 7 a.m., 7 p.m., 1 a.m......just as long as I get the job done.
Jealous?"
Then I said...
Hmmm...Nope. I enjoy working with the public, for the most part. Sure there are passengers here and there that can be rude and obstinate. I try not to lower myself to that level. We have a program at TSA called "Walk a Mile In My Shoes". Could you do that Marshall's SO? My shoes start @ 0330 and mostly ends by 1300. That is unless I'm required to work mandatory OT, and sometimes I work a 14 hour day double split shift that really starts @ 0330 and doesn't end until 1730. Those days are pretty bad b/c out of those 14 hrs. I only get paid for 8. Don't get me wrong, I love my job and believe in the mission I am tasked with. What I do not believe is everything I hear in the media. I can only assume that is where you get the majority of your information while you are working from home. Bottom line...I know things that you don't.
anonymous said...
"Oh? Are TSA salaries no longer paid with tax dollars?"
I replied with...
Yes, tax dollars are used to pay the salaries of many government employees. But I checked, and your state's taxes go to pay the IRS employees salaries. Ifsofacto, I don't work for you:)
However, if you pass through my checkpoint, I WILL treat you with the utmost respect. Not because it's my job, but because I believe in human kindness. Will I get the same in return? Hmmm...
April 10, 2008 1:41 AM
An anonymous poster said:
"I know things that you don't."
Don't count on it ;-)
April 10, 2008 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...
"Oh? Are TSA salaries no longer paid with tax dollars?"
I replied with...
Yes, tax dollars are used to pay the salaries of many government employees. But I checked, and your state's taxes go to pay the IRS employees salaries. Ifsofacto, I don't work for you:)
However, if you pass through my checkpoint, I WILL treat you with the utmost respect. Not because it's my job, but because I believe in human kindness. Will I get the same in return? Hmmm...
First the words you are looking for are "ipso facto", Latin for "Itself Fact" or by that very fact. Although I do like your Archie Bunker version. If so facto...
I wish you would have cited sourced about the origin of IRS funding, but it doesn't matter. The "ipso facto" argument you give is a Chewbacca defense or red herring. While it is compelling to know how the IRS employees get paid, that "fact" has nothing to do with your argument.
The tax money that the State sends to the Federal govt, are Federal taxes. The State collects the money on behalf of the Federal govt. and then forwards it to the Federal govt. The monies generated come from the citizens and visitors to that state. The most common of these taxes would be the Federal tax on gasoline.
I did not take the time to verify your claim that the IRS employees are paid STRICTLY from the revenue forwarded to the Federal governments by the State governments. I think you are wrong on that but it does not matter in this discussion.
How the IRS employees get paid has NOTHING to do with how the TSA employees get paid.
Our government is one "by the people, for the people and of the people". The government is OWNED by the citizens and paid for by the taxpayers. Ipso facto, the TSA and the TSOs are our EMPLOYEES. You work for US.
April 10, 2008 3:36 PM
That is unless I'm required to work mandatory OT, and sometimes I work a 14 hour day double split shift that really starts @ 0330 and doesn't end until 1730. Those days are pretty bad b/c out of those 14 hrs. I only get paid for 8.
If I;m not mistaken, it is against Federal Employment Law to not compensate a person for time worked.
If you work 14 hours and only get paid for 8 I see a couple of problems.
1. Your employer is likely violating the law.
2. Your a fool! Why would you work for anyone who does not value your labor enough to pay a proper wage?
April 10, 2008 7:59 PM
If I;m not mistaken, it is against Federal Employment Law to not compensate a person for time worked.
If you work 14 hours and only get paid for 8 I see a couple of problems.
1. Your employer is likely violating the law.
That depends on your worker status being either exempt or non-exempt. On one side they can work you till you drop without paying for OT but on the other they have to pay you up to the point you drop.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that employers classify jobs as either exempt or nonexempt. Nonexempt employees are covered by FLSA rules and regulations, and exempt employees are not.
2. Your a fool! Why would you work for anyone who does not value your labor enough to pay a proper wage?
Depends on how hungry they are. When you're very hungry or have children you sometimes do things that tide you over till something better comes along.
April 10, 2008 10:25 PM
That depends on your worker status being either exempt or non-exempt.
Synopsis of Law
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments. Covered nonexempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage of not less than $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay is required after 40 hours of work in a workweek.
I don't know if TSA is exempt or not but see no reason why they should be.
Other Federal employees such as Justice are paid for overtime worked.
Working overtime without pay is not employment but slavery.
If one is not "on the clock" and gets injured why would any type of insurance cover the worker?
Sometimes workers have to stand up to abusive employers!
April 11, 2008 11:24 AM
ell it looks like the tsa is damned if they do or damned if they dont based on most bloggers oppinions here. I'd like to say good job to all who were involved!
April 12, 2008 3:35 PM
err, what was the guy carrying, a bunch of DANGEROUS NIPPLE PIERCINGS??
Seriously guys, you can claim any success you want because then you can refuse to release any details on grounds of national security. Very convenient, lets you justify any program by calling it a success.
Let's just say we the traveling public don't exactly trust you. Despite all the goodwill and willingness to be frisked, fondled, and groped by TSA officers after Sep11, 2001 There have been far too many people being stopped for carrying the wrong books, wearing the wrong piercings, or knowing the rules while TSA people didn't.
Short: You HAVE NO CREDIBILITY . Either be honest and open or we will not believe you.
As far as I'm concerned, this guy was set up, until you are willing to be open and honest, in an open society (which we still are for now).
April 12, 2008 3:54 PM
What if the airport had been the target…not the aircraft? How long was this fellow bouncing around the airport with this property? We can second guess all parties involved…but this sure looks like a “win” for the BDO’s.
April 13, 2008 6:43 PM
OK. Here is the deal. I havent flown since 94 and I am scared to death of the thought of going to a post 9/11 airport. I envision military guys with M16s running running around hauling people off to gitmo never to be heard from again if they seem nervous. I am afraid of flying and of security. I have nothing to hide but I will probably look like a nervous basket case when I get to the airport which will cause suspicion making things worse and making escalating itself. I assume I leave all rights at the airport door. How do I keep from getting hauled off to Gitmo just because I am going to be scared to death in the airport
April 15, 2008 3:43 PM
I don't know if TSA is exempt or not but see no reason why they should be.
Other Federal employees such as Justice are paid for overtime worked.
If a person's job is in management then quite often they are required to work what is demanded. Yes, I know that pulling a double shift is a real pain, but people who subject themselves to that working environment know what they are getting into when they hire in.
Working overtime without pay is not employment but slavery.
Yes, and if they have comp time coming to them and they can't use the comp time, then they often get bitter and seek better employment elsewhere. Uncompensated OT is the pits.
If one is not "on the clock" and gets injured why would any type of insurance cover the worker?
Workman's comp covers you at work. As a supervisor/manager type you would still get WC even if your workday was involuntarily extended by another shift. Hose over someone who get's hurt while working an extended shift by attempting to deny a WC claim, almost universally brings down the wrath of other government agencies.
April 15, 2008 8:55 PM
"That is unless I'm required to work mandatory OT, and sometimes I work a 14 hour day double split shift that really starts @ 0330 and doesn't end until 1730. Those days are pretty bad b/c out of those 14 hrs. I only get paid for 8."
As a TSA employee I will tell you first hand this is a lie. If you aren't getting paid than it is totally your own fault because you can't be made to work OT and not get paid for it.
April 15, 2008 10:31 PM
I am a BDO and I will tell you this program does work. I totally understand why the general public wants to know more about this because even our own co-workers want to know what we do.
The technical workings can't be made public because that would be very damaging to the program. Our own co-workers aren't even told the technical workings of what we do.
I also understand that as a government agency we are employees of the tax payers but I also realize I am not exempt from federal taxes so I pay just as much of my salary as the next person.
I understand the public's complaints and to a degree can even agree with them. Some rules are not enforced across the board even though we all have the same policy to follow, this creates problems for us too.
Forums such as this are ways the TSA can try to make the whole process as user friendly as possible while still maintaining a level of security for all those involved.
As an agency with 40,000 plus employees we realize there are bad apples in the mix but don't be so quick to judge all by the minority. Many of you call it nothing more than 'security theater' and that's fine. If the theater had been in place before 9/11 maybe those killed for no other reason than wrong place at the wrong time would be alive today and the 'security theater' would be appreciated.
I apologize for the inconvience many of you feel you endure at airports because of the TSA but overall it is worth it.
Tully
April 15, 2008 10:43 PM
" Spiritbear said...
OK. Here is the deal. I havent flown since 94 and I am scared to death of the thought of going to a post 9/11 airport. I envision military guys with M16s running running around hauling people off to gitmo never to be heard from again if they seem nervous. I am afraid of flying and of security. I have nothing to hide but I will probably look like a nervous basket case when I get to the airport which will cause suspicion making things worse and making escalating itself. I assume I leave all rights at the airport door. How do I keep from getting hauled off to Gitmo just because I am going to be scared to death in the airport
April 15, 2008 3:43 PM"
Just charter a plane or use an air taxi. The security at General Aviation is much more civilized and just as effective as the TSA, without all the "terrorists are coming", hoopla. At GA no one looks in your bags, screens you, or assumes you are a national threat. They even have free coffee in some locations. Local airports with GA are far more convenient, as well.
April 16, 2008 3:59 PM
"I apologize for the inconvience many of you feel you endure at airports because of the TSA but overall it is worth it.
Tully"
I am truly sorry that you feel that you have to apologize for your fellow TSA employees.
Personally, I would rather be trusted and respected for who I am, than feared, and ridiculed behind my back. Sadly that is TSA's position, your employers are fear mongers, they do not provide safety and security to the public.
On this blog, we, the people have been asked for our feedback.
We want to be secure in our persons and possessions.
We want to be treated as innocent, until proven to be a threat to our fellow passengers.
We are not giving up our Constitutional rights, rights that millions of our fellow citizens fought and were wounded, or died for, without cynical, bitter and prolonged protest.
Got it?
April 16, 2008 4:20 PM
"Anonymous said...
What if the airport had been the target…not the aircraft? How long was this fellow bouncing around the airport with this property? We can second guess all parties involved…but this sure looks like a “win” for the BDO’s.
April 13, 2008 6:43 PM"
They caught a veteran who was not taking his medications, and who's mother had been murdered two years earlier. They probably interfered with a future revenge killing, not a potential terrorist plot. The LEO's acted with restraint, the bomb tech was probably sweating for several reasons in his suit.
He needs help and justice, and probably won't get much of either.
April 16, 2008 5:07 PM
Dunstan:
Timothy McVeigh was also a veteran, and we all know how that turned out.
April 16, 2008 6:47 PM
When going to a restaurant or store I can be refused service for not abiding the rules of that public facility. Obnoxious customers can be arrested, those not having the proper ID can be refused the ability to purchase alcohol or cigarettes ect.
Before the TSA was rolled out the security at the airport had rules and enforced them. Those rules did not prevent 9/11 from happening. I don't blame the security employees for 9/11 as many of them are still working as screeners for the TSA and the terrorists are the ones that committed the acts.
What is sad and frustrating is that the inconveniences of flying are blamed on the TSA instead of the true culprits. Removing shoes so they can be xrayed prevents a shoe bomb or other prohibs being carried on in shoes. No liquids over 3.4 oz keeps large amounts of explosive liquid off planes. Patting down random people keeps those that might be trying to get around our security off balance (or at least we hope so). There is a reason for all the procedures that we have. We can't always explain the reasons and that isn't because we love keeping things from average people. I can't tell you what type of explosives the ETD machine picked up in your bag as well as other things I get asked quite often.
I do not get my jollies off patting down passengers at the airport. I'm doing it because it's my job and I do not want anyone to get by me with something that will harm anyone on the plane, let alone bring down the plane killing everyone.
If/when the millimeter wave machine comes to my airport I'll not be getting anything out of looking at the pictures except the assurance that nothing prohibited attached to that persons body got on the plane while I was watching. I personally can't wait for the machines because they leave so much less to human error and better ensure safety for everyone flying.
April 16, 2008 9:06 PM
"Anonymous said...
Dunstan:
Timothy McVeigh was also a veteran, and we all know how that turned out.
April 16, 2008 6:47 PM"
The bugaboo defense...
The TSA could not have prevented Timothy MCVeigh's actions either. Why bother to wave that example of failure by the intelligence community around as some justification for TSA's existence?
TSA is a failure from the top down- it was based on a fatally flawed and outmoded security model, and that model was rushed into place to give the appearance that "something was being done". The training model is appalling, the training itself deplorable, and thus the actual effectiveness is nil. TSA is a self-perpetuating waste of money that could be better spent on real, effective security. In order for TSA to catch McVeigh, he would have to his truck bomb to your check point. Otherwise, chances are, you would wave him through without a second thought.
April 17, 2008 8:15 AM
Anonymous writes:
We can't always explain the reasons and that isn't because we love keeping things from average people. I can't tell you what type of explosives the ETD machine picked up in your bag as well as other things I get asked quite often.
See, here's the problem with this response (from a policy perspective, not a personal perspective ...)
TSA is actively asking passengers to assist with the screening process. Passengers are asked to pack neatly (in order to assist X-ray screeners), to put their metal items into their carry-ons (to save time when getting to the checkpoint), to pre-declare any exceptional items (like medicines above the 3.4oz limit), and so on.
Suppose I have a legal item which, consistently, sets off the ETD when put in my carry-on. (Plenty of such items exist, I believe.) If the TSO can't tell me which item was setting off the detector, I'm going to end up setting off the ETD every time I bring that mystery item through, and thus end up having a more time-intensive screening process each time.
If the TSO can tell me what item is triggering the detector, I have the opportunity to decide to put that item in my checked luggage, or to leave it at home, or to know that my screening process will always take longer. That doesn't necessarily require the TSO to tell me why that item was triggered. But it at least allows me to make an informed choice.
April 17, 2008 12:18 PM
re: If the TSO can tell me what item is triggering the detector, I have the opportunity to decide to put that item in my checked luggage, or to leave it at home, or to know that my screening process will always take longer. That doesn't necessarily require the TSO to tell me why that item was triggered. But it at least allows me to make an informed choice.
April 17, 2008 12:18 PM
Your expecting TSA to use logic. How touching!
April 17, 2008 2:46 PM
[i]If the TSO can tell me what item is triggering the detector, I have the opportunity to decide to put that item in my checked luggage, or to leave it at home, or to know that my screening process will always take longer. That doesn't necessarily require the TSO to tell me why that item was triggered. But it at least allows me to make an informed choice.[/i]
We can tell you what triggered it, but we can't tell you what type of explosives. For example shoes may be swabbed and get an ETD alarm. You'll know it was your shoes that were swabbed. If you choose to wear those shoes through a checkpoint again and get another alarm that is entirely up to you. But I'm not sure if they'll be tested again or even if they'd alarm again the next time.
April 17, 2008 5:17 PM
First off, let me say I am a TSO. As for why I became a TSO, on 9-11-01 I lost 5 very good friends. I made a promise to myself, my friends, and thier families that i would do all i could to make sure nothing like that EVER happened again.
For those of you who want to argue about the shoe policy, "why do I have to take my shoes off? There is no metal in my shoe!" Great, no metal in your shoe, well please, come right on in then. Oh, wait, there was no metal in Richard Rieds shoes either, and the only thing that kept him from taking the plane down was wet matches. And for the Anonymous April th 3:58 submitter who posted "X-rays do not detect explosives, only different densities. So shoe scans (and the issues caused with persons walking around in socks and bare feet) are not nearly as effective as the TSA would lead one to believe. Since Reid there hasn't been another attempt." Don't you think that after seeing 100's if not 1000's of pairs of shoes daliy, we would be able to detect the slightest difference in shoe "denisty" as you put it? And , in my opinion, the reason there has not been another attempt since Richard Ried, is BECAUSE we are doing the shoe checks.
As for the liquid policy. Many people say that it is absurd, unnessacary and the like. I would like to know, how we, as screeners, are supposed to know what you have in your bottles, cans, etc, if we do not look at them? Ok, so you tell me, "It's just shampoo!" So I take your word for it, and hours later, there's news that a plane has just expoded in mid-air. Come on, is it really that bad, the whole extra 15-30 seconds it takes to put a bag of liquids back into your carry on?.
Just a couple of observations.
-West Coast TSO-
April 17, 2008 6:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
We can tell you what triggered it, but we can't tell you what type of explosives. For example shoes may be swabbed and get an ETD alarm. You'll know it was your shoes that were swabbed.
But if you'll look back at my original posting, it was in the context of a bag search, not shoes. Obviously, I can tell if you're interested in my shoes; they have to go through the machinery by themselves. But if something in my carry-on trips an alert, and you carry the bag away from me in order to do your testing, I can't tell what the offending item is nearly so easily.
April 17, 2008 9:18 PM
Just a couple of observations.
-West Coast TSO-
April 17, 2008 6:25 PM
How does TSA screen the beverages brought on by the airline for each flight?
How can you tell what is in all the cans and bottles.
Simple answer, you can't!
April 17, 2008 10:39 PM
Oh, wait, there was no metal in Richard Rieds shoes either, and the only thing that kept him from taking the plane down was wet matches.
Uh, no. The matches were what gave up the plot. They worked. The odor of burning matches on a non-smoking flight led to the discovery. Please try again.
Don't you think that after seeing 100's if not 1000's of pairs of shoes daliy, we would be able to detect the slightest difference in shoe "denisty" as you put it?
Uh, no. Given the materials shoes are made out of today and your success rate vs failures in detecting threats, a shoe bomber could probably waltz right in with little fears of detection.
As for the liquid policy. Many people say that it is absurd, unnessacary and the like. I would like to know, how we, as screeners, are supposed to know what you have in your bottles, cans, etc, if we do not look at them? Ok, so you tell me, "It's just shampoo!" So I take your word for it, and hours later, there's news that a plane has just expoded in mid-air. Come on, is it really that bad, the whole extra 15-30 seconds it takes to put a bag of liquids back into your carry on?.
Just a couple of observations.
-West Coast TSO-
The issue isn't the amount of time it takes to pack your bags. Instead it is another half baked plan to foist a security at any cost plan on the US public. I highly suspect that the next terror attack on the US won't be anywhere TSA has involvement. The terrorists would die from laughing at our (mostly) feeble attempts at airport security. You really should visit other countries and see how they do it before going on the attack of your critics.
April 17, 2008 11:34 PM
"We are not giving up our Constitutional rights, rights that millions of our fellow citizens fought and were wounded, or died for, without cynical, bitter and prolonged protest.
Got it?"
Yes, I do get it but what I don't get is what 'rights' you are giving up or even being asked to give up? I assure you there are many veterans amoung our employees who fought for the same rights you speak of.
Tully
April 18, 2008 9:50 AM
Tully, you ask a very valid question:
"We are not giving up our Constitutional rights, rights that millions of our fellow citizens fought and were wounded, or died for, without cynical, bitter and prolonged protest.
Got it?"
Yes, I do get it but what I don't get is what 'rights' you are giving up or even being asked to give up? I assure you there are many veterans amoung our employees who fought for the same rights you speak of.
Tully
Lets start with our first amendment rights. We do not have freedom of speech going through the checkpoints. There is enough anecdotal evidence out there to suggest that while it may not be official TSA policy to hassle people who protest the treatment they receive at the hands of the TSA at the checkpoint, de facto the TSA does take retaliatory action against those who engage in protest. Don't believe me? Google "Kip Hawley Is An Idiot" or go to kiphawleyisanidiot.com and read all about it. I'm sure that there are instances in certain parts of the country where people who are obvious practitioners of alternative religions or lifestyles get hassled because of who they are or what they are wearing (i.e. wear a "hail satan" t-shirt in Charlotte, N.C. and see what kind of treatment you'll get). In short, people are afraid to speak their piece because they are afraid of repercussions at the hands of an agency that is perceived to be answerable to no one.
Let's move to the 4th amendment. Courts have held that there is a limited right to administrative searches on the part of the government where they are necessary to provide for the public safety. How intensive these warrantless searches can be is still a matter of debate. There are those who support a broader interpretation of the administrative search rule, and there are those, like me, who think the ruling was bad to begin with and needs to be re-examined.
The 5th Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. There is again ample anecdotal evidence of the TSA doing just this. The TSA at its whim can delay a person from boarding a flight for which that person may or may not be able to get a refund if missed, thus being deprived, without being officially under arrest for any crime of liberty (under threat of arrest), and property (in the form of the money it cost for the ticket on a non-refundable fare if the flight is missed). The TSA regularly violates the 5th amendment by forcing passengers to surrender property (liquids and gels) to their wastebaskets in order to pass screening because they no longer allow a person to turn back and choose not to go through screening once the process has started (again under the threat of arrest).
And finally we have the 14th Amendment that ensures all laws apply equally to all citizens in the country. The TSA does not do this very well either. Who knows what criteria the TSA uses to select people for random extra screening -- people who look too weak to protest? People who don't look like they'll pose much of a problem because they don't feel like working all that hard today? People who are of a different race? Maybe they got hassled by a particular type of person that morning and have decided that all people who fit that type today are going to have problems. People bring their prejudices with them to work and even though some of us are better than others at suppressing that less than stellar side of ourselves, some aren't, and the TSA does little, if anything to discourage those that don't. It keeps no formal records of secondary screenings. It makes it difficult for people to protest additional screening or to complain about excesses in screening, and frequently the individuals involved in the screening process violate their own rules by hiding their identities from the people being screened if we can believe so many of the comments on this blog.
So Tully, that's just for starters. But I don't really have the time this evening to repeat what you should have learned in high school civics. Fact is that the TSA, like most everything that the Bush administration has set up, considers itself to be both infallible and above the law. Its basic function (airline security) is an unfortunate necessity in this day and age, but its overreach is an affront to those who have fought and died to protect the rights and freedoms our current government is trying so very hard to strip away from us.
April 19, 2008 9:05 PM
So, did this guy turn out to actually be a threat to anybody? Or was he just kind of twitchy?
When I go to the airport, I generally get kind of irate and twitchy because I know that there will be strange people going through my belongings and asking me to show my papers and submit to rather absurd searches.
You can claim victory all you want, even declare "Mission Accomplished!" or "Corner Turned!" but none of that means anything unless you can show that this guy was indeed dangerous.
April 20, 2008 3:17 PM
"but none of that means anything unless you can show that this guy was indeed dangerous."
Letseeknow: He had bomb componemts. Sounds dangerous to me.
April 21, 2008 11:02 PM
"Uh, no. Given the materials shoes are made out of today and your success rate vs failures in detecting threats, a shoe bomber could probably waltz right in with little fears of detection."
As a TSO, you will not beleive me. But be assured, I can tell.
TSO-Joe
April 21, 2008 11:07 PM
All the "atta boys" on here are from TSA employees. Please, it doesn't take a behaviorist to detect someone acting that goofy.
I mean, read the majority of the posts on this blog, the TSA is pissing people off because they stage security theater, not real security in most cases. The TSA displays the most obvious and outrages examples of fascism in the USA today. I used to travel in the former Soviet Union and was always so glad to return to the US where you weren't practically strip searched for simply traveling. Now in the name of 9/11 our freedoms are eroding because people want to FEEL safe. In reality we're just losing our liberties one step at a time, and it's starting at the airport. We're not buying it anymore folks. What's really a shame is that the TSA employees buy into this. Please wake up and realize that you're being used.
April 23, 2008 12:03 AM
Winstonsmith you make a compelling case but I'm sorry I respectfully disagree with you.
You do have the freedom of speech coming through the checkpoint, what you do not have is the freedom to make joking comments about a bomb being in the bag or other inappropriate remarks of that nature. You do not have the right to interfere with the screening process by becoming so disruptive the entire process has to be stopped and law enforcement notified. I will not lie to you or myself and say this area is not or has not been abused but as far as rights none are violated.
As for the 4th amendment rights when you submit your belongings or your person for screening you give implied consent for a search. Average travelers have nothing to hide so the routine opening of their bag to resolve an x-ray operator's doubt about an area is not a problem. I am uncertain what you mean by invasive because fortunately for us and you TSA is not so stupid as to allow cavity searches. :)
The 5th is not as tricky as it would seem givin your take on it, I will be the first to tell you no screening officer, supervisor, or lead at a checkpoint performing under those titles has arrest abilities. If you have personally been told by a TSA screener they are going to place you under arrest you need to file a complaint because that is definately abuse of authority and we don't need those kind of people. By policy TSA does not 'force' anyone to throw away liquids or gels, 99% of the time when given the options available to them the passenger opts to discard the item(s) and continue on their flight. It is true the screening process can't be stopped once started but that simply means they must complete the search before you are allowed to leave the checkpoint to go check the item(s) or leave them with a non-traveling companion. It does not imply or mean you will be arrested.
And finally the 14th... the idea behind random screening is to keep a would be threat from being able to defeat the screening process by simply paying attention to how often someone is wanded, or who does it more, etc... keeping information on secondary screening isn't necessary unless the situation warrants it such as someone that becomes medically incapacitated or so disruptive law enforcement is called. Otherwise it would just serve as a delay in passenger throughput while information is gathered every time someone is selected for additional screening.
I appreciate your feedback and hope that in no way I am coming across as someone with the mindset of I am always right. TSA does need to improve on some areas and the largest weakness we have now is the fact there are so many inconsistancies across the agency and the manner those that abuse their authority are handled. Just as we don't judge all passengers by the few that are disruptive don't judge us by the few that are less than professional.
Have a good day bud.. :) Tully
April 23, 2008 7:43 AM
Just as we don't judge all passengers by the few that are disruptive don't judge us by the few that are less than professional.
Have a good day bud.. :) Tully
Hello Tully, sorry to say this but the number of TSOs out there who are unprofessional is more than just one or two oddities. Some airports are better and some are worse for both sides of the TSA aisle, but every one of the airports could stand improvement on some facet of the TSA screening process.
I bring my luggage to the airport secured. I give it to TSA to inspect. Some airports have the luggage inspection done outside of the view of the passengers. At others, the passengers can witness the entire process. Please tell me what it takes for my luggage to arrive properly secured since at some airports TSOs refuse to resecure luggage after they've been into the passenger's luggage. How much does it take to relock the bags? Please don't even bring up the issue of TSA approvd locks since those locks are, quite frankly, junk. Before TSA I never had a problem with resecuring my luggage. Now, depending on which airport I fly out of, my luggage is improperly handled by TSA employees during the screening process.
Oh, and can you address a question that I have about the 70lb limit on luggage. It used to be that you could fly with up to 100lbs. Now the limit is at 70lbs. Does this have to do anything with pressure exerted by TSA on the airlines to limit the weight of the baggage so it would allow TSA employees to not exceed the federal standards of one man lifting more than 70lbs? This hurts FSEs more than anyone else (guys hauling around toolchests they use for making a living). Seventy pounds of tools isn't very many tools.
April 23, 2008 8:32 PM
The weight limits are imposed by the airlines and have more to do with the cost of fuel than hurting TSO's or baggage handlers with heavy bags. Also I'm not sure what airport you travel through, but at our airport we due relock bags after opening them. We aren't perfect and on occasion we find locks after the bag is already sent back to the airlines, but we strive to secure your baggage.
April 24, 2008 2:14 PM
Tully, may I be the first to commend you on your reasoned riposte to my response to what I considered to be a very reasonable question about TSA and our constitutional rights.
You say to my proposition that the TSA violates first amendment guarantees of free speech: You do have the freedom of speech coming through the checkpoint, what you do not have is the freedom to make joking comments about a bomb being in the bag or other inappropriate remarks of that nature. You do not have the right to interfere with the screening process by becoming so disruptive the entire process has to be stopped and law enforcement notified. I will not lie to you or myself and say this area is not or has not been abused but as far as rights none are violated.
Tully, you are correct in that you cannot say things like "there's a bomb in my luggage" or similar such statements. To do that would be akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, which even the Supreme Court has held is not protected speech because the immediate dangerous consequences to the action far outweigh the individual's immediate benefit in making the statement. The freedom I refer to, however, is the freedom to protest the TSA, the government, the "War on Terror," I initially made reference to the gentleman who protested TSA by scrawling on his clear plastic toiletry bag "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" and who was singled out for retaliatory screening on that basis. That is a violation of the freedom of speech. When the government creates an environment where people are fearful of speaking their minds out of the fear of retaliation that is a suppression of free speech. You may argue that this certainly has happened at checkpoints but that these are isolated incidents. In reading the posts on this blog, I'm not in any way confident that this would be the case. The TSA may not explicitly encourage suppression of free speech; however, by its toleration of any suppression of dissent or any retaliatory action because of any act of non violent verbal or written protest it violates the first amendment. Were the TSA to launch a public campaign and hold some of these "bad apples" accountable for their actions and thus discourage others, it might overcome some of the negative perception on this issue.
On the issue of the 4th Amendment, I stipulate that the courts have agreed that the government may perform warrantless administrative searches. I do find it interesting, however, that the original Edwards decision from 1974 stated that administrative searches are permissible only when performed in the same way to all persons and that there existed an option that would allow a person not to have to undergo a search (in the specific case, the option was to check the bag). I have not had the time yet to do the research to find out when the courts expanded the Edwards decision to cover checked bags, but I submit that because TSA does not submit everyone to the same screening (some get screened to a greater or lesser degree than others) that it does not in fact meet the requirement for administrative searches and pushes the limits of, if not out violates, the 4th amendment, and certainly the 14th, which requires that the same rules apply to all.
I was most interested in your response to my observations on the ways in which I view the TSA as violating the 5th Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. If things are as you say at the checkpoint and a person is, once screened and found to be in possession of a prohibited item (regardless of the nature of the prohibited item be it 4oz tubes of toothpaste, large sums of cash, or a kilo brick of heroin) is not divested of the item and told that he simply may not proceed past the checkpoint with the item and told to get rid of it and go on his or her way or to return to the non-sterile area and do something with it, then you are absolutely correct -- no harm, no foul and if the passenger misses a flight that's the passenger's problem, even if the item the passenger was carrying was blatantly and manifestly illegal (i.e. the brick of heroin, although TSA would be well within its rights to notify law enforcement that there is a guy in the airport carrying a brick of heroin and to point him out). It gets stickier though when a TSA agent ushers a passenger into a secondary screening area. What is a reasonable amount of time for a secondary screening to take? A person who is in the secondary screening area is not technically under arrest; however, if the person attempts to collect his or her belongings and leave the screening area -- even to return to the non-sterile area of the airport because he or she is disgusted with the process or fed up with the amount of time it has taken or realizes that the flight is already gone or whatever reason, that person is not going to be permitted to do so -- a restriction on liberty. This is a gray area. Where TSA takes an inordinately long time to do secondary screening or becomes needlessly intrusive (i.e. the whole fracas surrounding the macbook air from a few weeks back where the TSA's ignorance of a new mass market consumer device ended up causing a guy to miss his flight) and the passenger ends up out the money for a non-refundable fare the TSA has effectively deprived that person of property without due process of law (the argument that the passenger should have allowed more time for screening only washes here some of the time -- there have been incidents where passengers have been held for periods of hours as in the recent case of a person in Phoenix).
You offer the following in response to what I had to say on the 14th amendment guarantees of equal treatment under the law and the appearance of that not necessarily applying at the TSA checkpoint: And finally the 14th... the idea behind random screening is to keep a would be threat from being able to defeat the screening process by simply paying attention to how often someone is wanded, or who does it more, etc... keeping information on secondary screening isn't necessary unless the situation warrants it such as someone that becomes medically incapacitated or so disruptive law enforcement is called. Otherwise it would just serve as a delay in passenger throughput while information is gathered every time someone is selected for additional screening.
Quite frankly I don't really want to see anyone pulled aside randomly for additional screening. You need look no further than the above discussion of the 4th amendment issues to see why. To the extent however that random screening is taking place, I would like to see TSA keep statistics on how many white middle aged men get screened versus how many young black women get screened versus how many aged hispanic asian males get screened versus how many middle eastern men in their 30s get screened in terms of the percentages of these types of people who typically come through the checkpoint on a daily basis. I would expect, for example, that in New York, you would see far more middle eastern looking people being screened because there are far more people there of middle eastern descent than say in Omaha, NE. What we're looking for is to ensure that the government is applying its laws fairly and not singling out a single group for harrassment.
Tully, I sincerely appreciate your having taken the time to address my criticisms of the constitutionality of the TSA's actions. The problem now is one of credibility. While I appreciate your candor personally, the agency you work for has not shown itself to be credible in its public statements. In order for the TSA to convince me that it has cleaned up its constitutional act I'm going to need to see some very public housecleaning of its top management for starters and some very real and perceptible changes at the checkpoints. I'm going to need to stop reading stories in the newspapers about people being detained for hours; about "strip search" machines; and about abusive TSOs forcing people to remove body jewelry. I'd like to see an attitude shift coming from the TSA that, "we are so very sorry that we have to do this and we know what an inconvenience this is to you and we know that we do this at the risk of violating your civil liberties, yet we respectfully request and expect your cooperation" rather than "do it or you don't fly."
Again, these are huge questions we're debating here and reasonable minds can differ on just what the right answers are. I'm glad you don't agree with me and that you took the time to disagree with me in such a civil way. I wish more people would follow your lead. I also wish your higher-ups would follow through with some of the answers that so many of the people on here have requested to so many of the questions that have been asked. It would add so much to the discussion.
April 24, 2008 4:48 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home